Some conversations happen in public. Others happen quietly, among the people who believe they know the system best.
“From our perspective, tying agreements like (the “3-Way Agreement” that ties local and state association membership to NAR) are not appropriate, especially when the parties have monopolistic control over access to a market.”
Was this from a fringe group of agitated Facebook crazies or the newest ambulance-chasing anti-trust law firm trolling for their next meal? Neither. It was reportedly from a group of unnamed brokerage executives representing 100,000 agents that’s been “secretly” engaged with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on certain desired reforms, including the “3-way agreement.”
In 2016, I wrote on Inman that “membership-as-obligation” had begun chipping away at trust and value, warning that when you can’t opt out, you become a captive rather than a customer. The metaphor I used then that still holds: Many Realtors view their dues as a “tax” imposed because they cannot practically practice without belonging.
By the way, I wrote this not as someone throwing darts at the industry but rather having been a state Realtor association CEO and someone who has advocated for the Realtor brand for nearly all of my 35 professional years.
NAR is facing greater member headwinds than ever, largely due to its mishandling of industry antitrust litigation that has created massive exposure over business-model ties, commission structures and access to essential tools.
These exposures are not peripheral. They strike at the foundation of how membership, access and pricing interplay in our industry. They reveal a clear pattern: When an association controls membership, access and pricing, the risk mounts for members and the public alike.
Why non-optional membership undermines service and trust
A trade association serves its members best when those members believe the value received justifies the cost. When membership is compulsory, or effectively so as with NAR, that dynamic is flipped.
- When dues are paid out of necessity rather than choice, association accountability softens and member distrust and resentment grows.
- If a member cannot meaningfully leave, the “exit‐voice” trade-off goes out the window because they’ve lost the ability to credibly demand change.
- When access to fundamental cooperative business tools (MLS, lockboxes, forms) is conditioned on membership, the association becomes a gatekeeper with market power, not just an advocate. As we have witnessed, this invites regulatory risk to both the organizations and the people who manage them.
- From a consumer perspective, when agents are forced into membership, the public may reasonably ask: Is this structure serving me, or is it protecting an institution? And if they don’t ask, then one might wonder what is the value of the brand in the first place.
It seems so logical
Making membership optional would:
- Re-introduce real market discipline. If membership in any of the three levels of Realtor association (local, state, national) were not tied together or to MLS access, these associations must actually earn their dues instead of treating them as an annuity..
- Lower antitrust risk. When access to tools is decoupled from membership, the tying arguments fade.
- Brokers and agents would be empowered to negotiate value rather than accept terms by default.
- Improve perception with consumers: The industry becomes one of choice and transparency rather than compulsion, and the Realtor brand might actually mean something again.
A roadmap for reform
If NAR wants to rebuild trust and reduce risk, it needs structural change, not surface-level messaging.
Here’s what a roadmap to real reform could look like:
- Decouple key access (MLS, lockboxes, forms) from membership. Membership should not be the cost of entry to practice.
- Offer tiered or optional participation. Not every practitioner wants full association services. Offer choices based on needs.
- Eliminate the broker billing policy. Unless a brokerage firm is using the Realtor trademark in its name, the choice of association membership should reside at the agent level.
- Publish exit data and member satisfaction. Real choice means data about who leaves and why. We hear about transparency, now let’s see it.
- Reform governance and dues. Let members choose the services they value and adjust dues accordingly.
- Educate the industry. Brokers and agents need a clearer ROI on membership and a credible alternative if they opt out.
No organization can truly begin to serve its customers when those customers have no choice but to belong. In the real estate industry, the structural ties of membership-to-access have created risk, raised its profile in antitrust litigation and, most importantly, significantly eroded industry trust. NAR wants to gain that trust back, and I question whether that’s possible given this dynamic.
NAR CEO Nykia Wright has talked on stage about NAR’s new approach to transparency. While I applaud the efforts of this yet-to-be-identified broker group, this is too important an issue to be had behind closed doors.
So here’s an open ask to NAR: Let’s have a public debate on the merits of these ideas. Put it on stage at Inman if you like. What better way to prove a real commitment to transparency on what may be the most concerning issue members face today?
Russ Cofano is the founder of Alloy Advisors. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
