Duke suing their QB...

[o_Hot Rock]

So the only governing law here is what is in the actual contract that was signed for penalty for termination.

not quite but dang close I would say.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

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?

They worded the contract to say they own his name image and likeness for 2 years. He cannot shop it to anyone else and he has to represent them or he is in breach so they don't have to pay. It's going to court to sort it out.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

How committed is a guy gonna be if he has to be sued to stay?

As committed as any player on a contract for one year. He better produce or he aint' getting anything from the next team.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

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.

They own his NIL rights two years, he can't shop those around whether he plays for them or not. He quits the team and stops representing the University they can call that breach of contract too.. whether it holds up in court is yet to be seen.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

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.

This part of the House settlement never made sense. The schools claim they are revenue sharing by licensing the athletes' NIL. It isnt revenue sharing, and the schools are barely using the NIL, if at all. Its all a legal fiction.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

They own his NIL rights two years, he can't shop those around whether he plays for them or not. He quits the team and stops representing the University they can call that breach of contract too.. whether it holds up in court is yet to be seen.

He's most likely in breach, depending on the language of the contract, but I seriously doubt Duke could successfully stop him from signing a new agreement with a different school. Its just a question of financial damages. I think the best Duke could hope for is their litigation discourages other schools from getting involved.

I've never seen one of the revenue sharing contracts, so its unclear to me just what NIL rights the schools claim they are purchasing. Its not a totally exclusive deal, as the athletes are free to seek other third party deals. But obviously he cannot represent two schools at once. I will just really be surprised if a court says that, while he doesn't have to play for Duke, he cannot terminate/breach his contract with Duke and go play for another school.