Universities Taking Their Athletes to Court
Written by Grant Roshkoff | March 26, 2026
College athletics is experiencing a legal transformation. As name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals and the NCAA transfer portal reshape the economic landscape of college sports, disputes between universities and their athletes are increasingly moving into courtrooms. This piece argues that universities suing their own athletes exposes the legal contradiction at the heart of modern college athletics: schools are treating athletes like contracted professional employees while denying them employee status. Without clear legal standards or federal legislation, this tension will continue to generate litigation and uncertainty.
Historically, lawsuits in college athletics were primarily brought by athletes challenging NCAA rules governing compensation or eligibility. The U.S. Supreme Court case National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston helped erode the NCAA’s traditional model of amateurism which required college athletes to be students-first, prohibited from receiving compensation other than reasonable educational expenses such as tuition, room and board. Alston opened the door to challenges against restrictions on athlete pay resulting in the NCAA allowing student-athletes to profit from their NIL.
The legal landscape has shifted. Universities are now filing lawsuits against their own players, particularly when athletes transfer schools or allegedly breach NIL-related agreements. Disputes surrounding player contracts are increasing as institutions attempt to protect their financial investments.
The NCAA’s decision in 2021 to permit student-athletes to profit from their NIL dramatically expanded the financial stakes of college sports. Although originally intended for modest endorsements, NIL deals have evolved into lucrative arrangements involving sponsorships, college collectives as parties to NIL deals, and college-revenue sharing. College athletes generate money for their schools but remain classified as students. As a result, they do not receive wages, benefits, or the legal protections typically given to employees.
Because student-athletes are not considered employees, the legal framework surrounding NIL agreements remains uncertain. Many deals rely on athletes continuing to play for the program so disputes arise when athletes transfer schools before fulfilling those agreements. Universities argue that leaving the school constitutes breach of contract, while athletes contend that NIL deals should not invalidate their ability to pursue new opportunities through transfers.In collective-funded deals, the school may claim harm because the school-sponsored collective invested resources to support the athlete who was expected to remain with the team. In revenue-sharing deals, a departure may lower the school’s expected return on investment. Or, even just providing tuition, room, and board may be argued by the school as an agreement for playing the sport and leaving early breaches that arrangement. Several recent cases illustrate the growing legal conflict between student-athletes and universities.
Duke University filed a lawsuit against their quarterback Darian Mensah after he attempted to enter the transfer portal despite having signed a two-year NIL agreement. Duke argued that the contract gave the university exclusive rights to market Mensah’s name and likeness and sought to prevent him from transferring or negotiating with another school. Duke stated: “Mr. Mensah has an existing contract with Duke which the university intends to honor, and we expect he will do the same ….” Although the court denied Duke’s request to block his transfer entirely, the case underscored how NIL contracts are increasingly being treated like enforceable professional employment agreements.
Similarly, the University of Cincinnati filed a lawsuit against its quarterback Brendan Sorsby, alleging that he breached a two-year NIL contract by entering the transfer portal before the agreement expired. The University sought $1 million in damages for the alleged breach (New York Times, 2026). The University of Cincinnati stated: “Cincinnati athletics is proud to partner with its student-athletes and honors the contractual commitments it makes to them. We expect student-athletes … to do the same.”
The University of Washington threatened legal action against its quarterback Demon Williams Jr. when he considered transferring to another program only days after entering into a $4 million revenue sharing deal with the University. Williams ultimately chose to remain with the team, avoiding litigation but highlighting the growing willingness of universities to pursue legal remedies against their own athletes.
The rise of lawsuits by universities exposes a contradiction in college sports. Universities increasingly rely on contractual agreements, revenue-sharing deals, and NIL rights to manage their athletic programs. These mechanisms closely resemble those used in professional sports leagues. Yet, at the same time, student-athletes are still not formally recognized as employees.
If athletes are students participating in extracurricular activities, it seems inconsistent for universities to enforce contracts resembling professional employment agreements. Conversely, if athletes are providing commercial services that generate revenue, they should receive the legal protections afforded to employees.
NIL revenue-sharing agreements highlight this tension. These agreements may be structured as intellectual property licenses in which a university pays an athlete for the right to use the athlete’s name, image and likeness. The arrangements may even state that the athlete is not an employee of the school. However, the relationship resembles employment. The university will not pay unless the athlete competes on the team, effectively performing “athletic” labor. When disputes arise, such as a student-athlete leaving for another program, the college then wants to refuse compensation like an employer would refuse to pay an employee who quit.
Future litigation could push courts toward recognizing college athletes as employees, potentially allowing unionization and collective bargaining.The ongoing wave of lawsuits indicates that college athletics is approaching a structural turning point. Without federal legislation or clearer NCAA regulations, conflicts between student-athletes and universities will likely intensify.
Ultimately, the legal battles emerging across programs such as Duke, Cincinnati, and Washington raise a fundamental question: can college athletics continue to operate under the banner of non-employment amateurism while universities simultaneously enforce professional-style employee contracts? The answer may determine the future structure of college sports.
References
Associated Press. (2026, February 27). No end in sight for battles over eligibility and player contracts in college sports, experts say.https://thebusinessjournal.com/no-end-in-sight-for-battles-over-eligibility-and-player-contracts-in-college-sports-experts-say/
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Hampton, Cathy, Miles Mediation and Arbitration, February 28, 2025
Williams, Justin, Cincinnati sues ex-QB Brendan Sorsby for $1 million buyout after transfer to Texas Tech, New York Times The Athletic, February 25, 2026https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7070963/2026/02/25/brendan-sorsby-cincinnati-football-lawsuit-texas-tech/
Mccann, Michael, Washington QB’s Flip-Flop Previews New College Sports Legal Issue, Sportico, The Business of Sports, January 8, 2026 https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/demond-williams-legal-fallout-1234880496/
