How does being sued to be the QB for your college impact team camaraderie?
50 Replies
9
97Hokie
6mo
happen to VT.
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
6mo
Mainly because that would establish the athlete as an employee.
I know I'm oversimplifying. It would take a while to put it in place. But that's the holdup.
** Edited by reestuart at 1/21/2026, 8:57:24 AM
(In response to this post by 97Hokie)
6mo
....the “simple fix” is school‑issued contracts, and everyone knows it. The only reason it hasn’t happened is because the moment a school signs an athlete to a performance‑based contract, the entire amateurism façade collapses. And that’s the part nobody in university leadership wants to touch. Because once you go down that road, you’re not just “paying players.” You’re triggering:
workers’ comp
payroll taxes
unemployment insurance
FLSA wage/hour rules
grievance procedures
arbitration
Title IX compensation parity
unionization rights
mobility protections
Schools want the benefits of employment (control, exclusivity, predictability) without the obligations of employment (rights, protections, legal exposure). That’s why they cling to NIL as a workaround — it lets them funnel money into the system without admitting what the money is actually for. And you’re also right that it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. A real employment model would require:
standardized contracts
conference‑level bargaining units
revenue‑sharing formulas
roster rules
transfer windows negotiated like free agency
enforcement mechanisms that aren’t just “trust us”
But the holdup isn’t logistics. It’s fear — fear of the legal and financial consequences of admitting what everyone already knows: college football is a labor market.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
E
EDGEMAN
6mo
...not on such a high profile position.
(In response to this post by 97Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
6mo
How about the total from what Miami received from the playoff?
(In response to this post by Spudnut)
6mo
Locker room would be a mess if they keep him. A few matador blocks in the cupcake games.
Duke wants $$$$. In a civil lawsuit, the end game is the deepest pocket.
Miami
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
6mo
But the key difference is that with soccer clubs, the players are employees.
With college athletics, the Universities were against treating the athletes as employees but they want some of the protections that an employer gets without having to pay benefits, taxes, etc.
(In response to this post by Spudnut)
6mo
Below is a portion of the CBS article on this. What stands out to me is the battle of words about "irreparable harm". Personally I'd like to see Duke approach this from the angle of losing the starting QB on the last day of the portal puts Duke at a severe disadvantage for a replacement of the same quality. Thus it directly impacts their ability to win games, get games on better tv networks, and get compensated by the ACC (which is now tied to network viewership). The harm is tangible for the schools when players do this.
From the article:
"Contracts mean something. Mensah's actions violate numerous provisions of his contract with Duke University and disregard his promises and obligations to the University. And, as Mensah agreed when he signed his contract, such breaches cause Duke irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law and, in the event of any such breach, Duke is entitled to injunctive or other equitable relief."
Mensah's agency, Young Money, is working with sports attorney Darren Heitner to navigate the suit.
Heitner told CBS Sports the "lawsuit shouldn't have been filed in the first place for a variety of reasons.
"You can't restrain the movement of athletes from one school to another," Heitner said. "There's no provision in the agreement that removes a requirement that Duke put the player in the portal within 48 (business) hours of a request. There's no irreparable harm and there's a mechanism in the contract that shows how they'd be compensated for any harm, thus there cannot be irreparable harm."
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
6mo
chimed in with their explanations of the legal aspects involved and potential workarounds
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
6mo
Current case:
Duke “owns” two years of NIL for player X as defined in a signed contract with the player and his agent.
Player X has entered the portal and wants to transfer schools after just one year of the two year contract.
Is that NIL contract going to be cancelled? Or will this be the start of something new where schools can invest early on players and contract for multi year NIL deals? And then the schools can pay each other to buy deals (just like stocks) and transfer ownership after a player transfers? This way the schools can get paid as they lose players who are valuable.
Let’s make it structured and have some multi year contracts to settle things a bit.
(In response to this post by KaHOOnah)
6mo
has begun dabbling in such cases.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
6mo
*Search didn't specify and I didn't chase to determine the board from the latest search on the board name.
Since we don't know whether he is a Hokie or a Hoo, or if posts are random or part of a background existence, it'll be interesting to see if he responds.
