By Robert J Romano, JD, LLM; St. John’s University; Senior Writer
In the ever-evolving world of college athletics, a new construct has emerged wherein colleges and universities are now suing former student-athletes who transfer from their school alleging breach of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements. Yes, NCAA member institutions, after two decades of losing in federal courts to student-athletes over antitrust issues, have now changed tactics, gotten aggressive, and are suing students.
For example, on May 18, 2026, Florida Atlantic University filed suit in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, claiming that four former members of its football team, Zion Paret, Gemari Sands, Tyler Stolsky, and Asaad Waseem, breached the NIL contracts they signed during the 2025 season by entering the transfer portal and leaving the university to play elsewhere.[40] Each of the above named athletes entered into NIL agreements with FAU that contained the following monetary terms:
- Paret, a defensive back, agreed to a $30,000 NIL arrangement that paid him $2,000 a month through 2026. After transferring, he now will be suiting up for University of Connecticut this fall.
- Sands, a running back, amended his NIL deal on December 31, 2025, to an amount of $18,000, paid out over monthly installments of $1,500 beginning January 22, 2026. He is headed north and now will be playing for and studying at Florida State University.
- Stolsky, a linebacker, had his NIL deal increased in September from $12,000 to $45,000, with $3,000 being paid monthly from October 2025 through December 2026. After finishing the season with 86 tackles, however, he transferred to West Virginia.
- Waseem, who plays wide receiver, agreed to a 15-month, $69,000 NIL deal last September. The contract provided for monthly payments of $3,000 for the first three months and $5,000 for the subsequent twelve months. After the 2025 season in which he had 66 receptions, 699 receiving yards, and five touchdowns, he entered the transfer portal and will now be playing for the Purdue Boilermakers.[41]
FAU as a result of these transfers is seeking damages in the amounts of $30,000 from Waseem, $18,000 from Stolsky, $12,000 from Paret, and $9,000 from Sands.[42] The university claims these amounts are owed by the student-athletes per a liquidated damages clause found within each of the individuals’ agreements which states that athletes who transfer before completing their contracts may be required to repay half of the remaining compensation owed.
For those of you thinking that colleges and universities suing student-athletes is somewhat ridicules and derisive, FAU’s lawsuit is not the only one. It is part of a developing pattern of NCAA member institutions turning to the courts to enforce NIL contracts against players who enter the transfer portal. The University of Georgia allegedly began the trend in December 2025 when it filed a lawsuit against a former Bulldog claiming $390,000 in liquidated damages for leaving the team – the first of its kind in the NIL era.[43] Thereafter, the University of Cincinnati sued in federal court against former quarterback Brendan Sorsby, alleging that he breached his NIL contract by refusing to pay a $1 million exit fee after transferring to Texas Tech.[44] Other universities, including Duke, have also pursued legal action over NIL disputes, with at least one matter reaching a settlement that cleared the way for the athlete’s transfer.
This trend of NCAA schools suing student-athletes is a direct result of both the NIL debacle that the NCAA failed to handle properly in 2021, and the landmark NCAA House settlement which cleared the path for schools to pay players directly. Colleges and universities are now treating players like contracted employees; a trend clearly representing a shift from the NCAA’s traditional “amateurism” model to that of a more corporate-like sports structure.
The potential implications of all this litigation, however, extends beyond the immediate parties. A judicial ruling in favor of the schools could embolden other programs to pursue similar litigation, which, in turn, could create a chilling effect on athlete mobility, as players weigh the legal risks of transferring against potential opportunities elsewhere.
Alternatively, a ruling in favor of the student-athletes may significantly limit the enforceability of NIL agreements that include retention-based provisions. Such an outcome would reinforce the principle that NIL compensation should be independent of an athlete’s institutional affiliation, thereby preserving the flexibility afforded by the transfer portal.
That being said, as NIL deals become more sophisticated and much more lucrative, FAU’s lawsuit represents a pivotal test case in the ongoing evolution of college sport. By bringing contractual enforcement into direct tension with athlete mobility, the case highlights unresolved questions about fairness, autonomy, and structure of collegiate athletics. The outcome will likely shape not only how NIL agreements are drafted and enforced but also how courts interpret the rights and obligations of student-athletes in an increasingly professionalized environment. No matter what the outcome, however, there is a need for a clearer framework that balances the rights of student-athletes with the interests of institutions.
