The head of the College Sports Commission said Tuesday that the $30 million football roster that most organizations pay third-party payments to players on behalf of their schools is within the rules but “didn’t match” the intentions of some of its founders.
Bryan Seeley provided an update on CSC’s progress over the past two months. While he was enthusiastic about the new agency’s ability to quickly analyze deals, he said the influx of third-party contracts that help schools exceed the $20.5 million salary cap they are allowed to pay players directly has resulted in increased review time.
CSC’s new numbers, updated through February, include a 65% increase over the previous two months in the volume of third-party contracts between schools in Power 4 conferences, sometimes known as associated contracts.
Seeley said those statistics lead him to believe that most schools are trying to follow the rules by submitting their contracts for review by the CSC, which is tasked with making sure they are not typical pay-to-play contracts but have a “legitimate business purpose” and are fair.
He also said he was told that “there was a belief that up to 90% of deals flowing through the system would be done automatically without requiring any kind of human review.
“It’s definitely based on an assumption that it’s going to be a somewhat organic market with a lot of unrelated people,” he said. “And that’s not happening.”
These related contracts have brought CSC under scrutiny for lagging in contract approvals. More importantly, they speak to broader concerns that the demographic costs of competitive college rosters have spiraled out of control less than a year after the system was activated by the House settlement — the end game of a lawsuit that allowed schools to share revenue directly with players, then augment it through third-party contracts.
The discussion has reached the White House, where last week President Donald Trump held “learning sessions” with sports leaders to discuss ways to control spending.
Trump this week promised an executive order that would address problems in an industry where, he said, “the amount of money being spent and lost by otherwise very successful schools is staggering, in a short amount of time. And it’s only going to get worse.”
Seeley, still focused on standing up an agency that would play a larger role in college sports, said he doesn’t want to delve into whether the current system is sustainable.
“I read the same things you read. I see the same public comments in the media and I speak in schools,” Seeley said. “And I understand that some schools believed that the settlement that was implemented did not match what they had hoped for. I think that’s a fair thing to say.”
Seeley also acknowledged that the existence of his 8-month-old organization could be in jeopardy if a “participation agreement” that vests enforcement powers in the CSC is not signed by all 68 of the Power Four schools.
Shortly after CSC distributed the document, several states and schools said they would not sign; Some were concerned about language that prohibits lawsuits against the commission.
The teams spent months recycling the language. In an impassioned plea at the NCAA meeting in January, Seeley urged the schools to sign the agreement. Nearly two months later, he said, he’s still waiting.
“I’ve seen some edits proposed by schools of late that weaken the document,” Seeley said. “There comes a point where the document is not strong enough that it is in place and the CSC is signing.”
He said the CSC could still operate without the systems put in place in the contract “but I think those tools are really important.”
