Started By
Message
NIL nontransfer clauses are null and void
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:50 am
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:50 am
From ESPN,
The pending case promises to be an interesting test of whether schools can use name, image and likeness deals to keep athletes from transferring
From NCAA (on portal),
This system was designed to promote fair competition and athlete welfare by eliminating barriers to mobility, effectively rendering any contractual attempts to "lock in" players obsolete. Non-compete clauses (which bar athletes from joining rival programs) or exclusivity provisions (which limit NIL deals to one school or collective) directly undermine this framework. They function as de facto restraints on trade, conflicting with the portal's intent to treat transfers as a fundamental right.
The pending case promises to be an interesting test of whether schools can use name, image and likeness deals to keep athletes from transferring
From NCAA (on portal),
This system was designed to promote fair competition and athlete welfare by eliminating barriers to mobility, effectively rendering any contractual attempts to "lock in" players obsolete. Non-compete clauses (which bar athletes from joining rival programs) or exclusivity provisions (which limit NIL deals to one school or collective) directly undermine this framework. They function as de facto restraints on trade, conflicting with the portal's intent to treat transfers as a fundamental right.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 10:22 am
12
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:51 am to stitchop
NIL and Rev Share are different.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:53 am to stitchop
The legal foundation of the Wisconsin lawsuit is fatally flawed in that the underlying premise of the contract is itself an attempt to deprive the athletes their opportunity to transfer.
From NCAA,
NCAA guidelines explicitly prohibit NIL compensation from being used as an inducement to attend, remain at, or perform for a specific school—a rule upheld even after the 2024 federal injunction barring enforcement of certain recruiting restrictions.2261f4b271e9 Non-compete and exclusivity clauses violate this by making payments contingent on non-transfer, often through liquidated damages or clawbacks that kick in upon entry into the portal.
From NCAA,
NCAA guidelines explicitly prohibit NIL compensation from being used as an inducement to attend, remain at, or perform for a specific school—a rule upheld even after the 2024 federal injunction barring enforcement of certain recruiting restrictions.2261f4b271e9 Non-compete and exclusivity clauses violate this by making payments contingent on non-transfer, often through liquidated damages or clawbacks that kick in upon entry into the portal.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:56 am to stitchop
Trying to contractually lock players down would violate the intent but can players be held financially liable witn a contact paying them be for a set time which if cut short result in having to pay back for services not rendered?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:56 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
NIL and Rev Share are different
First point,
They are the same, Rev Share is part of NIL
Second point,
Even if the Rev sharing was separate from NIL, schools are absolutely bared from using anything that denies an athlete from entering the portal
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:58 am to stitchop
They should be able to transfer if they want but their NIL deals that were tied to the university should be null and void and the athlete should pay back the balance just like you would with any professional contract in the business world.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 9:58 am to stitchop
when judges and the federal govt got involved you knew shite would get stupid.
The courts keep arguing that you can't stop the portal because it imedes an athlete's "ability to earn". bullshite! They can earn all they want at the school they signed with!
The courts keep arguing that you can't stop the portal because it imedes an athlete's "ability to earn". bullshite! They can earn all they want at the school they signed with!
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:00 am to JacieNY
The
This is a sticky question, because the services rendered cannot include playing the sport. The services rendered are the athletes Name, Image, Likness.
The athletes can be liable for any prepayments made, but that argument is going to be case by case
quote:
pay back for services not rendered
This is a sticky question, because the services rendered cannot include playing the sport. The services rendered are the athletes Name, Image, Likness.
The athletes can be liable for any prepayments made, but that argument is going to be case by case
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:03 am to theballguy
quote:
theballguy
The problem is that these are not like "any professional contract in the business world."
There's no legal precedents or other contractual circumstances that compare
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:05 am to stitchop
“I really don’t see why a program like Texas, Texas Tech, uga, bamma wouldn’t:
Get in the playoffs
Learn who they are playing
Buy key players off the opposing team to ensure you win/they lose
Players should be free to transfer, after all.
Get in the playoffs
Learn who they are playing
Buy key players off the opposing team to ensure you win/they lose
Players should be free to transfer, after all.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:06 am to stitchop
quote:
First point,
They are the same, Rev Share is part of NIL
No NIL is an individual athlete's ability to get paid for their Name, Image and Likeness and must be approved through NILGo.
Rev Share is the 18 Million each SEC school has to pay its players for doing nothing but playing football.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:11 am to stitchop
Another important legal construct to consider when examining Non-compete, non- transfer clauses is that they must meet established legal standards. The clauses have to be reasonable and also allow the effected party the opportunity to earn.
Clauses similar to the Wisconsin contract that would prevent the athletes from playing for any school are routinely struck down.
Clauses similar to the Wisconsin contract that would prevent the athletes from playing for any school are routinely struck down.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:13 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
No NIL is an individual athlete's
Please learn, read, research
Rev Share is part of the NIL
The entire suit that started Rev Share is based on the schools earning off of the athletes name image and likeness, but not sharing that revenue
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:13 am to stitchop
quote:
nun and void
nun?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:15 am to stitchop
quote:
Please learn, read, research
Rev Share is part of the NIL
The entire suit that started Rev Share is based on the schools earning off of the athletes name image and likeness, but not sharing that revenue
Ok but they are viewed differently. Rev Share is based on TV rights deals and players have to do nothing to received that money.
NIL money must go though NILGo and must be market value for the player and must show that they are doing something to get paid.
Doesn't matter where it came from it is 2 different things. .
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:16 am to ArabianKnight
I think he meant “priest and void.”
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:21 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
03 West CoChamps
Again, read, research
It's not hard.
The money from TV rights, etc were determined in court to be party if not mostly because of the players, name, image, likeness, performance.
The agreement is that the athletes themselves should have a part of that revenue.
The separate suit based on independent earnings from NIL were the legal foundation of the rev Share.
The money comes from different pots, but all based on the fact that the athlete is the biggest reason for the revenue
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:22 am to stitchop
quote:
The money from TV rights, etc were determined in court to be party if not mostly because of the players, name, image, likeness, performance.
The agreement is that the athletes themselves should have a part of that revenue.
The separate suit based on independent earnings from NIL were the legal foundation of the rev Share.
The money comes from different pots, but all based on the fact that the athlete is the biggest reason for the revenue
WTF are you trying to say? My argument is the Washington QB signed a Rev Share contract which is new as of July 1st 2025. Previously it was NIL agreements with collectives. That may be binding. We don't know yet.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:25 am to stitchop
I am a contract attorney with 27 years experience, this stuff is my expertise.
I have battled in court, arbitration, contract negotiations, for labor unions, corporations, LLC , you name it.
I've been through contractual law, looking at court rulings for 27 years.
I have battled in court, arbitration, contract negotiations, for labor unions, corporations, LLC , you name it.
I've been through contractual law, looking at court rulings for 27 years.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:26 am to stitchop
quote:
First point,
They are the same, Rev Share is part of NIL
Yes and No. The House settlement now allows colleges to directly pay athletes via revenue sharing. There is a cap and I guess you can say these direct payments are tied somehow to NIL. But NIL via 3rd party having nothing to do with the House settlement. There is no cap on that, but they still have to get approved via a third-party clearinghouse that will determine if fair market value is being applied.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News