University of Georgia Athletics
A necessary step forward for college athletics
January 13, 2026 | General
The following is a joint statement from University of Georgia President Jere W. Morehead, University of Arizona President Suresh Garimella, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) President Timothy Sands, and University of Washington President Robert J. Jones. Together, the presidents represent each of the Power Four athletics conferences (the Big 12, SEC, ACC and Big Ten).
College athletics has reached an inflection point. For years, campus leaders and athletic directors have acknowledged, both quietly and out loud, that the existing model for organizing competition, distributing revenue, and supporting student-athletes simply does not work any longer. Particularly with the ramifications of Name, Image & Likeness (NIL), revenue-sharing, and the other terms of the new House settlement, many constituents are experiencing confusion, frustration, and growing uncertainty.
The House settlement and other recent changes have shifted the framework for college sports, but new rules without clear enforcement mechanisms lack credibility. Inconsistency across institutions erodes trust, creating uncertainty that ultimately harms the very people this enterprise exists to serve: our student-athletes.
The University Participant Agreement shared by the College Sports Commission addresses these problems and provides a collective path forward for the future of college athletics. It requires participating universities to support the CSC's standards implementing the House settlement, including NIL reporting, revenue-sharing compliance, monitoring, audits, and enforcement.
At its core, the Agreement asks institutions to do something simple but essential: play by the rules we have collectively committed to, accept accountability when we fall short, and resolve disputes through the agreed-upon process rather than prolonging costly litigation that fuels confusion and inequity. Stability is not created by new rules alone, but by a willingness to live by them.Â
In exchange for access to CSC platforms and services, participating institutions accept clear oversight and enforcement, including investigation authority, penalties, and binding neutral arbitration.
The Participant Agreement is not perfect, but it does provide a visible mechanism to turn the House settlement from principle into practice and represents a meaningful step forward that the higher education community can collectively embrace.
While NCAA regulations and terms of the settlement continue to govern college athletics, the Agreement adds an essential layer of accountability requiring universities to manage the actions of their employees and affiliates. It provides clarity, consistency, and enforceability at a moment when the enterprise urgently needs all three.
For institutions, the Agreement establishes a more level playing field grounded in shared expectations rather than individual interpretation. For student-athletes, it reinforces transparency and fairness. For the public, it signals that intercollegiate athletics is capable of reform, self-governance, and responsibility.
We also must acknowledge the broader context in which this Agreement exists. There are competing interests in today's college sports landscape, some well-intentioned, others self-interested, that would benefit from continued fragmentation or the failure of this settlement altogether. That dynamic, and the cycle of lawsuits and workarounds it invites, serves no one. It undermines trust and extends instability.
Some may feel the Agreement moves too quickly, but we do not have the luxury of waiting for perfection. The responsibility of leadership compels us to recognize when the cost of inaction outweighs the discomfort of progress.
College athletics has long been one of higher education's most visible expressions of teamwork, discipline, and shared purpose. This moment calls for those same values from our institutions' leaders.
We encourage our fellow presidents to sign the Participant Agreement. It allows us to move forward together, rather than facing continued drift, escalating risk, and a system that asks student-athletes to navigate unnecessary ambiguity while institutions hesitate.
We owe our students better. We owe the public better. And we owe our universities a governance framework that reflects the seriousness of this enterprise.
Â
College athletics has reached an inflection point. For years, campus leaders and athletic directors have acknowledged, both quietly and out loud, that the existing model for organizing competition, distributing revenue, and supporting student-athletes simply does not work any longer. Particularly with the ramifications of Name, Image & Likeness (NIL), revenue-sharing, and the other terms of the new House settlement, many constituents are experiencing confusion, frustration, and growing uncertainty.
The House settlement and other recent changes have shifted the framework for college sports, but new rules without clear enforcement mechanisms lack credibility. Inconsistency across institutions erodes trust, creating uncertainty that ultimately harms the very people this enterprise exists to serve: our student-athletes.
The University Participant Agreement shared by the College Sports Commission addresses these problems and provides a collective path forward for the future of college athletics. It requires participating universities to support the CSC's standards implementing the House settlement, including NIL reporting, revenue-sharing compliance, monitoring, audits, and enforcement.
At its core, the Agreement asks institutions to do something simple but essential: play by the rules we have collectively committed to, accept accountability when we fall short, and resolve disputes through the agreed-upon process rather than prolonging costly litigation that fuels confusion and inequity. Stability is not created by new rules alone, but by a willingness to live by them.Â
In exchange for access to CSC platforms and services, participating institutions accept clear oversight and enforcement, including investigation authority, penalties, and binding neutral arbitration.
The Participant Agreement is not perfect, but it does provide a visible mechanism to turn the House settlement from principle into practice and represents a meaningful step forward that the higher education community can collectively embrace.
While NCAA regulations and terms of the settlement continue to govern college athletics, the Agreement adds an essential layer of accountability requiring universities to manage the actions of their employees and affiliates. It provides clarity, consistency, and enforceability at a moment when the enterprise urgently needs all three.
For institutions, the Agreement establishes a more level playing field grounded in shared expectations rather than individual interpretation. For student-athletes, it reinforces transparency and fairness. For the public, it signals that intercollegiate athletics is capable of reform, self-governance, and responsibility.
We also must acknowledge the broader context in which this Agreement exists. There are competing interests in today's college sports landscape, some well-intentioned, others self-interested, that would benefit from continued fragmentation or the failure of this settlement altogether. That dynamic, and the cycle of lawsuits and workarounds it invites, serves no one. It undermines trust and extends instability.
Some may feel the Agreement moves too quickly, but we do not have the luxury of waiting for perfection. The responsibility of leadership compels us to recognize when the cost of inaction outweighs the discomfort of progress.
College athletics has long been one of higher education's most visible expressions of teamwork, discipline, and shared purpose. This moment calls for those same values from our institutions' leaders.
We encourage our fellow presidents to sign the Participant Agreement. It allows us to move forward together, rather than facing continued drift, escalating risk, and a system that asks student-athletes to navigate unnecessary ambiguity while institutions hesitate.
We owe our students better. We owe the public better. And we owe our universities a governance framework that reflects the seriousness of this enterprise.
Â
2025 Arch Award - Colby Gardner
Tuesday, October 21
Recognizing Mental Health Awareness Month
Tuesday, September 30
Dawgs Choice Awards 2025
Thursday, May 01
Mike Bilbow Funeral
Tuesday, April 22