Started By
Message
re: Mizzou’s Damon Wilson takes Georgia to court
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:41 am to CelticTiger
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:41 am to CelticTiger
quote:
if the kid just decided he just didn’t want to play football and decided to take a job at McDonald’s instead, do you think UGA would prevail in pursuing liquidated damages?
But, that's not what happened. he went with a direct competitor, and that is what will determine the outcome. That and if he signed a contract.
quote:By tyig up money that could have been used on one or more other players, he essentially took away revenue producing clients away from Georgia. I mean, we g to see the players play, which in turn produces revenue, and he tied up money that could have been used by Georgia on other revenue producing clients.
Non-competes have been getting clobbered in the courts. And when they are upheld it’s usually because the employee took revenue producing clients with him.
quote:
Plus, the schools want desperately not to have the athlete viewed as an employee.
The players lost that protection when they demanded pay. When you pay someone of goods or services they in fact are employees. The players can't have it both ways...and neither can the schools. Players are, in fact compensated through pay, insurance, medical care, food, housing and tuition. Shoot, they are compensated far above an average employee.
quote:Agreed.
This solution needs to come through legislation of some sort with the SCOTUS ruling out there. I think the recent lawsuit settlement did not adequately address NIL going forward.
1
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:58 pm to MizzouTrue
quote:
We’ll see who wins
Accepting a partial payment and keeping it while entering the portal establishes an installment contract obligation.
If Mizzou played an ineligible player, you are possibly looking at vacating your wins this season.
It looks like this lawyer in Boone County may end up screwing over the university by establishing ineligibility.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:07 pm to Chip82
Don't think so chipper
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:20 pm to Faurot fodder
quote:
Don't think so
A legally established Installment contract based on Georgia codes.
All funds were transferred within the State of Georgia which establishes jurisdiction.
The Columbia lawyer can claim "no contract" all day long, but his client already accepted a payment.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:36 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
The players lost that protection when they demanded pay.
Actually, they are paid from the collective for their likeness and representation. Then that was transferred to Georgia athletics. So he really wasn't an employee of Georgia athletics. It probably should be the collective that is suing in the first place.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:52 pm to MizzouTrue
Honestly, he'd have had a chance before Tennessee brought their suit where the NCAA rules still applied.
Now it's just going to be based on what the contract says. And I doubt UGA would be suing if they didn't have the contracts lined up.
Now it's just going to be based on what the contract says. And I doubt UGA would be suing if they didn't have the contracts lined up.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:02 pm to CelticTiger
quote:
UGA’s got a loser on this one.
Very doubtful.
Let's be honest here... this isn't UGA lawyers vs Mizzou lawyers. This is UGA lawyers vs whoever Damon Wilson hired. The reality is that UGA lawyers are much more likely to have the details of contract law correct in the state of Georgia than a lawyer hired by Damon Wilson
Wilson did a lot of things that are going to make it tough for him to win this. One, he's trying to argue (and sue for defamation) that UGA can't file civil charges against him. They quite obviously can. Contracts CAN be legally transferred and the Classic City Collective did exactly that to UGA. He's claiming a term sheet isn't a contract... but it is a contract. That's why you sign it. If it says you have to repay the remaining amount on the term sheet if you transfer... thems the rules. And him signing, cashing checks after signing and then transferring pretty much confirms the contract was broken intentionally and the damages specified in the contract are due.
UGA wouldn't be suing unless this were a pretty assured win.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:48 am to tpatten
quote:
Actually, they are paid from the collective for their likeness and representation. Then that was transferred to Georgia athletics. So he really wasn't an employee of Georgia athletics. It probably should be the collective that is suing in the first place.
Maybe, but the harm came to Georgia Athletics. And, I'm sure you believe that everything is working exactly as the rules dictate, because, after all, no football institution would break the rules, right?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News