How is college football trying to rein in ‘wild West’ of transfers? Make players pay to leave
Many NIL contracts from the previous transfer portal cycle contained language surrounding buyout clauses. But how enforceable are they?
www.nytimes.com
Programs are chasing that kind of leverage under the assumption that they will soon be in a position to directly sign athletes to NIL deals without having to depend on outside collectives or individual donors to make arrangements. They would gain that ability with the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, which would permit schools to share as much as $20.5 million in revenue with their athletes in the next school year if the settlement is approved by a federal judge in California. A hearing is scheduled for April 7.
Many schools during the recent winter portal cycle used that anticipated revenue to make school-funded NIL deals that would go into effect only if the House settlement is approved. The Athletic reviewed redacted copies or was briefed on the terms of several Power 4 schools’ proposed or finalized contracts, which were shared on the condition of anonymity due to the private nature of the contracts.
While there is no such thing as a standardized NIL contract, all contained language intended to deter the player from entering the portal.
“You’re seeing some stuff similar to coaching contracts with the buyout language in there,” said agent Joe Hernandez of Just Win Management Group. “Which is something that you wouldn’t really see in an NFL player-team contract.”
One Big 12 school required the athlete to pay a buyout equal to 50 percent of his remaining compensation if he transferred before the end of the deal’s term. An ACC school required the athlete to pay back 100 percent of his earnings if he transferred before Jan. 31, 2026.
One Big Ten player’s contract, based on a suggested template the conference sent to all of its members, requires the athlete to pay liquidated damages in the event he transfers. Another defers two-thirds of the athlete’s payments for the coming season until the end of January — after the winter portal window closes.
The schools are asserting that these contracts are licensing agreements that don’t make the athletes employees, echoing a red line for the NCAA and universities. They also say that the payments are not for athletes to attend the university or to play for it, even as they try to disincentivize players from leaving.
Meanwhile, it’s believed that most schools’ NIL contracts this cycle were only one-year deals. (Star quarterbacks may be a notable exception.) If there are buyout clauses, the remaining payments owed might be minimal. Multi-year contracts would make the buyouts more prohibitive and, in theory, decrease roster attrition. But as tempting as it may sound to lock down players, in reality, schools may want their own roster flexibility.
“If there’s a buyout, it’s usually both ways,” said the first Big 12 GM. “So it would limit our freedom to just cut the kid if he doesn’t turn out to be good.”
Last edited:
