Key discrepancies exist between SB 1615 and the NCAA settlement. While Arizona’s law explicitly avoids compensation limits and restricts external oversight by athletic associations, the settlement imposes institutional compensation caps and establishes centralized enforcement through the College Sports Commission. Additionally, differing positions on student-athlete employment status and transparency in NIL deals could create compliance challenges.”
By K.J. Russell and David McCarville | Fennemore
A federal judge’s final approval of the groundbreaking House v. NCAA Name, Image, Likeness settlement last month paved the way for the settlement to go into effect July 1, ushering in a new era in college athletics.
Under the NIL settlement, Division 1 colleges and universities can now directly compensate student-athletes, subject to a cap of $20.5 million per institution. The settlement also approves nearly $2.8 billion in retroactive NIL back pay for certain Arizona-based and other state athletes who’ve competed over the past decade.
Arizona’s SB 1615: A local response with national implications
Just weeks before the settlement received final approval, Arizona took a bold first step by enacting SB 1615, a state law designed to further expand NIL rights for student-athletes. Signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs in May 2025, the law marks a significant shift in how NIL is treated at the state level. Under SB 1615, colleges and universities can directly facilitate and pay student-athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness.
Although originating from different processes, legislation versus litigation, Arizona’s SB 1615 and the House v. NCAA settlement align closely in creating a complementary framework for NIL reform. While Arizona’s law grants institutions broader authority, however, it does not exempt them from the enforcement structure created by the House settlement.
Arizona State University and the University of Arizona have no choice but to comply. As members of the Big 12 Conference, a named defendant in the settlement, both institutions are bound by the terms of the settlement.
The power conferences, including the Big 12, have launched the College Sports Commission, a new governing body charged with implementing and enforcing the settlement terms. The commission will oversee the clearinghouse called NIL Go, developed in partnership with Deloitte and LBi Software.
NIL Go will review deals valued at $600 or more and determine whether a deal reflects a fair market value. In Arizona, this is a layer of compliance that cannot be ignored. Future deals lacking approval could lead to athlete ineligibility or institutional fines.
Nevertheless, key discrepancies exist between SB 1615 and the NCAA settlement. While Arizona’s law explicitly avoids compensation limits and restricts external oversight by athletic associations, the settlement imposes institutional compensation caps and establishes centralized enforcement through the College Sports Commission.
Additionally, differing positions on student-athlete employment status and transparency in NIL deals could create compliance challenges. Institutions in Arizona may thus face complex legal considerations navigating these conflicting standards, potentially necessitating further legislative clarification or judicial resolution.
What the House settlement actually means
The House v. NCAA settlement is far more than a financial resolution. It represents a structural overhaul of NIL and how student-athletes will be compensated going forward.
It also will establish an NCAA-run enforcement body to monitor compliance, handle disputes and impose sanctions where necessary. Together, the clearinghouse and enforcement mechanisms represent a clear shift away from the NCAA’s previously hands-off, wait-and-see approach to NIL from its inception. This new, regulated and institutionalized model demands diligence from all parties involved: the schools, collectives, brands, athletes and agents.
Arizona has taken an assertive and athlete-focused approach with SB 1615, potentially serving as a blueprint for other states aiming to retain top talent and exercise greater local control over NIL markets. Yet, even as Arizona positions itself proactively, institutions must navigate substantial compliance complexities arising from the differences between state law and the NCAA settlement terms.
As other states develop similar laws, these discrepancies could broaden, posing significant challenges to uniform national enforcement. Thus, Arizona's legislation represents both a pioneering step forward and a reminder of the evolving and intricate legal landscape surrounding NIL compensation.
Editor’s note: K.J. Russell is an associate attorney in Fennemore’s Business & Finance practice group. He is a registered NIL agent. David McCarville is a business and finance director at Fennemore. He chairs Fennemore Labs, the firm's technology committee. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
