On December 30, 2024, six Florida State University basketball players filed a lawsuit against their former head coach, Leonard Hamilton, claiming he promised – and later failed – to pay each plaintiff $250,000 in NIL money in exchange for playing basketball at FSU during the 2023-24 season.[1] The allegations, which range from breach of contract to fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement, are supported by detailed evidence tending to show Hamilton knowingly made promises and reassurances throughout the season he never intended to keep.[2] One of the more damaging accounts describes a meeting Hamilton called after learning several players planned to boycott the Duke game because none of them had received their promised payments despite multiple assurances from Hamilton throughout the season.[3] At that meeting, he told the players once again that each would certainly receive the promised $250,000, and, specifically, that the money would come no later than the following week.[4] Will Cowan, a representative of FSU’s collective Rising Spear, was also present at this meeting, giving Hamilton’s promises just enough credibility for the players to participate in the Duke game, despite texts between players showing they put very little stock into Hamilton’s promise.[5]

The complaint makes an alarming observation: unfortunately, broken promises have been a constant in the field of NIL since its inception.[6] It goes on to cite other examples of instances of coaches and collectives promising grand payments, but never following through. It first mentions a situation coming out of University of Nevada Las Vegas, where an unnamed assistant coach orally promised quarterback Matthew Sluka $100,000 to transfer to UNLV for the 2024-25 season.[7] Not only did UNLV fail to pay, but purportedly countered with an offer of $12,000 once the season was well underway.[8] UNLV claims it fulfilled all obligations and did not respond to Sluka’s financial demands to continue playing because they were violations of NCAA bylaws and Nevada law.[9] Sluka responded by quitting mid-season. Unlike in the UNLV dispute, Hamilton only indicated that his “business partners” – and not FSU – was the source of NIL payments.[10] The complaint also refers to a controversy at the University of Tulsa where several football players claim the former head coach orally promised them tens of thousands of dollars of NIL payments during the 2023-24 season – none of which was paid.[11] Like the plaintiffs at FSU, the Tulsa players say the promised NIL deals played a role in their decision to play at Tulsa versus other schools.[12]

Similarly, in May 2024, Georgia quarterback Jaden Rashada filed a complaint against University of Florida’s head coach Billy Napier and several key players in the UF football program, claiming several varieties of fraudulent conduct.[13] Rashada alleges that, in exchange for flipping his commitment from Miami and thus foregoing a $9.5 million NIL deal, UF boosters and the Gator Collective promised Rashada $13.85 million paid over four years, with a $1 million bonus on Signing Day.[14] Rashada announced his re-commitment to UF from Miami in mid-November of his senior year. Within a month, boosters and collectives at UF began showing signs it would ultimately never pay. On December 6, 2022, the Gator Collective abruptly terminated Rashada’s NIL deal.[15] Within days, another UF collective reinstated the deal, and in a show of sincerity, wired Rashada $150,000. The complaint asserts this was to help Rashada avoid pending litigation from Miami booster John Ruiz.[16] Rashada signed with UF on December 21, but arguably under dubious circumstances: that same day, Coach Napier again promised Rashada $1 million if he signed, and boosters told Rashada that Coach Napier might pull his scholarship offer if he did not sign immediately.[17] But while Rashada held up his end of the bargain, UF never followed through. Rashada announced his decision to flip to Arizona State University in early January 2023.[18] He did not seek or receive any NIL deal, despite being ranked seventh nationally in the class of 2023 college-bound quarterbacks.[19]

Thus, unfortunately, broken promises have been a constant in the field of NIL.[20] For litigation purposes, broken promises translate to breach of contract and fraud claims. The basic requirements for successfully alleging breach of contract requires giving enough details so that the claim is plausible on its face. Arguably, each of the above-described instances of failure to pay for NIL deals satisfies this standard.[21] Text messages between players and Cowan clearly show Hamilton’s promise to pay the plaintiffs $250,000 apiece for committing to and playing basketball for FSU during the 2023-24 season. Plaintiffs upheld their end of the bargain, but Hamilton did not. Further, plaintiffs assert Hamilton’s promise played a central role in several players’ decision to play for FSU over other NCAA member schools, and thus, other potential NIL deals.[22]

On the other hand, fraud claims require more particularity in a complaint.[23] Even still, the FSU and Rashada complaints easily satisfy the standard with specific details of coaches’ and collectives’ fraudulent conduct. Both complaints also include texts and tweets showing an obvious agreement between the schools and student athletes, followed by meticulous descriptions of the defendants’ shifty behavior. Coaches and collectives bought time by giving student athletes vague promises and payment schedules for their unpaid NIL money when, in fact, there was no intention to follow through. The Gator Collective went so far as to terminate its deal with Rashada without warning and with no proffered reason why.

As of now, the student athletes’ only recourse is litigation – an expensive and lengthy process that may cost more than the NIL deal was ultimately worth. Without regulation or repercussions, coaches and collectives have the freedom to lure student athletes into contracts committing to play for their schools, while knowing all along promised payments would never come. Student athletes, particularly those coming right out of high school, are at a great disadvantage in negotiating with NCAA member schools, who are often backed by wealthy alumni and donors. Pat McAfee pledged to donate $1 million to West Virginia’s NIL fund, and Dave Portnoy pledged to donate at least $1 million to Michigan’s NIL fund to find a quarterback. Flashy endorsements and elusive promises to make millions before the age of 21, coupled with the ability to terminate or breach the agreement at whim once the athlete signs a Letter of Intent, only harm athletes. Until regulations are put in place to protect student athletes, broken promises will likely remain a constant in the field of NIL.

Keeton Cross is a 3L at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. She can be found on X at @keeton-cross and on LinkedIn (Keeton Cross).

References:

[1] Michael McCann & Eben Novy-Williams, FSU’s Leonard Hamilton Sued Over Alleged Unpaid NIL Promises, Sportico (Dec. 30, 2024), available at https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/fsu-leonard-hamilton-lawsuit-nil-1234822110/ 

[2] See Green v. Hamilton, No. 213598851 (Fla. Leon County Ct., filed Dec. 30, 2024), available at https://www.si.com/college/fsu/florida-state-seminoles-college-basketball/six-former-fsu-basketball-players-file-lawsuit-against-leonard-hamilton-over-lack-of-nil-payments-jalen-warley-darin-green 

[3] See Green, Complaint at ¶ 22.

[4] See id.

[5] See id. at ¶ 22-23. 

[6] Green, Complaint at ¶ 3.

[7] Eben Novy-Williams, Welcome to the World of One-Off College Football Labor Strife, Sportico (Sep. 25, 2024), available at https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/unlv-quarterback-matthew-sluka-nil-dispute-college-sports-labor-1234798645/. 

[8] Id. 

[9] Id. 

[10] See Green, Complaint at ¶ 2.

[11] See id. at ¶ 3.

[12] Id.

[13] See Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial, Rashada v. Hathcock, No. 3:24-cv-219 (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 21, 2024), available at https://static01.nyt.com/athletic/uploads/wp/2024/05/21100446/Rashada-v.-Hathcock-5.21.2024.pdf 

[14] See id. at ¶¶ 7, 31, 33.

[15] See id. at ¶ 53.

[16] See id. at ¶¶ 55-56.

[17] See id. at ¶¶ 61-64.

[18] See id. at 66.

[19] See id. at ¶ 2, 66.

[20] Green, Complaint at ¶ 3.

[21] See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

[22] See Green, Complaint at ¶ 50.

[23] Id.