No End in Sight for College Sports Legal Battles Over Contracts and Eligibility
Legal experts are warning that the stream of lawsuits over athlete compensation and eligibility in college sports shows no signs of abating. Without comprehensive federal legislation or a complete structural overhaul, schools and athletes will continue to clash in courtrooms across the United States.
Contract Disputes and Transfer Portal Controversies
Recent months have seen prominent universities filing lawsuits against their own athletes. Duke and Cincinnati have both taken legal action against their quarterbacks, alleging breaches of revenue-sharing contracts when the players entered the transfer portal. Washington University similarly threatened legal action against its quarterback before the athlete returned to the team.
These cases highlight the growing tension between athletes seeking better opportunities and schools protecting their investments. The lawsuits typically demand significant financial damages for alleged contract violations, with Cincinnati seeking $1 million from quarterback Brandon Sorsby after he transferred to Texas Tech.
Eligibility Challenges Mount
A separate wave of litigation focuses on eligibility rules. Athletes including Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia in 2024 and Virginia's Chandler Morris more recently have filed lawsuits challenging the traditional limits on how long they can compete in college sports. These athletes seek to extend their playing careers to maximize earning potential through name, image, and likeness deals and revenue sharing.
University of Illinois labor and sports law professor Michael LeRoy noted the irony that the House vs. NCAA settlement, which allowed schools to directly pay athletes, was supposed to bring stability to college sports. Instead, it has unleashed a new era of legal challenges.
The Contract Law Complications
The legal battles reveal fundamental questions about how contract law applies to college athletes. Philadelphia attorney Andrew Hope, who specializes in contract law and works with schools on NIL matters, explained that liquidated damages provisions in revenue-sharing contracts are meant to estimate actual losses from breaches, not to punish athletes.
However, athletes argue these provisions don't accurately reflect the true loss to schools when players transfer, since the contracts pay for NIL rights rather than athletic performance. This creates a legal gray area that courts are increasingly being asked to resolve.
Three Potential Solutions
Sports attorney Mit Winter, based in Kansas City, Missouri, outlined three possible paths to resolving the eligibility disputes:
- Federal Antitrust Exemption: Congress could pass legislation like the SCORE Act to give the NCAA protection from antitrust challenges, though the bill's future remains uncertain.
- Supreme Court Intervention: The high court could uphold NCAA eligibility rules, though its 9-0 ruling against the NCAA in 2021 suggests this outcome is unlikely.
- Collective Bargaining: If athletes were recognized as employees and unionized, eligibility rules could be negotiated rather than litigated.
The Employee Status Question
Winter predicted that football and basketball players in major conferences will eventually be considered employees, a development that would fundamentally change college sports. Some athletic directors and coaches are already warming to this idea, though the NCAA remains firmly opposed.
If major conferences break away from the NCAA, collective bargaining could settle not just eligibility questions but numerous other issues that have become legal gray areas in modern college athletics.
As private equity firms show increasing interest in college sports and the financial stakes continue to rise, the legal battles over contracts and eligibility appear destined to continue until fundamental structural changes are implemented.
