NIL non-compete question --
Maybe this is being done routinely now, but to what extent -- if any -- are buy-out, non-competition, etc. clauses being inserted into NIL contracts? Given that top players are now getting seven-figure deals, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the contract might include a clause that says that if a player goes to play somewhere else he owes the NIL money back. It's not much different from coaching buy-outs.
I don't see any obvious reason it would be illegal. NFL players get locked down to a team by contract, though obviously that's a collective bargaining agreement. Non-compete agreements are commonly enforced within reasonable limits.
--
"It's our blood and bones and these whistles and phones against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies."
I think there are distinctions here for rev share & NIL
NIL has been what has mostly governed for the last few years with Rev Share (I think) only starting last season. NIL Contracts are generally tied to some bogus reason like signing autographs or promoting some collective. As they were not specifically for playing football, the non-compete had some enforcement issues as the contract itself is not for playing football.
I think the Rev Share contracts now being signed specifically by the schools are for playing college football and likely more enforceable on non-compete. Mensah settled his dispute. Sorsby is in litigation and Desmond Williams elected to stay at Washington because of his contract and worries of a lawsuit.
Yes, but I think that for the more prominent players (and
by BillyGoat 
, At Thanksgiving with Joe Bethersontin, Tuesday, May 05, 2026, 10:17 (23 days ago) @ GloveND
the more likely to make a controversial move), the revenue share is a much smaller piece of their pie.
I'd love to get a better understanding of how that works...
by BillyGoat , At Thanksgiving with Joe Bethersontin, Tuesday, May 05, 2026, 08:46 (23 days ago) @ omahadomer
Because without it happening in the context of a CBA like pro sports, there are some significant issues.
1. Huge variations state to state regarding enforcing restrictive covenants. And undoubtedly an imbalance of bargaining power in the school/player relationship.
2. The supposed ban on "pay for play." This is where these agreements are reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaally threading a needle, IMO. Everyone knows the reality. But if the contract is going to be enforceable, it has to comply with the rules.
3. The pending question of whether student-athletes are employees.
On the one hand, this is all super-yucky and makes me objectively hate college football. It's such a disgusting amount of money. The NIL is bad enough. Then, remember that kids are getting paid to take visits. And presumably, if you want a kid to NOT take visits, you have to pay them for that, too.
On the other hand, basically all the rules are gone. So, there are no more rules that ND is going to get bogged down trying to comply with, while the other programs trying to win a title are ignoring them entirely. And this environment has coincided with our best coach in a generation and a University that is willing to commit to do everything within the outer limits of what meager rules do exist.
Aren’t there also jurisdiction issues?
Judges in states cooperating with state universities to prevent claims?
I think Georgia could sue in Georgia state court or federal
by San Pedro , More than 100 feet from Bob Davies, Tuesday, May 05, 2026, 09:51 (23 days ago) @ terribletr
I'd be surprised if the university NIL didn't include choice of law/forum clauses that would prohibit the player from running into state court where the new school is located to get some home cooking.
Yes, I'm sure they do. I was more thinking of how the
by BillyGoat , At Thanksgiving with Joe Bethersontin, Tuesday, May 05, 2026, 09:53 (23 days ago) @ San Pedro
politics of doing so will make all of this uglier.
Undoubtedly that will add to the shitshow.
by BillyGoat , At Thanksgiving with Joe Bethersontin, Tuesday, May 05, 2026, 09:49 (23 days ago) @ terribletr
- No text -