College Football Catch-All Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 63K
  • Sports 
I think Duke fucked up in a big way here.

1. From a legal perspective, I don't see their case. Surely there are attorneys here who know contracts law better than I do, and also know specifically NC contracts law, so maybe my analysis is not correct. But I'm going with the classic 1L contracts rule that contracts cannot contain specific performance clauses unless the asset in question is unique or almost. If A agrees to sell Starry Night to B, then B could sue for performance if A doesn't follow through. But if A has agreed to sell a car, even a rare car, B will be able to collect damages only.

Duke is surely arguing that this isn't specific performance per se: they aren't requiring him to play football at Duke, but are merely preventing him from playing football elsewhere. That's a distinction without much difference, I think. The fact is that Darius Mensah isn't a Rothko painting. He's a QB. He's a good football player, and that's all. Duke will be able to field a team without him; that they might not be as good isn't really the province of contracts law. That can be true of anything: I need these soybeans and not those because these are better. Doesn't work.

So anyway, I just don't see how Duke wins this case. They certainly didn't win the injunction, as they should not have; and I don't know where it goes from here. It seems like a longshot for Darius Mensah to be playing QB at Duke next year.

2. Meanwhile, Duke is not the top of the food chain in college football. Their formula for success is going to be what they did this year: find an undervalued player, give him some PT, hope he's great. If they start suing the players who want to move on, those players aren't going to head to Duke. Why would the next upwardly mobile QB choose Duke if they are suing the one they have?

This is a common situation in European football, and the solution has been for teams to understand where they sit on the pecking order. Everton isn't going to keep a player Man City wants. If they try, they will likely compromise their ability to get new players. So they include things like, "we get 20% of his next transfer fee." That lets them share in the upside. It gives them an incentive to develop the player, and when the player wants to leave, everyone's OK. That's what Duke should have done here and if they had bargained for 20% of Mensah's NIL at another school (for instance), that would hold up in court, I think. Emphasis on think. Never thought about this legal issue before.

3. And for what? Most pro sports teams everywhere eventually let players move on when they want to leave, because they realize that an unhappy star can be worse than no star at all. Indeed, they often tell players who ask for a trade to leave the team while they are trying to be traded. Iverson comes to mind and I know there are others. So let's suppose Duke does force Mensah to play football at Duke next year. Is that going to be good for them? Is he going to give 100% effort? Is he going to be a good teammate? Is he going to jump on a fumble or not bother? Will he play through knocks or claim he's injured?
 
superrific said:
I think Duke fucked up in a big way here.

1. From a legal perspective, I don't see their case. Surely there are attorneys here who know contracts law better than I do, and also know specifically NC contracts law, so maybe my analysis is not correct. But I'm going with the classic 1L contracts rule that contracts cannot contain specific performance clauses unless the asset in question is unique or almost. If A agrees to sell Starry Night to B, then B could sue for performance if A doesn't follow through. But if A has agreed to sell a car, even a rare car, B will be able to collect damages only.

Duke is surely arguing that this isn't specific performance per se: they aren't requiring him to play football at Duke, but are merely preventing him from playing football elsewhere. That's a distinction without much difference, I think. The fact is that Darius Mensah isn't a Rothko painting. He's a QB. He's a good football player, and that's all. Duke will be able to field a team without him; that they might not be as good isn't really the province of contracts law. That can be true of anything: I need these soybeans and not those because these are better. Doesn't work.

So anyway, I just don't see how Duke wins this case. They certainly didn't win the injunction, as they should not have; and I don't know where it goes from here. It seems like a longshot for Darius Mensah to be playing QB at Duke next year.

2. Meanwhile, Duke is not the top of the food chain in college football. Their formula for success is going to be what they did this year: find an undervalued player, give him some PT, hope he's great. If they start suing the players who want to move on, those players aren't going to head to Duke. Why would the next upwardly mobile QB choose Duke if they are suing the one they have?

This is a common situation in European football, and the solution has been for teams to understand where they sit on the pecking order. Everton isn't going to keep a player Man City wants. If they try, they will likely compromise their ability to get new players. So they include things like, "we get 20% of his next transfer fee." That lets them share in the upside. It gives them an incentive to develop the player, and when the player wants to leave, everyone's OK. That's what Duke should have done here and if they had bargained for 20% of Mensah's NIL at another school (for instance), that would hold up in court, I think. Emphasis on think. Never thought about this legal issue before.

