How a seemingly simple contract dispute is raising deeper questions about how NIL operates: and may test how college football contracts actually work.
By Tre Martin | 31 March 2026
Quarterback Brendan Sorsby signed an 18-month Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreement with the University of Cincinnati in July 2025. Less than six months later, he entered the transfer portal and moved to Texas Tech. Public reaction was immediate and decisive: A contract was signed. The terms were broken. The penalty should apply. Case closed.
But in the high-stakes environment of 2026 collegiate athletics, the case is proving to be far from straightforward. The University of Cincinnati is currently suing Sorsby for breach of contract, alleging that the agreement required him to pay a $1 million buyout if he departed the program before 15 December 2026. On the surface, the university’s position aligns with basic contract law: agreements carry consequences, and accountability is the bedrock of business.
However, this dispute is rapidly evolving into a landmark test of the enforceability of NIL agreements within a system that remains legally precarious. As schools and collectives attempt to stabilize rosters through financial deterrents, they are running headlong into labor laws and state-specific contract regulations that were never designed for the "student-athlete" model.
The System NIL Was Supposed to Be
For decades, the NCAA prohibited "pay-for-play," a policy intended to maintain a clear line between amateurism and professional sports. When NIL was introduced, it was framed not as a salary, but as a mechanism for athletes to profit from their personal brand: endorsements, social media content, and public appearances: without being paid specifically to compete for a school.
As of early 2026, that framework is under immense pressure. Legal developments and proposed settlement models are moving college athletics toward a limited revenue-sharing structure, allowing schools to compensate athletes within defined caps while attempting to avoid formal employment status. This shift mirrors the broader financial boom in sports; for context, even professional leagues are seeing record-breaking figures, such as the NFL earning almost $2 billion in sponsorships in recent seasons.
Former Alabama head coach Nick Saban highlighted the fundamental tension of this transition during a March 2024 roundtable discussion on Capitol Hill. “If we had some sort of revenue sharing proposition that did not make student-athletes employees, I think that may be the long-term solution,” Saban noted. “You could create a better quality of life for student-athletes… and it would be equal in all institutions. You couldn’t raise more money at one school to create a competitive advantage at another.”
The current reality, however, is a patchwork of state laws and private collective agreements. For now, athletes are officially not employees. NIL compensation is technically tied to brand promotion. Athletes are paid for appearances and content, provided the compensation reflects fair market value and is not legally linked to on-field performance. At least, that is the theory.
The System NIL Has Become
While the full details of Sorsby’s agreement have not been made public, industry standards suggest the contract compensated him for promotional activities. However, the reported inclusion of a $1 million penalty for transferring suggests the deal was functionally a "roster retention" agreement.
This raises a critical legal question: Can an NIL agreement: which is supposedly about marketing: legally restrict where an athlete chooses to play? In the traditional NIL model, brand value is portable; it belongs to the athlete. In practice, however, that value is often subsidized by university-aligned collectives.
Much of the NIL ecosystem now runs through these entities, such as the Cincinnati-aligned "Cincy Reigns." Chaired by attorney Brian Fox, the collective has been aggressive in its fundraising, including a “$350 for 7,000” donor campaign designed to generate $2.45 million to support athletes as the Bearcats transitioned into the Big 12.
Because universities do not directly pay players, collectives serve as a firewall. This structure allows money to flow to players while maintaining a degree of separation from the school’s athletic department. Yet, this separation is becoming increasingly transparent. When a collective sues a player for leaving, it effectively admits that the "marketing" money was actually a retention bonus. This contradiction is at the heart of the Sorsby case.
When Contracts Meet an Undefined System
The core of the legal battle rests on how Ohio courts view "liquidated damages." Under Ohio law, such clauses are only enforceable if they represent a reasonable estimate of actual harm at the time the contract was signed. Courts generally refuse to enforce clauses that are purely "punitive" in nature: meant only to scare a party into staying.
In Sorsby’s case, Cincinnati argues that the $1 million represents a return on investment. They can point to a signed agreement, clear terms, and a player who was represented by professional counsel. Furthermore, Sorsby’s reported multi-million-dollar deal at Texas Tech: estimated to be worth roughly $5 million: suggests that his time at Cincinnati significantly increased his market value.
Conversely, Sorsby’s legal team contends the penalty is "unlawful" and disproportionate. Records indicate Sorsby received approximately $875,800 from Cincinnati during his tenure. If he is forced to pay back $1 million, he would effectively have played for Cincinnati for "negative" $124,200. His representation argues that the quarterback generated millions in value for the university through ticket sales, media rights, and program prestige, making the $1 million claim look less like a recovery of losses and more like an exit tax.
Precedent and the National Landscape
Cincinnati is not the only program attempting to use the courts to stabilize its roster. The Sorsby case follows a series of high-profile disputes where the "marketing" facade of NIL has been stripped away:
- Duke vs. Darian Mensah: Duke took legal action when Mensah attempted to move to Miami despite an $8 million NIL deal. Mensah successfully obtained a temporary restraining order, and the case was eventually settled out of court.
- Washington vs. Demond Williams Jr.: The University of Washington faced similar friction over a $4 million NIL contract when Williams entered the transfer portal, though the situation was resolved when the player reversed his decision.
These cases suggest that while universities are eager to enforce these "buyouts," the legal ground is shaky. If a court rules that these contracts are effectively employment contracts, it could trigger a domino effect, forcing universities to grant athletes full employment benefits, including workers' compensation and collective bargaining rights.
The risks of mismanagement in this space are high. We have previously seen how crypto companies inked sports sponsorships worth hundreds of millions only to see those deals collapse during market volatility. In the NIL world, the volatility isn't the market: it’s the movement of the athletes themselves.
Seeking a Standardized Future
The tension between the university’s right to protect its investment and the athlete’s right to mobility reflects a system in transition. NIL agreements are being used as proxies for professional contracts, but they lack the collective bargaining agreements that define the NFL or NBA.
Without federal intervention or a standardized revenue-sharing model, situations like Sorsby’s will continue to occur. Schools will attempt to protect their donor-funded "investments," while athletes will seek to maximize their earnings in a short-window career. The lack of clarity has even led to bizarre instances of impersonating agents, further complicating the landscape for young athletes.
Conclusion
So, will Brendan Sorsby be required to pay the $1 million? Like many complex cases at the intersection of sports and law, a settlement is the most likely outcome. Neither side truly wants a definitive court ruling that could either invalidate hundreds of existing NIL contracts or, conversely, declare college athletes to be employees.
The significance of the case, however, extends beyond the final check. It highlights the unresolved questions about how NIL agreements should be structured and the limitations of their reach. Until the NCAA or Congress establishes a clear framework for athlete compensation, these legal battles will not be anomalies. They are the growing pains of a multi-billion-dollar industry finally being forced to define what it actually is.
Tre Martin covers the sports economics, technology, and emerging models shaping the future of fan engagement and collegiate and professional athletics. Connect with him on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/tremartin111