I don't think it's that simple.
But I guess if schools are allowed to boot players after a contract was signed for any reason at any moment, then at least it would be fair.
Washington QB Demond Williams wants to enter transfer portal after re-signing with the Huskies
- Thread starter Bigred2467
- Start date
But I guess if schools are allowed to boot players after a contract was signed for any reason at any moment, then at least it would be fair.
Was pretty good before, you have to sit out a year unless you already graduated.
Fair enough but I have a better idea, why don't we just get rid of college kids playing football and pay men to represent schools on Saturdays for entertainment purposes only. I half kid but it is what this whole thing has turned into. It's really not about education anymore other than kids coming out of high school and learning about the almighty dollar and ones worth. Of course there would be lawsuits from the professional leagues but what's new, I can actually see this happing with professionals representing your school if this thing isn't corrected at some point.
Then the question becomes do you even want the guy on your roster anymore?
So stupid, what do they want, him to comeback now? Idiots.
States should make it illegal? Like, criminal charges for talking to someone?
You might be a commie.
You probably don’t want them on your team anymore, but I could see a scenario where the school they transfer to owes their former school damages. Just like when a coach leaves for a new job before his contract is up.
He's not staying, but the school is now late to the party. If there is proof of tortuous interference there should be compensatory damages. Slight possibility of punitive damages, but unlikely. They might seek punitive damages by proving the rival school acted with actual malice to induce the player to break his existing legal contract. Kiffin wouldn't do that.... can they prove it. But I think schools should get compensatory damages when it happens, and the school thought they had their qb in place and now have to see who's left.
Just have players sign contracts with the schools already. Whether it's for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years, whatever...and have buyout amounts that the new school must pay if a player leaves for another school before their contract ends.
The current system is crazy and unsustainable.
The "agreement" is what appears to be in question. Is it verbal or written? Agreeing to something in principle is enforceable but if it's millions of dollars, it should always be written and secured with a positive attestation by all valid parties.
Was the agreement between the player and the NIL sponsor and/or facilitator?
Did he sign new paperwork to renew his scholarship at Washington?
A lot of variables muddy up the water. No one has come out and provided specifics.
Was the agreement between the player and the NIL sponsor and/or facilitator?
Did he sign new paperwork to renew his scholarship at Washington?
A lot of variables muddy up the water. No one has come out and provided specifics.
No, but I'm suing the team he went to and his agent at a minimum, assuming a contract was signed.
That last sentence pretty much sums up all that is wrong with this sports dystopia we are living in.
Simple business? Reneging on a signed contract is not simple business unless you are a dishonest broker. There is a reason that there are laws against violating signed agreements. A business can't operate if even signed agreements mean nothing.
So WIlliams signed the same B1G Contract that Xavier Lucas signed last year which led Wisconsin to suing Miami earlier this year.
Xavier Lucas Lawsuit, Wisconsin Sues Miami For $10M+ Over Tampering—What Actually Happened With The Transfer Portal Drama
Xavier Lucas Lawsuit, Wisconsin Sues Miami For $10M+ Over Tampering—What Actually Happened With The Transfer Portal Drama
This player was likely never paid anything from his deal yet. If he has, then yes the school may have an actual grievance. Shows the stupidity of paying college kids upfront.
Right, and probably claims to be a conservative too.
The only way I can see it being tortuous interference is if the school already actually made a payment to the player. If so, LSU should have done more due diligence with this player as he will cause more headaches than he's worth. Who knows with college kids... might have thought he could take the money and run.
Exactly, just make it like MLB no need for college students to play for pay just have professionals play each Saturday at your college for pure entertainment. I'm sure you could recruit kids right out of HS to play for these teams and develop them or let kids try out for teams that go to college but just don't get paid by the colleges but rather by the teams they try out for.
It's about time people realize college athletics is no longer about education it's about getting in line for a ride for a payday. There has to be a separation between amateurism and professionalism in college athletics and I'm afraid those judges in black robes ruined college sports forever not realizing fully the ramifications of their ruling or judgement.
In this case if no money has been paid yet, it's just a simple contract breach and so is effectively void. Then it seems to become an NCAA or conference issue on whether the player is eligible to transfer and play or not.
Jesus H... that seems fairly concise. Whoever is or is not representing that kid is a giant moron.
