I had ChatGPT whip up a summary of everything published about how the Fair Market Value test will be applied. Spot checked the sources and feel good about the accuracy, but take with a grain of salt.
What we actually know so far about Deloitte’s fair-market-value (FMV) test
Level
What gets checked
How it works
Key references
Trigger
Any third-party NIL agreement worth $600+ and involving an “associated” payor (booster, collective or other donor-linked entity)
Athletes must upload each qualifying contract to NIL Go no later than three business days after signing. Non-associated or sub-$600 deals skip the FMV screen.
(nilrevolution.com, swimswam.com, cbssports.com)
Step 1 – Payor Association Verification
Is the company/individual primarily supporting the school? Have they donated ≥ $50 k? Do they employ a trustee, coach or collective officer?
If “yes,” the payor is deemed associated and the deal moves to Step 2.
(nilrevolution.com, burr.com)
Step 2 – Valid Business-Purpose Verification
Does the payor have a genuine commercial reason to use the athlete’s NIL (ads, appearances, content, etc.)?
Schools must examine payor identity, invoices, deliverables and timing; blatant recruiting inducements are flagged.
(burr.com)
Step 3 – Range-of-Compensation Analysis
Deloitte applies a 12-factor matrix (see next section) to see whether the payment falls inside a data-driven “reasonable range.”
Past college and pro-athlete deals supply the comps; roster value and recruiting bounties are explicitly excluded.
(nilrevolution.com, laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com, burr.com)
Outcome labels
Cleared · Information needed · In review
Anything short of “cleared” lets the athlete ① renegotiate, ② cancel, ③ proceed at their own eligibility risk, or ④ appeal to a neutral arbitrator (target 45-day turnaround).
(nilrevolution.com, essentiallysports.com)
The 12 factors Deloitte says it weighs
Athlete’s individual marketability & social-media reach
Athletic performance and overall public profile
Type, scope and frequency of deliverables (posts, appearances, etc.)
Geographic market size and local demand
Deal duration
Any exclusivity terms
Possibility of renewals or extensions
Comparable market benchmarks for similar athletes and activations
Degree of donor/booster involvement
Timing relative to recruiting, transfer windows or eligibility decisions
Quality and completeness of supporting documentation
Red-flag indicators of inducement or sham purpose (laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com)
A handful of practitioner memos bundle those into three broader buckets—athlete metrics, deal mechanics, and market context—but the raw dozen above comes straight from the settlement guidance Deloitte circulated in May. (elawfirm.org)
What hasn’t been published
Weightings & formulae. Deloitte calls its scoring model “proprietary” and has not disclosed how the 12 inputs are weighted or what percentile constitutes an “outlier.”
Exact comparables database. We know it blends Opendorse, INFLCR and pro-athlete licensing data sets, but not the relative proportions.
Arbitration precedent. No FMV decision has reached arbitration yet, so there is no public case law to show how often NIL Go can be overturned.
Bottom line
Everything public to date points to a three-step gateway focused mainly on associated (i.e., booster-funded) money rather than mainstream brand endorsements. The 12-factor grid is meant to mimic how talent-valuation firms price professional sponsorships, but until the first round of deals (post-July 1) cycles through NIL Go and the new arbitration track, the real-world thresholds remain an educated guess.