Former University of Florida football recruit Jaden Rashada is suing coach Billy Napier, along with a big-time Gator booster and others, claiming they defrauded him out of millions of dollars by backing out of a promised $13.85 million agreement after the quarterback had turned down offers tied to other programs.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday includes an allegation that Rashada signed his national letter of intent to Florida on Dec. 21, 2022, less than an hour after Napier promised the player's father a $1 million "partial payment" that day upon signing. Rashada never received the $1 million, and the boosters never fulfilled the deal, the lawsuit states.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
We all knew it was coming. I am a little surprised the lawsuit took this long to file. With Napier's last two years, do you think he makes it to the end of this coming year?
So is this...the first domino?
Good for him. :Popcorn GIF:
With apologies to any TKP attorneys, this is the inevitable step in the process where the only people actually making money work for Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.
Lawyers
Always
Win
I am not a Lawyer but I would be very interested to see what level of evidential proof he has that this $13million claim was factual.
I would think that much of what could be used as evidence would be argued as non-contractural or hearsay by the Defense.
Overall, seems like a kid who was trying to take advantage of a system..and put up pretty "meh" stats as a Fr. and now has to face the reality that football may not be his long-term source of income.
Edit: misread the article..thought it said UAA was named in suit...they are not.
Interested to see how this plays out. If individual donors can be sued for players not receiving the money they feel they were promised, I think that sets a dangerous precedent. My interest in donating to NIL went from 0% to -800%.
To my knowledge and reading the full article, he has not named the University. He named the coach, booster and the NIL in the lawsuit. Apparently they have texts, draft contracts, etc.
I was going to say, you'd have to be pretty stupid to put this in writing with your name on it. So this tracks pretty well with the Napier experience so far
Kind of think we dodged the bullet with Napier with how things have been playing out. Then again how desperate is Napier for a win?
That's what I came here to say, thanks UF!
That's exactly what I was thinking.
And what recourse does a kid have if they were promised some NIL money and didn't receive it. Clearly they aren't going to pay until an NLI is signed. Sounds like a lot of sketchy shit to get kids to sign then not pay. I wonder how many other kids are seeing this and if any other kids from Florida (or any other schools) jump on the lawsuit bandwagon.
Wouldn't it be a kick if some of the SEC and BIG10 got stink on them with maneuvers like that and it opened the door for schools with less money that don't screw around to get better recruits.
I'm all for destroying the collective.
This is interesting because it seems like he turned down a job offer for a higher paying job offer that ended up being BS and now wants to sue, but he never actually did any work for either company. This will basically show whether NIL is pay for play or benefiting from a personal brand by selling merchandise or making appearances.
No, this is like being offered a signing bonus as part of a contract to take a job in addition to a specified amount of pay. You sign the contract to take the job, they cancel the contract, then tell you you'll still get a signing bonus if you agree to come work for them by signing a different contract with no agreement for pay, just verbal promises of the pay. You sign the contract, and they don't pay the signing bonus like they promised. So he decided to go work for someone else who didn't screw around.
He may be entitled to something because there apparently was a signed contract, and even with a termination for cause, you have to show cause to the other party when you terminate.
Regardless, this isn't about whether or not he worked a job, it's about him turning down another offer because he had a contract, which they then terminated without showing cause. He's also saying he wouldn't have given up the money at Miami without what he felt was a guarantee based on the contract he signed. As far as I can tell, this is almost entirely about contract violation.
I just did a search, and you can definitely sue for lost opportunity. You then have to prove causation (apparently this can be difficult to prove). In this instance SEEMS pretty straightforward - he would have stayed with Miami had he not received the $13.85M contract from Florida. Valuation can be difficult also, but it seems like a publicly known amount of $9.5M.
Did the 'U' have an actual contract with him or were they just talk also? Seems so murky.
The article says a "promise" of $9.5M. I would look at it like a competing job offer. They make an offer, and assuming it's in writing, it's reasonable that's what you'd expect to get. I seriously doubt they'd be trying to use the $9.5M from Miami NIL if it wasn't in writing somewhere - that would be an incredibly flimsy argument/justification if you said "they promised me in a phone call or in a meeting, I swear!"
