Wisconsin sues UMiami for contract interference in player transfer kerfuffle.

[BamaNation]

Wisconsin sues Miami for tampering with transfer

Wisconsin has filed a lawsuit claiming that the Miami football team broke the law by tampering with a Badgers player.

www.espn.com

Here’s hoping the Badgers win and it begins to put some enforceable sanity back into this thing.

hope they win and player is declared ineligible for this season.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Excellent move by the Badgers. I hadn't considered this angle. It might mean that going forward, all pay-for-play contracts will be for four years. I'm also guessing that schools will start including buyout clauses in the case of transfer and enforcing them.

Or, as the cynic in the back of my mind is telling me, it might just mean they get better at covering up tampering.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Excellent move by the Badgers. I hadn't considered this angle. It might mean that going forward, all pay-for-play contracts will be for four years. I'm also guessing that schools will start including buyout clauses in the case of transfer and enforcing them.

Or, as the cynic in the back of my mind is telling me, it might just mean they get better at covering up tampering.

However, according to several contracts between Big Ten schools and their players that ESPN has previously reviewed, these deals explicitly state that athletes are not being paid to play football for the university. Since the school is technically paying only to use the player's NIL rights, it's not clear if a judge will consider it fair to enforce a part of the contract that dictates where the player attends school.

Here’s the loophole

 

[Bazza]

Welcome to the big leagues!

 

[Joefus]

However, according to several contracts between Big Ten schools and their players that ESPN has previously reviewed, these deals explicitly state that athletes are not being paid to play football for the university. Since the school is technically paying only to use the player's NIL rights, it's not clear if a judge will consider it fair to enforce a part of the contract that dictates where the player attends school.

Here’s the loophole

Could they sue for all monies paid to his NIL this year? If they had to forfeit that it would be pretty discouraging to people wanting to transfer

 

[4Q Basket Case]

However, according to several contracts between Big Ten schools and their players that ESPN has previously reviewed, these deals explicitly state that athletes are not being paid to play football for the university. Since the school is technically paying only to use the player's NIL rights, it's not clear if a judge will consider it fair to enforce a part of the contract that dictates where the player attends school.

Here’s the loophole

Well, looks like Wisky might lose this one. A contract's a contract and the wording cited might ace them out of the claim against the U.

I guess that verbiage was included to comply with the former NCAA rule against the school paying players directly. Now that that's legal, I'm guessing future contracts will be worded accordingly. Also guessing they will be multi-year with mutual buyouts, much like coaching contracts.

I'm also guessing that the wording of contracts might get to be a recruiting tool. Just one example would be: School A offers $500K/year but has a $500K buyout. School B also offers $500K but doesn't have a buyout.

The permutations around amount of compensation, length of contract, buyout terms, etc., etc. are endless. I'd bet a bunch of money that they're going to get more and more like professional contracts -- a lot of standard boiler plate, but specific terms tailored to the desires of the individual player.

Which is yet another reason why a CBA is the only sane solution to this mess.