3. And for what? Most pro sports teams everywhere eventually let players move on when they want to leave, because they realize that an unhappy star can be worse than no star at all. Indeed, they often tell players who ask for a trade to leave the team while they are trying to be traded. Iverson comes to mind and I know there are others. So let's suppose Duke does force Mensah to play football at Duke next year. Is that going to be good for them? Is he going to give 100% effort? Is he going to be a good teammate? Is he going to jump on a fumble or not bother? Will he play through knocks or claim he's injured?
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with all of your analysis. In order to get injunctive-type relief, there has to be a CBA and a commissioner and rules in place regarding transfers. Here, the NCAA is hands off on portal transfers. So, Duke is left to rely on just the law of contracts. That means Mensah will be playing in Miami next year.

There is another wrinkle here, which I think would require us getting our hands on the actual contract language. If the contract at issue is a pure NIL contract, then Duke would retain the NIL rights even if he played for Miami. Theoretically, an NIL contract is only for endorsement rights, not football play. So, if Duke was playing fast and loose with the NIL rules and are trying to use an NIL contract as a disguised pay for play contract, then they are going to have to defend that position in court. And then Duke finds themselves in a potential in pari delicto situation.

If I'm Mensah, I tell Duke that they can retain my NIL rights and sell all the cars they want off my image.
 
Calheel said:
I pretty much agree with all of your analysis. In order to get injunctive-type relief, there has to be a CBA and a commissioner and rules in place regarding transfers. Here, the NCAA is hands off on portal transfers. So, Duke is left to rely on just the law of contracts. That means Mensah will be playing in Miami next year.

There is another wrinkle here, which I think would require us getting our hands on the actual contract language. If the contract at issue is a pure NIL contract, then Duke would retain the NIL rights even if he played for Miami. Theoretically, an NIL contract is only for endorsement rights, not football play. So, if Duke was playing fast and loose with the NIL rules and are trying to use an NIL contract as a disguised pay for play contract, then they are going to have to defend that position in court. And then Duke finds themselves in a potential in pari delicto situation.

If I'm Mensah, I tell Duke that they can retain my NIL rights and sell all the cars they want off my image.
Click to expand...
I could see a court giving Duke a disgorgement remedy -- i.e. Mensah doesn't get paid for this year and has to pay back what he earned. Essentially treat the contract as void. I'm not saying that would be a likely outcome; only a plausible one. And Mensah's raise at Miami will be bigger than his pay this past year so he won't really care. I mean, he'd care about having the $2M or not, but wouldn't stay at Duke.
 
Both Miami and Duke are on our schedule. Is there a way he lands at neither. Can I find that suit? Or maybe Oregon needs a 3rd good QB?
 
I'm not a lawyer. But he signed a contract that said he would not play for another program until 1/1/27.

It seems to me, if a judge says that the contract is not enforceable, then it works both ways for college players

So then morning then can stop a school from stopping payment. Say Alabama tells a kid "eh you aren't as good as we thought you were supposed to be so we are cutting that pay big time"

IMO this could be a really big case for this fucked up college situation for everyone and every sport.

Like if he can get out of the contract because he wants to, why can't a school do the same?
 
gregh1 said:
Both Miami and Duke are on our schedule. Is there a way he lands at neither. Can I find that suit? Or maybe Oregon needs a 3rd good QB?
Click to expand...
I don't think Duke has any vision that he comes back at this point. At least I don't think....

So I think the play is to make sure he doesn't play for anyone else.

And if you do play against him just dangle some money bags in the stands. He will be so distracted he will screw up
 
aGDevil2k said:
I'm not a lawyer. But he signed a contract that said he would not play for another program until 1/1/27.

It seems to me, if a judge says that the contract is not enforceable, then it works both ways for college players

So then morning then can stop a school from stopping payment. Say Alabama tells a kid "eh you aren't as good as we thought you were supposed to be so we are cutting that pay big time"

IMO this could be a really big case for this fucked up college situation for everyone and every sport.

Like if he can get out of the contract because he wants to, why can't a school do the same?
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. Duke and the Bama QB alike can get damages. But the damages make the QB whole in reality (i.e. he still gets paid), whereas it makes Duke whole only in the world of legal fiction (i.e. they still have no QB).

I don't think this is a story about law being corrupt; it's just a story about this being an unusual economic market.
 
superrific said:
Here's the thing. Duke and the Bama QB alike can get damages. But the damages make the QB whole in reality (i.e. he still gets paid), whereas it makes Duke whole only in the world of legal fiction (i.e. they still have no QB).