Unless the lawyer is an absolutely trashy ambulance chaser that is hoping for a quick settlement to make this go away, I'd assume a lot of this is based on written proof, including the contract he had that was canceled.
Like a job offer, if your company says they'll match something, they're going to match a written offer, not that you'd actually go and sign an employment contract with the other company to prove it's a firm offer.
He used the first 150k bonus from UF to pay back the Miami NIL that had already paid him a deposit. So Miami had to be repaid money because he decommitted from them.
I think you're overlooking that this is a litmus test.
Imagine if a pro athlete signed a deal with Under Armor saying they'd get paid if the signed with the Orioles, then they signed with the Orioles, and Under Armor decided not to pay. That's what happened here.
However, I imagine that, in order to making a ruling, a judge will have to decide if this is a contract for an endorsement, or if it is a work around for pay-for-play. That ruling could have far reaching consequences.
You're leaving out the part where, in your example, Nike promised to pay another amount if they signed with the Yankees. And, as someone pointed out above (and I'd forgotten about), they'd already committed to the Yankees and Nike paid a little bit of money.
So, it's reasonable to assume that they would have ACTUALLY gotten money from Nike since Nike had actually paid some. So not only did Under Armour not pay, but the player lost out on what they could have gotten from Nike if they'd signed with the Yankees.
So regardless of pay-for-play or endorsement, it seems like it's more about the broken contract and failing to pay, when they had another endorsement offer that likely would have paid (and had already paid 150k).
Further, you say the judge would likely have to rule on whether it's a work around for pay for play. I assume you mean because the offer was contingent on that player going to Florida, and a contingent offer for going to a particular place seems like getting paid for playing. I think the counter to that is that there seem to be a lot of the businesses that donate that are geographically specific. The car dealership was mentioned. If the dealership is located in Gainesville, it makes sense they would want an offer to be contingent on the player going to Florida, because they aren't going to use a player's name/image/likeness in advertisements if they are in some other market. It would only benefit the dealership if the player went to the local school.
Nah, Imagine if Under Armour- a business- would knowingly pay a huge loss leader (in the millions) and gamble that the orioles -may- win an october series vs. the yankees because well UA loves them some orioles, and it would be worth losing millions simply to see the orioles win. That's the analogy here. UA willing entering a contract they for certain know won't pay off simply because they are orioles fans. Totally reality.
I can't wait for liquidated damages to show up in these "contracts".
That's a crazy story. So many bizarre facts and situations. And that's probably only 1/2 of the story, as the Gator side of the story is still unknown.
I see lots of contract terms (but no term sheet), a lot of promises (that nobody wanted to fulfill), a lot of misunderstandings, at least a partially executed contract, some transfer of funds (also with Miami), 3 defendants with different levels of culpability, and violations of NCAA rules (as they stood at the time). Contract professors are drafting their exam fact patterns now.
It was 100% pay for play. Otherwise why did the Miami NIL who wanted to make money off his image need there money back when he decided to play for the Gators. His image was the same...
Because if the NIL collective bases their offers on being able to advertise to the local market, they're only going to pay people who are local celebrities. Similar to how Eastern's Automotive, a DC area auto dealer paid Redskin players to be in their ads and not players from Indianapolis or Seattle.
Eastern's wasn't paying those players to play, they were paying them to use them in ads because they were local celebrities. Now, I'm not saying that all NIL collectives are operating the same way, but there is a difference between paying someone because they are players and paying someone to play.
And what's nice is that it's going to eventually be public record. I'm all for the disinfectant properties of sunshine.
https://x.com/halleygator/status/1792937641882579250?s=46&t=OkNRxOnF-ZgcA40FdJhMrw
Disclaimer: this guy is both a major Gator donor and a Personal Injury Lawyer. So he is both biased and this is not his wheelhouse--that would be a slip and fall at Publix.
