Started By
Message
re: Ole Miss files lawsuit against two LSU players
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:00 pm to Billy Mays
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:00 pm to Billy Mays
quote:
The bottom line is that if the contract is written solely how OM reported it to be, then there is a breach of contract. So in layman's terms yeah it's a defacto penalty, but having a penalty for breach of contract is not unusual so I'm not sure what else needs to be debated.
The argument will not center on whether there has been a breach of contract. We know the contracts have buyout provisions and we know the players have not made payments under those buyout provisions and are, therefore, in breach. The question is whether the buyout provisions are enforceable. As already mentioned, many states disfavor non-compete clauses in employment contracts and will severely restrict them temporally and geographically. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the state of the law is in Mississippi is on non-competes, but I also know that the NCAA has gone to great lengths to find that players are NOT employees, so there may be even more reason for the courts to limit these buyout provisions, particularly when the player received absolutely zero compensation under the agreement.
With that said, this will be tried in a Mississippi court room in front of Ole Miss law grads, so LSU fans should not hold their breath.
2
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:08 pm to Saskwatch
This is directed towards the Ole Piss fans on this board reacting to a contract they have never read.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:25 pm to CJ786
quote:
CJ786
Circle Jerk 786
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:47 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The argument will not center on whether there has been a breach of contract. We know the contracts have buyout provisions and we know the players have not made payments under those buyout provisions and are, therefore, in breach. The question is whether the buyout provisions are enforceable. As already mentioned, many states disfavor non-compete clauses in employment contracts and will severely restrict them temporally and geographically. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the state of the law is in Mississippi is on non-competes, but I also know that the NCAA has gone to great lengths to find that players are NOT employees, so there may be even more reason for the courts to limit these buyout provisions, particularly when the player received absolutely zero compensation under the agreement.
With that said, this will be tried in a Mississippi court room in front of Ole Miss law grads, so LSU fans should not hold their breath.
Exactly. Some are just assuming it's an enforceable contract, and it may be.
But that isn't a foregone conclusion.
If the players received no compensation up front, it's a one sided buyout agreement that may or may not stand.
This post was edited on 7/29/26 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:59 pm to Projectpat
They are trying their hardest to drive the fans away.
It's a sad state of affairs.
It's a sad state of affairs.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 4:02 pm to stopitnow1
this isn't NIL you pop off at the mouth like you know what you're talking about but have no clue like most inbred LSU fans..
this is Rev Share contract. you have limited spots they signed and we can not give that money to current players. and that Rev share hit then goes to the team the transfer to LSU I'm this case.
so we had say 20 mil now only 18.
LSU had 20 mil say and dispersed to players the problem is now lsu will have to take Rev share hit for taking players.
and in the signed contract there was a buyout.
The NCAA came up with Rev share and initiated last year. again this is not NIL
this is Rev Share contract. you have limited spots they signed and we can not give that money to current players. and that Rev share hit then goes to the team the transfer to LSU I'm this case.
so we had say 20 mil now only 18.
LSU had 20 mil say and dispersed to players the problem is now lsu will have to take Rev share hit for taking players.
and in the signed contract there was a buyout.
The NCAA came up with Rev share and initiated last year. again this is not NIL
Posted on 7/29/26 at 4:16 pm to hubreb
Based on the comments we have to believe most LSU fans in this thread were unaware of the existence of contracts prior to this thread. The concept seems completely foreign to them. They are reacting like an uncontacted Amazon tribe seeing an airplane fly over for the first time.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 4:31 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
You are retarted
Never fails.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:16 pm to HailFreezusOver
quote:
This is really, really simple as is the language in the contracts. These are revenue sharing contracts with the school, not NIL contracts with a collective. The contracts in very simple language say that if the players break the contract and transfer, a specific amount of buyout is owed to the school by the player. It DOES NOT matter if the players had received any payments or not. In addition, if they break the contract and transfer, the school to which they transfer must also reduce its revenue sharing cap by the amount owed in buyouts. Google “buyouts” and the “House settlement.”
I would guess the sticking point is that the players either don’t want to or are unable to pay the buyouts and LSU does not have the cap space to adjust by over $900k after assembling a very expensive roster with contracts of their own.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:33 pm to HailFreezusOver
quote:
The contracts in very simple language say that if the players break the contract and transfer, a specific amount of buyout is owed to the school by the player. It DOES NOT matter if the players had received any payments or not.
It may not matter, specifically to the language of the contract.
It may absolutely matter if the legality of the contract is challenged.
There is a lot of interesting grey area in contract law as it pertains to independent contractors, especially if you're seeking financial damages when the other party received zero consideration.
I think people are overexaggerating a potential hit to the cap as that money could just be funneled through a booster as NIL payments.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:42 pm to That LSU Guy
quote:
I'm no lawyer,
My parents were married when I was born and I know who my father was.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:49 pm to TX Tea
quote:
Looks like they are not going to get to play this year...darn
Zero impact on eligibility
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:52 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
timeline
They reported they may litigate during the week before media days.
Did not file during media days when they would have been questioned, but waited until the week after Tampa.
Typical…
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:01 pm to JayAg
quote:
Schools have been winning these lawsuits
Which schools?
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:12 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
There is a lot of interesting grey area in contract law as it pertains to independent contractors, especially if you're seeking financial damages when the other party received zero consideration. I think people are overexaggerating a potential hit to the cap as that money could just be funneled through a booster as NIL payments.
Your mental gymnastics in this thread that LSU can do no wrong is quite the sight. Keep going.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:15 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Your mental gymnastics in this thread that LSU can do no wrong is quite the sight. Keep going.
Pot meet kettle...
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:23 pm to SidewalkTiger
well thought out. thanks for response.
additionally buy outs have to count against the receiving teams revenue share
additionally buy outs have to count against the receiving teams revenue share
quote:
What Happens on Transfer?
Contracts are individual and can include buyout / liquidated-damages / early-termination clauses.
The original school only counts against its cap the amounts it actually pays. Unpaid future installments drop off its cap.
If the contract has a buyout and the new school (or player) pays it, that buyout counts against the new school’s revenue-share cap in the year of the transfer. The original school does not get an increase in its own cap from receiving the money.
NCAA guidance explicitly states the receiving school “may not increase its benefits cap allowance” by the buyout amount.
Recent real-world example: In July 2026 Ole Miss sued two former players (Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper) who signed revenue-share deals in early January 2026, then entered the portal weeks later and followed Lane Kiffin to LSU. The school is seeking the contractual exit fees (~$550k and $400k). This illustrates that schools are actively enforcing these clauses in court.
Whether the player personally owes the money, the new school covers it, or it becomes a negotiation point varies by contract and situation. Third-party (collective) deals can have their own separate buyouts that do not automatically hit the institutional cap the same way.
Limitations and Penalties for the Receiving School
Cap hit: Yes—the buyout paid by the new school counts against its annual pool. This creates a real cost to “buying out” a player under contract and reduces money available for the rest of the roster.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:45 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Your mental gymnastics in this thread that LSU can do no wrong is quite the sight. Keep going.
I'd be interested to hear the mental gymnastics related to how you believe LSU can do "wrong" in this particular situation, as they aren't even involved.
This post was edited on 7/29/26 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:06 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
It may not matter, specifically to the language of the contract. It may absolutely matter if the legality of the contract is challenged.
Lmao
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:12 pm to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
Lmao
You better be careful, your fellow Rebels are going to start trashing you on your board again.
They were right, by the way....
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News