Billy Mays

quote:

---

Could you list them? Paywall in the way and the site I use can't remove it for some reason

---

quote:

---

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

---