Duke suing their QB...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
I'd hate to be one of these schools like Duke and Ole Miss suing players who are trying to leave.
I mean I get it, but there has to be some reputational damage amongst the players.
Suing a player so that you can pay them a bunch of money to play for a team they don't want to play for. Sounds like a lose / lose propostion to me.
“This wasn’t an easy decision, but after talking with my family, I believe it’s in my best interest to enter the transfer portal.”
Tough shat. He signed a multi year contact. There was no decision to be made at this point.
Tough shat. He signed a multi year contact. There was no decision to be made at this point.
They're not the only ones. Georgia is suing a player transferring out. Washington threatened to and the player backed down. How else are you going to enforce a contract? At some point there has to be a transfer system for players like this where the schools can agree on a transfer fee.
$4M a year to play quarterback at a prestigious university and it’s not enough. Now he’s leaving and being sued for breach of contract.
I bet no one ever accused him of being smart enough to graduate from Duke.
I bet no one ever accused him of being smart enough to graduate from Duke.
I haven't read the article, but the future of these suits is for the suing school to recover from the transfer school ultimately. It's basically going to be a subrogation claim.
Nope and nope. He signed a multi-year contract, he can't just leave. Damn right I would sue him. He signed a multi-year deal to get more money than he could have gotten otherwise his first year then he signed it. Sue the hell out of him.
Pro teams hold guys all the time and if they don't give full effort then clauses can be in contracts for that as well. This is a business now, kids signs a multi-year deal then they better learn what it means.
Yep, its breach of contract everywhere else in life when you sign on the dotted line. College players seem to think they play by different rules than the rest of society I guess.
Something has to give. Ncaa needs to grow some balls and dc judges need to stay the hell out of it. Need transfer rules back in place and actual binding contracts and legal put in place.
That's the problem, the courts have chopped off the NCAA's balls. According to the courts, the NCAA can't even determine their own eligibility requirements which is asinine. Players could have always been paid in the past, they just couldn't have retained their eligibility. But the courts mandated the NCAA couldn't deem them ineligible so the NCAA has no real say in anything any more, only the judges. Before long the courts will strike down limiting eligibility to 5 years and you will have 40 year olds still playing college and getting millions of dollars as long as they are still enrolled in a class.
So the only governing law here is what is in the actual contract that was signed for penalty for termination.
How far down can college football/athletics go? Hard to believe it can go much further.
Is the rule still illegal to pay for play. NIL says you sign a contract for your name, image, and likeness, can't be tied to playing football for the school. If that is the case, I don't see how the school can win. If it is in the contract you must play to earn the money, then the school just put itself in violation, no?
I would love to see his actual contract. But I dont think there is any way he can be forced to play for Duke. Its all about monetary damages, which he made worse by waiting until the last second to leave, hurting Duke's ability to find a replacement.
It will be interesting if Duke's lawsuit scares off potential suitors, and he decides to come back.
This is the part of this that bothers me. I have never seen one of the revenue sharing contracts, but I was told the multi year deals have all sorts of contingency language in them so the parties can terminate
Since it is (falsely) set up as an NIL license, it seems like the best the school could ask for would be the right to stop paying him since his NIL no longer has any value to the school.
Apparently they dont really have to enroll in class, either.
They certainly don't have to attend class. I think they technically still have to be an enrolled student but who knows anymore? I know that no one is ever academically ineligible anymore. I think those words have disappeared from college athletics altogether.
I would bet that's the entire Cleveland Browns roster.
The big difference in the pro leagues is if they are under contract with one team, no other team in the league can sign them. They are stuck unless they go to another league.
In college they are free to transfer, so the only leverage the schools have is money.
Maybe the answer is to make player who breaches a contract sit out a year? If a player with a multi year deal wants to leave, then the school can refuse to put their name in the portal. They could still transfer, but they would have to sit out a year. Plus pay their buyout.
I dont know if that can be legally implemented in light of all the settlement agreements, though.
We need one of these multi-year deals to be litigated, but completing the litigation could take a couple of years.
Revenue sharing changed all that since now they are all getting paid directly by the schools. They can still get NIL on top of that but its definitely pay for play these days.
The revenue sharing is still couched as an NIL license. It just comes directly from the school and is exempt from FMV scrutiny by the Clearinghouse. The schools refuse to call the athletes employees or independent contractors, so the revenue sharing payments are definitely NOT P4P (wink, wink)
This is why I have very little sympathy for the schools in these cases. They have created an overly complex legal fiction to try to get what they want. Too bad if they painted themselves into a corner.
What they need is forward thinking people to come up with an entirely new business model for college sports.
To be faaaaaaair, we as a society do have a bad habit of reinforcing that belief.
Look, don't threaten to lower viewership otherwise Disney/ESPN will be upset.
These kids are student atheletes, just like Bama has always told us.
Funnier when you remember that he left Tulane to play for Duke.
So the schools are now paying "NIL"? Yea, that makes sense. Whatever, I give up. Its profit sharing pay for play. I don't care what kind of legalese they want to couch it in.
I can't really see suing a player to make him stay. I can, however, see suing them to recover money paid to him if he committed to staying multiple years.
If Mensah signed a contract that stated he would play multiple seasons for Duke, then Duke has the right to enforce the terms of the contract. If the contract doesn't specify multiple years, then that's on Duke's lawyers for developing a one-sided contract not in the school's favor.
If Mensah signed a contract that stated he would play multiple seasons for Duke, then Duke has the right to enforce the terms of the contract. If the contract doesn't specify multiple years, then that's on Duke's lawyers for developing a one-sided contract not in the school's favor.
Here is what I imagine Duke's position is: He is a brand ambassador for Duke and has an NIL agreement in place. His wearing the uniform of direct competitor would be a violation of that agreement, and the playing for another team would certainly violate that agreement as well. They won't argue that he has to play for them, but he certainly can't be out there promoting their competition. No different than if Eli Manning who is under contract with Jersey Mike's, started making appearances wearing a Subway shirt.
Alternatively, they could also argue that sure he can leave and go play elsewhere, but he can't have an NIL deal there, because Duke already contracted for his name, image, and likeness, and they own the rights to his name, image, and likeness until 2027 when his contract expires. The player is going to lose this argument. I doubt a court will stop him from leaving or restrict his mobility, but you can't sell the same car to two different people and the court will likely side with Duke on that point.
Alternatively, they could also argue that sure he can leave and go play elsewhere, but he can't have an NIL deal there, because Duke already contracted for his name, image, and likeness, and they own the rights to his name, image, and likeness until 2027 when his contract expires. The player is going to lose this argument. I doubt a court will stop him from leaving or restrict his mobility, but you can't sell the same car to two different people and the court will likely side with Duke on that point.