MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
JASON BRECKENRIDGE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

Jason Breckenridge, appearing pro se, respectfully moves for leave to file the attached proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Fourth Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 1095], scheduled for hearing before the Special Master on May 27, 2026.

I.  IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE

Jason Breckenridge is the founder and principal researcher of NIL Command, an independent NIL market research and valuation analytics platform. Since 2025, NIL Command has developed and applied a four-factor fair market value (“FMV”) methodology to more than seventy pre-deal athlete NIL transactions across multiple sports and conferences. The methodology evaluates athlete NIL value based on four objective factors: (1) on-field production metrics relative to position and competitive level; (2) digital platform audience size and engagement data; (3) market comparables derived from similarly situated athletes at comparable competitive tiers; and (4) deal structure, term length, and exclusivity.

Proposed amicus has no financial relationship with any party to this litigation, any NCAA member institution, any multimedia rights company (“MMR”), any NIL collective, or any athlete or athlete representative involved in this matter. NIL Command’s research is conducted independently and has been submitted to federal and congressional bodies as part of the public record on NIL market structure.

The proposed brief does not take a position on whether MMRs or third-party sponsors qualify as “Associated Entities or Individuals” under the Injunctive Relief Settlement (“IRS”). That is the question the parties have joined, and proposed amicus defers to the Special Master’s resolution of it. The proposed brief addresses a discrete downstream issue that neither party’s briefing resolves: how the Settlement’s “commensurate with value” standard (IRS Art. 4, § 3) can be enforced in a principled, reviewable manner in the absence of any published fair market value methodology.

II.  THE PROPOSED BRIEF PROVIDES INFORMATION USEFUL TO THE SPECIAL MASTER

Courts routinely permit amicus filings from parties with relevant expertise that offer perspectives distinct from those of the parties themselves. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982); Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm’r, 293 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[A]n amicus brief should normally be allowed when . . . the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.”).

The parties’ briefing focuses on the textual and historical question of who qualifies as an “Associated Entity or Individual.” The proposed brief addresses a distinct, downstream question: assuming the Special Master resolves that definitional dispute, how should the “commensurate with value” enforcement standard operate in practice? This question cannot be answered from the Settlement text alone. It requires empirical evidence of how NIL valuations are actually constructed—and how market pricing systematically diverges from production-based benchmarks. NIL Command’s research across seventy-plus pre-deal audits provides that evidence and a perspective neither party can offer.

III.  THE PROPOSED BRIEF DOES NOT EXPAND THE ISSUES OR BURDEN THE PARTIES

The proposed brief is narrowly focused on the FMV enforcement methodology gap. It does not re-argue the definitional question. It does not oppose any relief requested by either party. It asks only that the Special Master recognize the absence of a published FMV methodology as a structural feature of the Settlement’s enforcement framework that warrants attention—and, if the Special Master grants any portion of Plaintiffs’ motion, that any resulting order direct the parties to confer on establishing and publishing a transparent methodology for applying the “commensurate with value” standard to whatever agreements remain within the CSC’s jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Jason Breckenridge respectfully requests that the Special Master grant leave to file the attached Brief of Amicus Curiae.