ESPN has an interesting article that Georgia's collective included BUYOUT penalties that a former DE ignored when he transferred. They paid him $30,000 for the first month of the contract then he transferred to Missouri. They are going after $390,000 which represented the two remaining years of the contract.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So they only paid $30k and are trying to get $390k from him? Not sure that is going to work, this will be interesting to see how much of a contract is enforceable.
What i saw was the value was $500k. Stretched over 14 months or so w $30k a month, and $40k when the portal closed and he was still at UGA. I assume they value the entire deal up front and are calling it a breach via fine print. While I don't believe they will win this, the point they made was that this is being put into nearly all NIL deals now. And, you can't publicly shame a kid for turning tail, but you can sue him and put others on notice that this is a big decision, not to be taken lightly, and not something you can just walk away from easily. Even if the NCAA has turned their back on the whole thing. This case puts others on notice that decisions matter.
Pretty certain they will lose this case since
Can't see how that clause is viewed any other way and I hope Georgia gets hit with the legal fees for the player as well for wasting everyone's time
Seems like they could get the $30,000 back. Otherwise, what is the value of a buyout clause?
I expect every angle of these contracts will get tested legally.
Lawyers will be getting paid.
I guess my problem is that most of these contracts are clearly thinly veiled pay-for-play. I also will be interested to see what if any NIL tasks that were called for in this contract were performed. Did he make appearances, produce any social media, or did the school utilize his likeness in published media or materials? Did they pull any videos that featured him down if there were any? I haven't looked at the reason he transferred either. Was it his decision or was he pushed out? If he was pushed to leave then UGA might have set themselves up here.
Also, why did it take them a year to sue? Mad that he got to Missouri, became a starter, and dominated this season while UGA had him limited to a backup role with no clear path to ever starting.
UGA portaled over him at the end of 2024 apparently and one of his former UGA teammates had transferred in from Missouri the year before and apparently shared with Wilson reasons Missouri was better. Family connection played a role too. Wilson's father was teammates at ECU with his son's new Defensive Line coach at Missouri.
Where did you get that clause? I know in government contracting, if the government terminates for convenience, it gives the vendor certain rights and the government usually winds up having to pay some portion of the remainder of the value of the contract. If there aren't repercussions for breaking a contract, what's the point of having them? They are supposed to be BINDING, and maybe you can't sue for the ENTIRETY of liquidated damages, but you are usually owed some part.
It was a quote in the article on ESPN from whatever legal experts they asked. Their position was that making the entire contract amount the penalty that UGA were doing what is in that quote.
I'm going off my government contracting training and what I know we do if we terminate a contract. It may be a nuance that they're saying you're not going to collect the full amount and not that you aren't potentially owed damages. Like I said, the party the breaches is usually responsible for something (assuming nothing else changed).
Good. If lawsuits go both ways it'll force each side to simmer tf down.