There aren’t any rules now that protect universities really. He signed a poorly worded contract that really can’t be enforced. So what do schools actually have to retain players?
-
Welcome to The Platinum Board! We are a Nebraska Cornhuskers news source and community. Please click "Log In" or "Register" above to gain access to the forums.
2025-26 #PortalSZN Thread
- Thread starter Fargo Husker
- Start date
Schedule detail
There aren’t any rules now that protect universities really. He signed a poorly worded contract that really can’t be enforced. So what do schools actually have to retain players?
agree on this. The damages can't be that high because Washington is relieved from paying.
But Desmond did willingly agree to it, and he (presumably) had access to competent advice from his agent. That makes it different from a lot of outrageous employer/employee situations in which you can argue some kind of coercion.
They’ll publicly posture and quietly settle.
But is this an employee/employer situation ?
you don't think his agent reviewed and commented on the agreement? There is likely a good argument it was bargained for given that the rumor is Desmond would have been one of the 2-3 highest paid guys in college football when he signed (i.e., he was willing to make departure onerous to get the payday).
Precisely - it's not. It would give Desmond a better argument if he was like a lot a people who are forced to sign things just to get a job. His case is weaker because this was a struck bargain.
I doubt they do, honestly.
This is like a classic 1L Contracts hypo situation here. I’m not saying anything that ground breaking. The liquidated damages are really not close to whatever economic damages Washington would have from a breach IMO, which is the major threshold for enforceability. And I doubt that the B1G would want to go to court and find out (think about the follow on effects for every other NIL/rev share agreement if the case goes against Washington).
This is all basically just a starting point for negotiations on a settlement.
I’m not sure. There is a ton of case law I could point to where courts don’t like to enforce liquidated damages provisions.
The only real solution to this is to make the players employees but the schools and NCAA don’t what that.
Collective bargaining is the only real solution IMO, but that would require the schools to give up more control.
NIL agreements can’t functionally bind athletes to schools at the moment. The buyout being at the sole discretion of the university will not stand. Attempting to restrict movement brings into question anti-trust liabilities. Attempting to bind labor to one institution I believe will also bring into question restraint of trade.
Truth be told, until there is an anti-trust granted to the NCAA and a players union I really don’t know that NIL agreements mean anythinf other than they agree to pay an athlete X dollars
It’s the best way IMO because then you’ll also get agents who are approved like in the NFL to avoid predators and bad actors.
There also seems to be about 5 guys who run the entire market here.
I'm guessing this has an arbitration clause. Not sure how that would be set up.
we don't know if this is a NIL agreement. It is with the school, and we can't see the definition of consideration that applies to this agreement.
Strong agree. Washington would be entitled to recoup whatever money they’ve actually paid him under the contract, and I think that’s a fair result, but anything else would get thrown in the trash.
If I was advising Washington, I’d just quickly try to reach a confidential settlement. The schools continually get their asses kicked in court and they don’t need any more bad case law out there.
Maybe but the arbitrator is still bound by whatever the law says.
Feldman said on the Audible that he understood the agent wasn’t involved in the decision to transfer - I think he said a family member instigated it.
No way this guy would burn Jedd Fisch. Fisch is going to make a fortune on his next deal.
Similar threads