Couldn't hurt.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
6mo
means nothing to Mensah and his agent then1) Duke doesn’t need to pay him or do anything else for him that was in the so-called contract, and 2) then NO contract between any player and any school is legitimate. This situation is total bullcrap.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
6mo
(In response to this post by Hokeedokee)
6mo
2-3 year payout for at least a portion of comp for coaches. Paid immediately if you are terminated.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
E
EDGEMAN
6mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
from Duke for use of his name and likeness while playing football for Duke, and no one else . In order for Mensah to get that income he agreed to play football for Duke. If he does not play football for Duke he broke the terms of his contract and Duke has every right to be compensated for that and this late in the game Duke IS suffering harm they cannot recoup so they are due damages. But…won’t be at all surprised to see Duke get NOTHING here.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
(In response to this post by Hokeedokee)
6mo
What I should have said is he gets income from whoever uses his name and likeness while playing football for Duke.
(In response to this post by Hokeedokee)
6mo
Duke’s entire NIL‑era legal posture depends on one claim: “NIL is not pay-for-play.”
But by suing Mensah to stop him from transferring, Duke is implicitly asserting: "We need him to stay because he plays football for us.”
Those two positions cannot coexist. And Mensah’s lawyers would have a field day exposing that contradiction.
Duke wants all the benefits of an employer (control, exclusivity, mobility restrictions) without any of the obligations of an employer (rights, protections, bargaining). Mensah’s argument is simply: pick one.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
B
BoozVT
6mo
Correct. And what do they want? Him to come back and force him to play/pay him to sit? Both would be disastrous for the program. Or are they hoping to get a financial penalty from him?
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
V
VTCALS72
6mo
And even if this does focus down on NIL there is a value that Mensah contracted to Duke.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
set some guardrails around the whole thing through this process. Deciding things in court is not ideal, but at least it gives all the schools some guidelines to follow. The current wild west needs to evolve to something better.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
didn't want to treat the players as employees. The schools can't argue that these guys are employees and then argue that they aren't employees subject to the same rights and benefits as coaches, etc.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
6mo
the Portal came pre NIL- or at least PRE what it is now.... they didn't come in together.. NIL adds contracts and different parameters than taking classes somewhere else....
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
6mo
Coaches come and go, players come and go, money is always a fight. The players know the score.
If a professional player says he's becoming a free agent after the season, does the team cut him or does the camaraderie with his current teammates break down? Rarely. And if the player ends up coming back to the team, do the other players or team mgmt hold a grudge? Rarely.
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
6mo
will have teammates who were siding with him. Most won't care either way.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
6mo
in an attempt to curtail this shady crap that is going on. I tip my hat to Duke for trying to enforce the original contract. I’m sure Duke realizes the likelihood of a fractured team psychy, but feel this is more important in the long run.
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
6mo
Taking one for the team” is a funny way to describe a school accidentally detonating its own legal position. Duke isn’t ‘curtailing shady crap’ — they’re handing every athlete’s lawyer a gift-wrapped argument that NIL is actually pay‑for‑play and that athletes are employees.
If Duke truly believed the contract was just an NIL deal, they wouldn’t be suing to control where Mensah plays football.
You don’t sue someone over their name and image. You sue someone when you think you own their labor.
And that’s the problem.
By trying to enforce “the original contract,” Duke is:
-Undermining the entire NCAA argument that NIL ≠ compensation for athletic services
-Demonstrating employer‑style control over an athlete’s mobility
-Creating the exact fact pattern the NLRB and courts look for when determining employee status
-Risking a ruling that could blow up the entire amateurism façade for everyone, not just Duke
Calling this “for the good of P4 football” is like saying someone lit their kitchen on fire to help the neighborhood learn about fire safety.
If anything, Duke just made it easier for athletes to argue they’re employees with mobility rights — because Duke’s own lawsuit shows they want all the control of an employer without any of the obligations.
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
6mo
Everyone is!
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…….
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
and providing most anything a normal employer would
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
employees.
They cannot flip flop positions to whatever serves their needs.
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
6mo
been brought on by the refusal to change by the schools, coaches, etc. It's self fulfilling.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
by the schools, coaches and administrators who didn't want to give up money and power to the players.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
6mo
the definition of employers...provide time place equipment and control- they even control what they eat and what classes they can take. I had a kid playing an olympic sport... that they didn't want taking any real classes- if you go power 4 or 5- whatever it is now- they don't want students - they want bawl players
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
2
2hhoop3
6mo
they are smarter than they really are. This case could be an absolute trainwreck before all is said and done.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
6mo
I am sure the kid is getting all kinds of advice from people that take 25 percent....
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
6mo
call it on the Weber City Packers. Jiggs Willis would be proud.
(In response to this post by bigbadbird)
E
EDGEMAN
6mo
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
6mo
what's the difference here really
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)