Image Source: Michael McCann
Key Takeaways
- University of Washington quarterback Demond Williams Jr. has decided not to transfer, avoiding a potential lawsuit from the university
- The dispute between Williams and Washington highlights the tension between college athletes and universities, with the former seeking to assert their rights as employees
- Revenue share contracts, like the one Williams signed, can be seen as employment agreements, potentially paving the way for college athletes to seek employment protections
- The situation could have implications for the broader debate over college athlete employment and the role of the NCAA
- Potential solutions, such as unionization and collective bargaining, could help address the issues surrounding college athlete transfers and compensation
Introduction to the Dispute
The recent decision by University of Washington quarterback Demond Williams Jr. not to transfer to another school has averted a potential lawsuit from the university. As reported by ESPN, Williams had signed a revenue share contract with Washington worth over $4 million, but later announced his intention to enter the transfer portal. The university had threatened to sue Williams for breach of contract, citing a buyout clause in the agreement. According to Williams’ agent, Doug Hendrickson, "philosophical differences" led to the decision to part ways with Williams. This dispute highlights the tension between college athletes and universities, with the former seeking to assert their rights as employees.
The Contract and Its Implications
The revenue share contract signed by Williams is permissible under the House settlement, which allows colleges to pay athletes a share of up to 22% of average power conference athletic media, ticket, and sponsorship revenue. However, as noted by Sportico, these contracts often contain language that explicitly disclaims employment. As stated in the contract, the school has the "sole discretion" to decide whether to enter Williams’ name into the NCAA transfer portal. Despite this, courts may view the relationship between Williams and Washington as akin to employment, given the compensation and expectations surrounding his football services. As the article notes, "courts are often moved more by substance over form."
The Legal Perspective
From a legal perspective, the situation is complex. While no college can block a student from transferring to another college, a school can sue a student for breach of contract if they have signed a revenue share agreement. As the article states, "a power conference football player could assert his relationship with his university resembles employment." If a school were to sue a player like Williams, the player could countersue, arguing that the school interfered with their prospective contractual relations with other universities. The player could also argue that the revenue share contract should be understood as an employment deal, entitling them to protections as an employee.
Potential Consequences and Solutions
The consequences of a breach of contract lawsuit could be costly for a player like Williams. The contract may contain a liquidated damages provision, which could stipulate a significant amount of money owed to the school. Alternatively, the player may be required to pay an amount to put the school in the competitive position it would have been in if the player had remained. As the article notes, "a breach of contract lawsuit could prove costly for a player of Williams’ stature." To avoid such disputes, some argue that college athletes should be recognized as employees of the school and/or conference, allowing them to unionize and bargain collectively. As the article suggests, "if college athletes, or at least some power conference athletes, were recognized as employees of the school and/or conference and if they in turn unionize, the union could bargain on the athletes’ behalf."
Implications for College Sports
The situation highlights the need for clarity on the status of college athletes as employees or students. As the article notes, "the current state of college sports, where athletes transfer schools to gain more money, has attracted rebuke by media and fans." The dispute between Williams and Washington may be referenced in future lawsuits, such as Johnson v. NCAA, which argues that college athletes are employees within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ultimately, the resolution of this dispute and others like it will have significant implications for the future of college sports and the rights of college athletes. As Darren Heitner, Williams’ new attorney, stated, "we will continue to monitor the situation and ensure that Demond’s rights are protected."
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/demond-williams-legal-fallout-1234880496/