Well now we know you can’t practice law in your sleep. It only sounds like you were asleep when you uttered this opinion (and the one below re: void contracts).
Wrong. It's called consideration. Contracts are enforceable even if agreed upon services have not yet been provided or money paid.
Explain how it would be tortuous interference if the player wasn't paid? The part about voided contract did get ahead of the game a bit. Really in the scenario I was presenting, it's a breach of contract with no monetary damages, so if that was in fact the scenario, nothing will likely happen regardless if UW kicks and screams about it.
What discussion of consideration do you think is relevant here? In the scenario I presented where no monetary exchange had taken place yet and thus no damages, the contract will likely be rescinded, terminated, or unenforced. Which might be anticlimactic for some, but really quite a boring outcome for the layperson.
You are so far afield, you’re mixing concepts of a breach of contract by the player with interference by the other university, and the separate damages each causes. I’m not here to teach you remedies or the elements of a tortious interference claim, google it and figure it out yourself.
Couple of points from an attorney:
- Breach of contract can exist even if there has been merely the agreed exchange of promises with performance pending. While there is a duty to mitigate damages (such as a sign a replacement QB out of the portal), damages can still exist.
- Tortious interference with contractual relations requires the existence of a contract, not that the contract has already been performed
-Tortious interference with prospective economic relations does not require the existence of an enforceable contract at all, just an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in economic benefit which was interrupted by unfair competition.
- Breach of contract can exist even if there has been merely the agreed exchange of promises with performance pending. While there is a duty to mitigate damages (such as a sign a replacement QB out of the portal), damages can still exist.
- Tortious interference with contractual relations requires the existence of a contract, not that the contract has already been performed
-Tortious interference with prospective economic relations does not require the existence of an enforceable contract at all, just an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in economic benefit which was interrupted by unfair competition.
So, by my count, we need a contracts guy, a civil guy and a constitutional guy. Lots of billable hours.
So you're suggesting the several lawyers LSU had access to didn't consider any of this? I'm not confusing anything. Neither breach of contract nor tortious interference in this case represent monetary damages in the scenario I presented. And thus in laymen's terms nothing consequential will happen regardless of the specific route taken in regards to the contract, that is if the scenario presented is actually what happened.
Coaches have been signing so-called contract extensions for years that include carefully worded off-ramps allowing them to leave for a better offer. Meanwhile, if they fail to meet expectations, the school is still on the hook for their whole golden parachute. Why should we be surprised that players want the same lopsided terms?
With regard to your first point, NIL obligations do not work this way. And your other points are irrelevant.
To be fair, I don't think Oldjar ever claimed to be a lawyer or legal scholar. Just an economist, an accountant, and a military strategy expert.
I have learned in the past week that “commitments” mean nothing in today’s college sports and perhaps “signing” too. We will not really know who is on next seasons team until the portal closes.
You mean those same LSU lawyers who told the administration that claiming they hadn’t actually fired Brian Kelly in November, would work. And they then could claim that they were now terminating him for cause. Yeah, I don’t think I would trust those lawyers. Brian filed a lawsuit and LSU quickly decided they would pay the full buyout amount and the lawsuit was dropped.
Player broke the rules. Seems very similar to a non-compete in some respects. He is disqualified for the season. Can apply for reinstatement after the conclusion of the 2026 season.
Tampering school broke the rules. They forfeit the amount they committed to the player in the form of a fine. Money goes to CTE research, other football related philanthropic efforts.
Agent broke the rules. Fined and suspended for one year. Next violation, permanent ban.
Tampering school broke the rules. They forfeit the amount they committed to the player in the form of a fine. Money goes to CTE research, other football related philanthropic efforts.
Agent broke the rules. Fined and suspended for one year. Next violation, permanent ban.
Under the State of Washington law, the University of Washington can recover a lot more than just what they have paid out under that deal he signed last week. First things first, they could file temporary injunction will keep him from going to another school. Then it would be a straight forward breach of contract case under state law against the player who signed. There would also be an intentional interference with contract claim against his agent. Plus, a potential fraud in the inducement case against both the player & agent. What would probably come about through discovery would be a case for interference with a business relationship against LSU and, perhaps, Kiffin personally.
I doubt the university would pursue such action because it would make them unattractive to future recruits, but this is the type of case that could lead to congress addressing the concerns.