Started By
Message
re: The agreement Demond Williams signed with Washington included a provision. Uh oh, LSU.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:54 pm to BCreed1
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:54 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Just laws of the land.
the law of the land (the state of Washington) specifically does not allow pay for play. SInce you ignored it the first time it was posted, I'll spoon feed it to you again
quote:
College athletes may not use colleges', conferences', or athletic associations' intellectual property in college athletes' NIL activities unless permitted under intellectual property law and approved by the organization in question. NIL compensation may not attempt to influence the college athlete to attend, continue attending, or transfer to a college or college in a conference. NIL compensation must be for use of a college athlete's name, image, or likeness or for work actually performed, and may not include compensation for the college athlete's enrollment at a specific institution or participation in an intercollegiate sport.
This was a bill from the Washington legislature that was adopted in June of 2024. That is the law of the land. That is what the Court will consider. Now, knowing what the law of the land is, do you think Washington and Williams entered into an enforceable contract, at least the terms preventing him from transferring?
0
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:54 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
He should have to pay his NIL back
Except they haven’t paid any of the 5-day old agreement yet, so that’s moot.
They can take it to court if they want, they’ll ultimately lose & in either scenario it won’t stop him from enrolling at LSU & playing ball.
Worst case scenario someone has to pay damages. I’m interested to know what the damages would be for an unpaid & unenforceable agreement that cost them 5 portal days.
It’s also interesting that UW is in contact with Fifita’s agent… Fifita recently reupped with AZ & is not officially in the portal.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:55 pm to BCreed1
The good thing is that Lane will be able to make time for depositions, trial prep, etc.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:55 pm to BCreed1
quote:
He can be held to that contract.
The non-transfer clause is absolutely invalid.
The right to transfer has already been settled. There is prevailing legal precedent for this,
The universities cannot avoid the athletes right to enter transfer portal with a contract clause
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:57 pm to stitchop
quote:
I am a contract lawyer with 27 years of experience.
Cool story.
Did you know that the NCAA won in court many many times (aka Precedent) before they lost and we now have NIL?
Yes you do.
Again, if Washington wants it to go to court, it will. I personally hope they do. we need resolution to all of this crap.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:57 pm to BCreed1
I have not seen the contract. I am responding simply to your assertion that there is something in the contact binding him to UW, That would violate the13th amendment. There is absolutely nothing UW can do to keep him from leaving and enrolling at LSU and the NCAA has no ability to enforce NIL contracts, so he could absolutely play in the fall. UW can try to sue for damages, but even if they won that he would just have to pay back what he had already been paid at worst, and he would be making excess of that with his new deal.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:57 pm to BCreed1
quote:
A court is going to end up deciding this.
The courts have already decided the athletes rights to transfer
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:58 pm to WildcatMike
quote:
Hold him accountable of a signed contract.
This.
The amount of twitter lawyers in this thread is pretty hilarious
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:59 pm to AGGIES
And what do you think this mystery court will come to?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:59 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
If part of the contract is illegal, the whole thing is null and void
Sorry this isn’t true
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:59 pm to GTnerd
quote:
Honestly, what's stopping any college athlete from doing this that wants to at the beginning of each semester?
Nothing
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:01 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
The amount of twitter lawyers in this thread is pretty hilarious
Well, you could just read the opinion of the lawyer that actually defended the case of Miami versus Wisconsin player.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:02 pm to Henry Jones Jr
It ain’t going to court. Sorry for your optimism.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:02 pm to GhostofAlfredBlue
Mystery court? Lol. Always with the jokes…
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:03 pm to WildcatMike
quote:
WildcatMike
Since its a wildcat mike post, i wont read it and ill just take it as a good thing for LSU.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:03 pm to GhostofAlfredBlue
quote:
its not a contract.
No? Washington says differently. It all centers around the revenue-sharing contract he signed with the school.
One prominent NIL attorney: "This isn't like it was when you were dealing with collectives and funneling money. You are now dealing with legitimate contracts and legitimate attorneys or general counsel from major universities. The stakes are larger, which means the liability is greater.
"If you don't have real attorneys from the players' side reviewing your contract, you're opening yourself to potential litigation."
So... It appears to be just that. A contract.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:03 pm to stitchop
quote:
Some contracts are rendered void because they violate public policy, even if their subject matter is not explicitly illegal. Public policy represents the broad principles and societal norms that are considered beneficial to the public good. A contract is against public policy if its enforcement would be detrimental to society or undermine the integrity of social institutions.
Common examples of contracts that violate public policy include agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. An overly broad non-compete agreement that prevents an individual from working in their profession across a wide geographic area for an excessive period may be void. Other unenforceable agreements include those that promote divorce, interfere with the administration of justice, or involve bribing a public official.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:04 pm to BCreed1
quote:
You have no idea what a court will rule.
We do know what the court will rule.
The court has already ruled that athletes have a legal right to transfer and universities, conferences and NCAA cannot prevent athletes from transferring.
The contract in question would prevent the athletes from transferring for two years. This clause will certainly be voided. It has absolutely no legal binding
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:06 pm to stitchop
quote:
The non-transfer clause is absolutely invalid.
The right to transfer has already been settled.
Again. It was precedent until it was not and changed. The same thing is eventually going to happen with NIL.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:07 pm to BCreed1
[embed]https://businessofcollegesports.com/other/the-brewing-contract-battle-between-demond-williams-jr-and-washington/[/embed]
This was broken down very specifically. Demond is pretty much screwed. His agent messed up big time.
This was broken down very specifically. Demond is pretty much screwed. His agent messed up big time.
Page 5 of 13
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News