re: Ole Miss files lawsuit against two LSU players

quote:

---

If I remember right from Pete’s presser though there are a few more than just these two that went to LSU.

---

These were the only two that were under a rev share agreement that transferred from Ole Miss.

The ultimate pussy move by the ultimate little brother university

You must be a POS also. Hope OM skins those boys back.
Also hope Clemson skins OM back.
This crap is WAY out of control..Time to make an example out of a few.

quote:

---

If it’s even possible for an LSU to look at this objectively, they could easily see that OM should receive money. Every single person on this board is sick of players going to schools and then leaving for more money at the last minute after signing with said school. Apparently if it’s an LSU player they don’t give a shite, but UGA was the first to sue a player for doing this.

Everyone should be completely fine with these players paying money for doing this shite, and if you’re okay with the downfall of cfb just because your school got some recruits, then you are a shitty person

---

UGA signed for an NIL issue where money had already been paid out.

This is different.

quote:

---

What's the fantasy here? Ole Miss has no legal grounds to pursue litigation yet it's litigation department is plowing full steam ahead anyways?

---

These are the first revenue share lawsuits, no one really knows the landscape so both sides are going to push a precedent to be set.

quote:

---

It's basic contract law, dude. That's where you are missing the point. Take the fact that they are football players out of it. There is a contract. There is a list of penalties and a dollar figure attached to those penalties. When someone signs a contract, they are agreeing to these penalties. The court is going to take 5 seconds to look at the contract and they will render a judgement. Stop being such a kool-aid drinking homer.

---

Sure, but is that contract hindering the players from maximizing their earnings?

The issue isn't if the contract exists, it's if it's legal.

If you weren't such a Kool Aid drinking homer, you'd acknowledge there may be difficulties with placing a buyout on an exclusivity contract where the individual has received no payment and isn't an employee.

NCAA guidelines regarding revenue sharing and buyouts for all of the message board attorneys on here....

quote:

---

I've never heard of an independent contractor having to pay a "buyout" to be released from a contract where they've received no payment. Perhaps it happens though, I don't know.

---

It does.

Normally it’s termed penalties for not
adhering to terms of the contract.

quote:

---

The court is going to take 5 seconds to look at the contract and they will render a judgement.

---

Not necessarily. The court has several factors to take into account that may affect the degree of financial responsibility.

Under contract law, liquidated damages are only legal if they represent a reasonable estimate of actual financial harm. Ole Miss would have to prove the value of replacing them and harm suffered through the period of roster destabilization to justify the agreed "buyout."

Next, courts have been hostile toward rules or agreements restricting an athlete’s economic mobility. Placing potential pressure on players to sign these agreements and their exorbitant exit terms could be viewed by the court as the creation of an illegal non-compete clause.

To Sidewalk's point, a valid contract requires consideration (something of value given by both sides). The suit shows the players signed these agreements in early Jan 2026 and entered the portal just days later. If the players received no tangible financial benefit from OM under that revenue sharing extension agreement, the contract may be ruled void.

There are a variety of other ways the final cost may be reduced or mitigated, as well. But, the point is there is nothing certain or open and shut in contractual law or court cases in general.

IMO, most likely scenario is a negotiated settlement and it never sees court. If it goes to court, I could see the judge ruling that the actual losses to UM do not justify the price tag and he orders a reduced debt to be paid. The wildcard would be the judge ruling the contract was a violation of law due to restriction in mobility or its creation of an unjust penalty clause, and the players walk away free and clear.

At the end of the day, the whole thing mirrors the evolution of college sports. It is ugly and detrimental to the overall value and fan interest of the sport

we all know LSU rev share is max out just by the way the LSU talking heads talking about the roster etc..