I don't think this is a story about law being corrupt; it's just a story about this being an unusual economic market.
Click to expand...
But if he runs, there is nothing to stop a school from screwing over a player that doesn't do well, gets hurt etc, right?
 
aGDevil2k said:
But if he runs, there is nothing to stop a school from screwing over a player that doesn't do well, gets hurt etc, right?
Click to expand...
What do you mean, screwing over? If a player signs a deal for $1M, let's say, and the school cuts him from the team, he can sue to collect the $1M. He would not get to play, and if he was an NFL prospect, he might be screwed in that way. But he will collect his money, for however many years it is promised, unless there is a buyout.
 
superrific said:
What do you mean, screwing over? If a player signs a deal for $1M, let's say, and the school cuts him from the team, he can sue to collect the $1M. He would not get to play, and if he was an NFL prospect, he might be screwed in that way. But he will collect his money, for however many years it is promised, unless there is a buyout.
Click to expand...
Not if they rule these contracts are invalid.

From what I understand, there's no buyout in his contract. He's simply trying to break it and bolt
 
aGDevil2k said:
Not if they rule these contracts are invalid.

From what I understand, there's no buyout in his contract. He's simply trying to break it and bolt
Click to expand...
Buyout or not, Duke has a right to sue for damages. That is presumptive rule for breach of contract. In other words, omitting a liquidated damages clause does not mean that you have the right to sue for injunctive relief. It just means you have a harder damages case to prove.

If Duke has been damaged because Mensah's NIL rights are not as valuable in Durham when he plays for Miami, then it can collect the difference in value between his NIL rights as promised and his NIL rights as delivered.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Not if they rule these contracts are invalid.

From what I understand, there's no buyout in his contract. He's simply trying to break it and bolt
Click to expand...
It's as Calheel says. The contracts aren't held to be "invalid." Some contract provisions are simply unenforceable. For instance, if I contracted with you to buy 100 tons of soybeans at a certain price and also to be your chattel slave, a court could very well uphold the first one even though the second part of the contract is clearly illegal. The contract gives way to a background understanding that privileges freedom of bodies over freedom of contract.

Typically, specific performance remedies are usually considered unenforceable. They are only enforceable when they deal with an asset that is unique in some way, or at least highly unusual. I used the example of a famous painting. For example, I really like Jackson Pollock's Lavender Mist . If I bought that, and the seller then declined to deliver it to me, offering me my money back, I could demand the painting. There's only one, and there's simply no way to make me whole with just money.

That's because American law, rightly or wrongly, privileges freedom to exit a contract over freedom to contract. You break a contract, you have to pay damages but you can usually walk away. That's especially true in employment contracts, which would otherwise be a form of indentured servitude. And this can work in favor of a sports team. If a contract provides that a player has unlimited access to the team's training facility, and the team cuts the player, he can't sue to retain access to the training facility. Maybe he gets credit for the cost of a gym membership along with lost wages, but the courts are not going to require the team to open their property to him.
 
As a bit of an addendum, most employment contracts can be terminated by the employee at any time, without penalty. The caveat is a personal services contract, which is a type of contract involving someone with a unique skillset, like an athlete or a celebrity. Those contracts can include buyouts (which are really just a type of liquidated damages clause) on the theory that the person's skillset is so unique. But even personal services contracts can't be specifically enforced. You won't see Duke forcing Manny Diaz not to take any other coaching job, He just pays the buyout.

Some states will specifically enforce noncompetition agreements in order to protect trade secrets, subject to reasonable time and geographic duration. But I don't see how Mensah's NIL deal would fit within that type of contract, as Duke is saying that he can't play anywhere BUT Duke. That is not a reasonable limitation.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Then why would he sign it in the first place?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Contracts allow parties to govern expectations and plan for the future. They are very important to an efficient, capitalistic system. At the same time, if a contract can be efficiently breached -- i.e., if the injured party can be made whole and the breaching party can make more somewhere else -- the law encourages breach. We want to direct the resources to their most efficient use.

It is more efficient for the skills of Mensah to be employed at Miami, where those skills can achieve their highest and best use, then to remain in Durham. So Mensah goes to Miami and pays damages (if any) to Duke. That is what the law wants.

Mensah signs a contract so that he is guaranteed to be paid X. Duke signs a contract so that it gets the NIL services of Mensah for X price. Absent a contract, neither side would receive damages if the other side changed its/his mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top