But this tracks with what I was told about the Rashada scenario leading up to Signing Day. That his party (primarily dad) had essentially made it clear to UM and UF that whoever could produce the most cash would get the signature.
Once UF seemingly produced that, he signed (possibily without doing enough due diligence) a contract that could be voided with relative ease and is now facing the results of that.
There are probably still lots of details to come out ( if this isn't settled), but this could be a lesson for future Athletes--possibly making decisions based soley on short-term financial gain isn't a very sound life strategy.
yet, this attorney makes strong points of why it could be tortious, because they took advantage of a kid with promises they never intended to make. And if 2 versions of the contract exist (one requiring cause and signed by Rashada as stated in the ESPN article and one that was at-will as alleged here), that's pretty strong indication that they were intending to commit fraud. It just depends on the facts on that clause... when it was added and/or removed, which version was signed, and then executed, was there any notice from NIL that the clause was changed, was there deception involved with the change, etc.
Also matters whether the NIL collective knew whether Rashada had an attorney, if not did they recommend he get one (or worse suggest an attorney is not necessary), and the due care that took to make Radhada understand the terms. Florida's NIL and coach is the sophisticated party here, and when one party is more sophisticated than the other, there is some degree of due care in order to not commit fraud.
It's a fascinating case because both sides are at fault. And the question is whether Florida's NIL and coach were bad actors, and if they were, did it rise to the level of a tortious act, and if it did, what damages to Rashada resulted due to their actions.
Stories like these are so uncommon in the real world, but the mix of NIL money, player/family greed, coach/NIL greed, no oversight to the process, and everything being new enabled such a compelling legal issue.
Wondering what your thoughts are on Napier's potential liability is here?
The NIL Collective clearly is a sophisticated party as you say here as they were the ones offering money and creating a contract for the same. Agree that the details and timing of this contract would be the lynchpin issue here.
But I think it would be a harder argument to make that Napier had a sophisticated understanding of the details or knowledge that the contract was never meant to be fulfilled. Not that NCAA rules matter, but Napier technically should not have had direct involvement with the NIL collective.
The supposed million-dollar offer that Rashada Sr. says Napier made would seem to hinge on his word vs. Napier's and who could be seen as more credible. My heavy suspicion is that the defense could likely find quite a bit of evidence that may not paint a wonderful picture of Mr. Rashada or aid his believability.
I just cant imagine who would want to be a major college coach at this point--who would want to deal with this insanity for any amount of money?
Now, not only do you have to spend every extra waking second recruiting and re-recruiting everyone on your team but you may also have to be worried about being sued by some disgruntled athlete that may or may not have ever had the talent to play at this level because they feel like you shortchanged them.
Obviously we don't know a whole lot of the details here. How much was Napier behind the scenes and directing the NIL, boosters, etc. So, he could be more culpable than the facts suggest right now.
But you are right that Napier would likely be less culpable. But, bigger picture, nobody wants to be sued. It sucks and expensive as hell to hire a lawyer to just defend yourself. I think Napier is deserving of blame, as it was clear that he was at least an accelerant and made promises with signing the NLI. And yea, nobody would want to be a college coach if this was the norm. While I don't think this scenario is completely unique, I doubt it is the norm. I think college coaches that can act in a proper manner with recruiting and NIL. It is clearly wrong for a coach to induce signing an NLI with a promise of an immediate $1M payment when the coach is not in charge of funds, but does appear (and in this case asserts) to have some sort of authority to make that happen.
So, if you want to be a collegiate coach, then great, be a coach. But don't be a dumbass like Napier here.
In the end, the most likely outcome is that this gets settled, Rashada gets some money, but everything will be kept under NDA. Napier will lose some money in the process to lawyers, but nothing else will happen legally. The Florida NIL will likely make a decent payment to Rashada to make it all go away.
Napier is on the hot seat due to on-field performance, but this will surely further cement his seemingly iminent firing. Can he survive through the season?
Is Napier actually paying lawyers or is UF having to litigate for him as this was allegedly in execution of his duties as head coach?
