How Schools Have Differed in Approach to Enforcing Revenue Sharing Contracts

Last Updated on January 25, 2026

When Duke University sued quarterback Darian Mensah recently, the reaction across college sports was immediate. Some saw it as an aggressive attempt to block a transfer. Others framed it as a school overreaching in the NIL era.

But zoom out, and Duke’s move looks less like an anomaly and more like the latest example of how schools are trying to retain talent, or get compensated for losing it, in a system that increasingly resembles professional sports, minus the restraints.

Duke Acted Early

Duke’s lawsuit stands out from the other squabbles we’ve seen because of the timing. Rather than waiting until Mensah enrolled elsewhere, Duke moved quickly, seeking arbitration and a temporary restraining order after he entered the transfer portal. The TRO, granted by a North Carolina judge, prevents Mensah from enrolling, playing, or licensing his NIL at another institution while the dispute plays out.

The legal theory itself isn’t novel: breach of contract and irreparable harm tied to NIL rights. What’s new is the willingness to use injunctive relief as a lever, which essentially freezes the situation during the narrow window that allows for spring enrollment and spring practice. That’s why Mensah filed an emergency motion asking the judge to reconsider because the court date of February 2nd falls beyond his January 23rd deadline for some of his offers from schools.

Duke isn’t arguing that Mensah must play for Duke. It’s arguing that losing the NIL rights it contracted for can’t be fully remedied later with money damages. Whether that argument ultimately succeeds remains to be seen. But from a business perspective, the strategy is clear: act before leverage disappears.

Georgia is Battling Post-Transfer

Contrast that with University of Georgia, which took a different approach when linebacker Damon Wilson II transferred to Missouri last year.

Georgia didn’t try to stop the transfer. Instead, it’s pursuing liquidated damages tied to Wilson’s NIL agreement with its former collective, Classic City Collective (an agreement that has since been assigned to the athletic association itself). The theory is straightforward: Wilson entered into the contract, accepted payment ($30,000 of the $500,000), and then breached the agreement by transferring.

The amount at issue—liquidated damages of $390,000—matters less than the precedent. This case could greatly influence whether liquidated damages clauses are included, and enforced, in future revenue sharing contracts.

Get a signed copy of The Athlete’s NIL Playbook with bonus pitch templates and checklists

Washington’s Threat Pays Off

Then there’s Washington, which never had to file a lawsuit at all.

When quarterback Demond Williams Jr. attempted to transfer shortly after signing a lucrative NIL deal, University of Washington refused to enter his name into the transfer portal and made clear legal action was on the table. Within days, Williams reversed course and recommitted.

No injunction. No arbitration filing. Just leverage and presumably a contract with enough “teeth” to change behavior.

From an athletics administration standpoint, this may be the most instructive example of all. The mere credible threat of enforcement appeared to be enough to retain the player.

Wisconsin and Clemson Chose Going After the School

The most aggressive escalation may belong to University of Wisconsin (and its collective), which sued the University of Miami for tampering and tortious interference after Xavier Lucas transferred without entering the portal.

This case isn’t about stopping Lucas or collecting damages from him. It’s about warning receiving schools that they could be exposed to litigation if they recruit athletes with existing NIL obligations.

Recently, Clemson also decided to call out tampering, with head coach Dabo Swinney and athletic director Graham Neff publicly announcing Clemson has submitted evidence to the NCAA that Ole Miss and head coach Pete Golding approached linebacker Luke Ferrelli against the organization’s rules. The NCAA says it is investigating.

If Wisconsin and Clemson’s efforts gain traction, the risk calculus around transfers changes dramatically for more than just athletes.

What This Means for College Athletics

Taken together, these cases reflect a system searching for equilibrium.

College sports currently allow for virtually unrestricted transferring, revenue sharing contracts that grant NIL exclusivity in the category of educational institutions (sometimes for the length of the athlete’s eligibility), and no collectively bargained rules or standard contracts.

In this environment, schools are reaching for the tools they do have: contract law, arbitration clauses, liquidated damages, and injunctions.

Whether these contracts become operational tools for retention, deterrence, and financial recovery will be heavily influenced by what happens in each of these cases.

Want to know more about what’s in these contracts? Check out the piece I wrote for Extra Points about how Washington, Minnesota and Purdue’s contracts differ even though they’re all based on the same Big Ten contract template.