- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Duke's lawsuit might finally put end to some of this contract language restraining movemt
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:16 pm to PonchaTiger
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:16 pm to PonchaTiger
quote:
My opinion is some of the liquidated damage clauses are punitive and as such would not be enforceable.
I agree, but I think there has to be a point where if the school is actually preventing the athlete from entering the portal, as they are, and there isnt enforcement from the NCAA against that school, youre looking at antitrust.
In the case of Williams and Washington, that would have been dead to rights because the B1G is using the same contract, as competitors, and the commissioner involved himself on behalf of the school.
0
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:24 pm to Ellis_Hugh
quote:
Right. Why would the school be owed anything if it wasn’t pay for play?
The schools are going to claim a loss of potential NIL-related revenue. They own the players’ NIL rights per their contracts. So I don’t really see an issue with forcing the player to pay damages, but these schools can’t prohibit them from leaving. They have to submit their names to the transfer portal when requested. If the player doesn’t agree to pay the damages, the schools can then sue.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:26 pm to Robcrzy
Also these players are surely going to stop signing deals before the portal opens so they can see what the market is.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:28 pm to Robcrzy
And they will eventually stop signing over their rights in NIL
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:33 pm to Ebridg3
quote:
I think this ones going to bring some attention to these NIL contracts that seek to limit player movement.
I think you’re missing the real point here. Most of these new contracts aren’t using language to specifically limit movement or hold a player. Not specifically.
Everyone saw that any hint of players being subject to employment law was immediately tossed out in Wisconsin vs Miami. Most of the contracts this year are using buyouts with clauses that either prevent the signer from entering another deal or another school from using their NIL until the contract has either lapsed or is dissolved. This is legal and can be enforced even if the players aren’t employees.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:38 pm to Ebridg3
quote:
The B1G as an entire conference is using the same contract which does this as well.
Could this be some sort of antitrust violation?
I wonder how much negotiation is going on between these schools and the athletes. A first year attorney wouldn’t let their client agree to some of the provisions purportedly in these contracts.
Are athletes being presented these conference wide contracts and being told it’s take it or leave it or that the school isn’t permitted by the conference to alter the form?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:46 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
It doesn't really make sense to limit the power of the NCAA over freedom of movement to nothing just to give it to the member schools instead.
The difference is one’s basically a government oversight body, and the other is entering a business arrangement with a person of legal age.
If you flipped things and it was Duke that didn’t honor its part of the contract with the student-athlete, then people would be going ape shite about how a behemoth school screwed a lowly player.
Buyouts are the key. Just like college coaches. You leave you pay a buyout, or if you get processed then the school pays the agreed upon buyout. There has to be consequences for any business deal—college players included.
Just wait until this happens midseason…kids holding schools hostage and visa versa. Just a matter of time I’m sure. Point of contracts is to honor them or face the consequences/penalty for breaking them.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:47 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Are athletes being presented these conference wide contracts and being told it’s take it or leave it or that the school isn’t permitted by the conference to alter the form?
When enough high profile players “leave it”, the schools will have to adjust.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 4:50 pm to Mickey Goldmill
If the school owns the NIL rights why can’t they guarantee a player a specific NIL deal per the rules?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 5:26 pm to Ebridg3
Dont limit them at all just make it them absolutely feel that sting of making that choice?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 5:32 pm to Juice318
It would be interesting to know if Oregon’s potential contract came up in Seaton’s negotiations.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 6:37 pm to Havoc
He signed the contract knowing this language was in it. Not duke’s fault. If he didn’t agree to the terms don’t sign.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 6:40 pm to bayouboo
Not if all the conferences stick together. Bc it’s not a sec or big 10 problem. It’s a college football problem. In the nfl a player just can’t go to another team just bc they are offering more money.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 7:10 pm to PonchaTiger
quote:
My opinion is some of the liquidated damage clauses are punitive and as such would not be enforceable.
Not a lawyer but penalty anything more than prorated share of income for service time seems punitive
Aka $2m deal kid serves 6 months of 12month max liquidation should be $1m
Posted on 1/20/26 at 7:52 pm to Tiger2tiga
quote:
Not if all the conferences stick together. Bc it’s not a sec or big 10 problem. It’s a college football problem. In the nfl a player just can’t go to another team just bc they are offering more money.
That’s not enough. The only way to fix this in a way that will stand up in court is for players to become employees and there to be a collective bargaining agreement.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 7:55 pm to Tiger2tiga
The NFL is pay for play. They are employees. That is the difference.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:25 pm to Tiger2tiga
quote:yea man that’s not allowed. Been paying attention the last several years?
Not if all the conferences stick together.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:29 pm to Ebridg3
I’m sure nothing builds morale in the locker room like the university suing players. Unreal how dumb some of these schools are.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:29 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
exactly what you have to do with to earn that money
Which means this is 2-way street!
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:32 pm to jrobic4
yes it is
the players play football
the universities pay them for it
that’s 2 ways.
everything else is beyond that.
you have a job. you likely have the same deal
the players play football
the universities pay them for it
that’s 2 ways.
everything else is beyond that.
you have a job. you likely have the same deal
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News