My understanding is that since no UF entity is directly named, the expectation is Napier would hire his own attorney.
As of yesterday, the reporting was that said lawyer was unknown.
I would imagine his own lawyers.
For one, I have no idea what his contract covers. And UF would likely argue that this act was not in the line of his duties. Most tortious acts and criminal acts would be outside of the line of duty. To support that notion, at the time of this act, he violated NCAA rules. It is unclear if the AD or any higher ups at UF were aware. UF is not in the complaint as a defendant suggesting that Napier acted in his own capacity, but that may be because the complainant does not know if there were others at UF involved. So, even if his contract has UF providing legal defense or covering legal fees if sued in the line of work, I don't think UF would provide defense or cover fees in this instance.
Even if UF offered to provide defense to Napier, he may want or may be required to have his own legal representation due to a conflict of interest. A UF attorney needs to act on behalf of his client, which is the university as an entity, not individual employees. And a UF attorney would likely find it is in the best interest of UF to say this was an individual act by Napier that was not in the line of his duties. So, a UF attorney would probably recuse himself due to the conflict of interest. And if I'm Napier, I would not want an attorney that would not act in my best interests.
No arguments that Napier isn't really the brightest bulb on the tree. Another guy who looked like a slam-dunk hire that appears to be anything but.
I will say that when he was hired at UF, he gave some local interviews that were rambling and bordeline incoherent other than a few buzz words thrown in. It didn't create a great impression and I was relieved he didn't end up at VT.
Some people "in the know" have told me that (barring complete disaster) he's unlikely to be fired before they play UCF but a slow start and loss to 2 in-state schools would likely be it for him. Not sure if this changes that timeline.
But can one really do that anymore? While salesmanship has always been some part of the job, its now arguably more important than Xs and Os..at least for a HC.
Also, I think its hard to imagine alot of coaches aren't at very least implying certain amounts of NIL to prospects..its impossible to believe this isn't a topic during a recruiting visit. Sure, it's probably handled less ham-handed than in this scenario in most cases, but I'm positive Napier isn't the only guy to have made statements that could be construed as a verbal offer of money.
I look at a guy like Mike Young--great guy, great coach but see guys like him getting phased-out by the NIL and Transfer Portal system that they just aren't built to compete in.
Sorta yearn for the days when kids signed with a school because they actually had a sense of connection there and not just because they could scramble together the most cash. This crap is just tiring and getting more ludicrous at every turn.
Anyways, appreciate your responses and wisdom regarding the legal aspects here.
What's the issue here?
He signed up for NIL and in the end, he got nil. Are they simply arguing over the use of capital letters?
Bravo! I award you 🧦🧦🧦🧦!
sonks!
I had to read this many, many times before I got the joke.
"$13.85 million agreement" - LMFAO... the average NFL Salary is 2.8 Million Per. Now - as been beaten to death on here, I know gator fans LOVE them some gator football and will pay the panhandling football program at every stop light. I get it. Gator football - wooooot. But come the fuck on people. Come the fuck on. This is all 100% fucked. no shit they weren't paying him that.
Yeah but if those assholes want to fraudulently bid everyone else up they should get punished for it.
I hope to see the collective fined and forced to pay damages but more importantly a bowl ban and scholarship reduction is more than in line with what was the historic punishment for these type of violations
For violations compared to the rules at the time yeah. The really big dogs were always protected, but they never had something this blatant either
Got it. I was just thinking this is the first time something like this has come up, so there really is not any precedent. I think another thing when it comes to NIL is that the NCAA does not really have any control or rules around it at all, so wondering how enforcement (if any) would be administered for a "violation" like this and how that might compare to other situations in the past.
The only hammer they have now is show cause and lack of institutional control. Neither of which they gave Penn State or Baylor. Keep that in mind. Don't get your hopes up.
Meh, they never punished Bama and Michigan for "giving out" 200 scholarship offers a year.. 98% of them fake/non committable to "inflate" recruiting rankings. This is no different.