The reason these college player’s contracts aren’t binding

They have to all sign contracts to stop this madness. You wanna be a pro, sign da contract.

Atholets!!!

The schools don't want to consider them employees or collective bargin until they want to leave

Agree. The wording on the contract could make the OP's point mute.

How is this any different than coaches breaking contracts? Lane was under contract at Ole Miss. I didn't read the contract and don't know what content would be enforceable.

quote:

---

The wording on the contract could make the OP's point mute.

---

The word is ‘moot’.

quote:

---

The reason these college player’s contracts aren’t binding

These are “student athletes”. In order to play football or any sport for that matter, they have to be enrolled as a student. And I believe they must uphold academic standards (whether we believe it or not). Washington will lose a legal battle or the kid won’t play anywhere. All he has to do is disenroll from Washington and he can’t play. It’s that simple.
They are not considered professionals yet. Their “salary” isn’t based off performance or anything of the sort. Welcome to the new college athlete. They have all the leverage!

---

First, the contracts are binding.

Second, the revenue-sharing contracts are pay for play.

Third, the contracts can, and frequently do, have clauses that are based on performance, like winning a NC, Heisman or other award.

Fourth and finally, what you're really trying to discuss is that the remedy schools seek will be limited to damages. Schools won't be able to seek specific performance to make the student play football for them.

Washington won't be able to seek specific performance as a remedy in a lawsuit against Williams. Washington won't be able to make Williams play football for them.

Washington can, however, seek damages as a remedy in a lawsuit against Williams.

There are other issues to be negotiated or litigated. Some of the damage clauses might not be enforceable because: (1) the language of the clause is unenforceable (for example, the amount of damages are within Washington's sole discretion)y, or (2) Washington cannot prove their damages or that the stipulated damages are reasonable. But those issues do not mean the contract is not binding.

They aren’t employees. They are barely held to the same standard as a contractor. Until they are employees, these contracts are civil and can’t stop contractors from refusing to meet the terms. There may or may not be a civil judgment, but that’s it. Contractors can’t be held to non compete clauses. They are 1099 Contractors only for the NIL part, this does not effect the student enrollment part.