Revenue-sharing liquidated damage clause is like non-compete clause. That's a UW problem.

Right to work state.

quote:

---

Right to work state.

---

Dead giveaway a person doesn't know what they're talking about when referring to non-competes.

quote:

---

Right to work state.

---

Has nothing to do with this.

quote:

---

quote:
Right to work state.


Dead giveaway a person doesn't know what they're talking about when referring to non-competes.

---

Yep , just pull out some political line you that you have gulped down chased by the kool aid

quote:

---

Hasn’t been paid a dime off of it yet.

---

I think this comes into play big time in this situation.

Ok, so nobody really knows how to interpret or enforce these things, or whether they’re even legal. If there is money to be clawed back, pay it and move on. Disregard the intimidation tactics and go get that natty. That’s all people will remember in the end.

Kind of surprised that poster with 800k posts that claims to be a lawyer hasn’t dropped in here to pontificate

quote:

---

Did he he receive payment in full or partial, is he able to pay back monies acquired??

---

I doubt he's been paid anything.

But I'm not worried about the claw-back clause as much as the stipulated damage clause.

Claw-back Clause: Pay back what Williams got for a contract he signed a few days ago. No big deal.

Stipulated Damages Clauses: Pay a little something, you know, for the anticipated loss. That's not reimbursement. Someone is coming out of pocket to pay Washington.

Contracts can be -- and are --- broken for any reason. Period.

Once broken, the question is the harm caused as a result of the breach (aka, damages). LD provisions try to estimate those damages, which are inherently difficult to measure, particularly at the time of contracting. Most states focus on that temporal analysis (at the time of contracting, was it foreseeable damages could result of the breach, and is the LD amount set a reasonable estimate of those foreseeable damages).

Some limited states' laws allow courts to consider the actual damages at the time of the breach to determine if the LD amount was reasonable and, therefore, enforceable.

Turing to this case, the QB drops out of school, and registers with LSU and then plays there. LSU then pays (indirectly through the QB) any enforceable amount of LDs that is in the QB's contract.

Here, the QB plays for LSU. Force WASH to seek an injunction to prevent him from playing football. Good luck with that. And while not a labor attorney, I would find it very, very hard to imagine a court in any jurisdiction ruling that the QB's right to earn a living (particularly cross states - NDAs focus on locality as I recall, the further the distance, the less likely enforceable) would be restricted. Particularly if the court sees there is an enforceable LD provision, or actual damages right to recover if not, that would compensate WASH for any damages.

Really is not that difficult. He breaches, signs with LSU and let WASH chase him in the legal system. By the time it is resolved (if ever), he will be in the NFL.

quote:

---

If this is an excerpt from the actual contract, it looks like the agreement is that the player and/or transfer school would be responsible to pay liquidated damages of the prorated amount of the agreement. In this case, if no payment had yet been made, that would be the entire amount. This is the clawback OP referred to, and it would be up to the courts to determine if this could be enforced.

---

Gotcha. So same situation as the Mizzou player who UGA is suing (he's in the portal again).

Play the player, let the courts settle the contract dispute. The impression I got from the Damon Wilson case is that if a judge decides that the full payback amount is punitive and not damages then the previous school is out of luck.

According to the trusty Google AI:

Key Aspects of Liquidated Damages:
Purpose: To provide a clear, predetermined remedy for breach, saving time and costs of litigation, and to encourage timely performance.

When Used: When actual damages from a breach would be uncertain or hard to prove, such as missed deadlines or loss of reputation.

Enforceability: Courts enforce them if they meet strict criteria:
Damages were difficult to estimate at contract formation.
The amount is a reasonable forecast of anticipated loss, not punitive.
There was an intent to compensate, not punish.

What They Are Not: They are not penalties; a clause set at an unreasonably high amount is void.