The Three-Part Compliance Test

Every NIL deal submitted to NIL Go is evaluated against three criteria. All three must pass for a deal to be cleared.

FieldPass runs these same checks automatically when you generate a packet, flagging issues before you submit.

Test 1: Payor Association (PA)

The question: Is the payor connected to the athlete's school?

The CSC classifies payors as either "associated" or "unassociated." A payor is associated if it meets any of the following:

• Exists primarily to promote or support a particular school's athletics program or student-athletes
• Creates or identifies NIL opportunities exclusively for a particular school's athletes
• Assists in the recruitment or retention of student-athletes, or is asked to do so by athletic department staff
• Contributes more than $50,000 over a lifetime to the institution's athletics
• Is owned, controlled, or affiliated with an associated entity (except publicly traded corporations)
• Employs or is owned by someone with a role tied to the school or associated entities

Collective implication: Most NIL collectives are classified as associated entities. Deals through collectives trigger the full three-part review, including fair-market-value benchmarking under Test 3.

Unassociated payors (e.g., independent public companies with no school ties) face a lighter review — primarily the Valid Business Purpose test.

Why it matters for your deal: If your payor is associated, your deal will also be evaluated under Range of Compensation (Test 3). Structure your deal with clear, documented deliverables and compensation that matches your athlete profile.

Test 2: Valid Business Purpose (VBP)

The question: Is the payor actually using the athlete's NIL to sell something to the public?

This test applies to all payors, associated or not. The standard: the deal must involve the sale of a good or service to the public for profit.

What passes VBP

• Endorsement of a product or service with defined deliverables (social posts, appearances, advertisements)
• Licensing the athlete's name, image, or likeness in a marketing campaign
• Participation in a camp, clinic, or event where the athlete's NIL is central to the offering

What fails VBP (common red flags)

• Vague "ambassador" or "spokesperson" arrangements with no defined deliverables
• Payments for future NIL rights with no current use ("warehousing")
• Arrangements structured as signing bonuses or retainers with no corresponding services
• Compensation clearly disproportionate to any described business activity
• Deals presented as agency or services agreements where sponsors "will be identified later"

Key principle: The CSC has stated that pay-for-play disguised as NIL remains the central enforcement concern. If the deal's primary purpose appears to be retaining or recruiting an athlete — rather than marketing a business — it will not pass VBP.

How FieldPass helps: The policy check flags deals with vague or missing deliverables before you submit. Always define specific posts, appearances, or services with timelines.

Test 3: Range of Compensation (RoC)

The question: Is the payment consistent with what a similarly situated individual would earn?

This test applies only to deals with associated entities (including most collectives). Deloitte uses a 12-point analysis to benchmark compensation against comparable NIL deals.

Factors evaluated

• Deal performance obligations (number of posts, appearances, exclusivity, duration)
• Athlete's athletic performance and standing
• Athlete's social media reach (followers, engagement rate, platform mix)
• Local market context (city size, regional vs. national brand)
• Market reach of the athlete's institution and athletic program
• Brand influence and recognition of the payor

What passes RoC

Compensation within a defensible range given the athlete's profile and deal structure.

What fails RoC

Compensation significantly above market rates for the athlete's actual NIL value — a common pattern in collective-facilitated deals used as pay-for-play proxies.

Deloitte has reported that approximately 70% of past NIL collective payments would have failed review under the current framework, while over 90% of deals from public companies would have been approved.

Common failure reasons and how to fix them

Related articles

• NIL Go Compliance Basics
• Policy Checks & Compliance Status
• Creating a Deal