Yes, "The House v. NCAA" settlement introduces a clearinghouse—run by Deloitte—to vet NIL deals over $600 for "fair market value" and compliance. Revenue sharing is separate from NIL and will be school-funded, with its own oversight mechanisms. But it doesn’t prevent third-party collectives or boosters from offering NIL deals using Delaware based corporations controlled by lawyers who could argue FMV until they are blue in the face. The P2 controls the enforcement, not the NCAA. The NIL Clearinghouse itself wouldn’t be able to block certain deals—instead, it would just flag them. Schools will be in charge of determining the difference between a booster and collective versus a non-affiliated brand. And Deloitte will potentially charge hefty fees, anywhere from $5,000 to $500,000 per school. Plenty of questions remain and no one seems to want to answer them at this poing..... including whether it’s legal for the NCAA and conferences to determine “fair-market value”; what penalties athletes will face if they refuse to participate in the process or go forward with deals regardless; or whether the rules are enforceable. And boosters have long found ways to skirt the rules. With FMV very subjective, all it would take is for a booster to have a star player create an Instagram page, Pay $1000-2000 to an Indian/Chinese "farm" to create 20K-50K in "followers" practically within a week and then argue that the star players's social media reach or brand appeal is there to justify a single $500K NIL from Company A.