[Goose]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

[Goose]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.