My eyes are old, but I don't see any reference in what you quoted to a "designated enforcement agency." What I do see is a reference to a "neutral arbitration system." There's no mystery to finding arbitrators: see the link.
https://www.adr.org/aaa-panel
You have to click the link to get the full screenshot but it’s still small print.
The system as is has already brought more parity than CFB has ever seen, which imo has been a good thing for the sport. If there’s actual enforcement of outside of the school based NIL and fair maket rates (I’m still skeptical) then the nudge towards more party might be even bigger than I was expecting with schools paying players.
People complain but being in the P2 will be an advantage in finding the budget for players.
Here’s the article that goes with it.
This is what I was questioning above with regards to enforcement of outside NIL.
Excepts from the article:
In a world where more parity is expected, where does that leave the big boys?
As it turns out, keeping their advantage is quite simple, experts contend. They use their big brand, sprawling metro areas, massive alumni bases, wealthy donors and rich relationships to exceed college football’s new cap.
“That’s going to be the new frontier: the above-the-cap, supplemental NIL,” says Walker Jones, the head of the Ole Miss collective and a leading member of The Collective Association. “That’s the new battlefield. The question is, can it really be regulated?”
The answer, though not easy, is that athletes land true endorsement and commercial deals from outside the school with third-party brands and companies. Third-party deals do not count against a school’s salary cap. However, in an effort to limit booster involvement, the settlement orders all third-party deals of $600 or more from school-affiliated boosters, or collections of them, to gain approval from a new NIL clearinghouse.
The clearinghouse, operated by Deloitte, is charged with verifying the authenticity of these deals using “fair market value” rates, poised to eliminate phony booster-backed compensation agreements so prevalent in the industry over the previous three years.
While many question the legality of this, power league executives, holding authority over many settlement-related decisions (not the NCAA), contend that the settlement grants them protections to enforce long-standing NCAA rules against booster payments. In fact, they are creating a separate enforcement entity — not the NCAA — to police the cap and levy penalties on those attempting to manipulate it, such as player ineligibility and school fines.
The power conferences have created a “transition team” of athletic directors from the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and ACC to explore issues and create a framework related to the cap, clearinghouse and new enforcement arm. Members of the seven-person Deloitte clearinghouse team have met with college administrators over the last several weeks in an effort to educate them on the process — one that remains murky.
At Ohio State, Carter supports “strong penalties” for those violators, but so many questions remain unanswered, he and Bjork say.
“How are rules written? What is the fair market value analysis? What is the database going to look like?” Bjork says. “What does fair market value mean in Columbus, Ohio, compared to, maybe, a small college town? There has to be some kind of differential there.
“We want to be aggressive, use our corporate partners and donors who own companies. They have marketing funds. How do we turn that into agreements with athletes? We think we have the city, alumni base and the population and the sponsors in our existing environment to be aggressive.”
