In addition to traditional contract principles, the disputes also raise significant antitrust law questions. Lawyers representing athletes argue that some contractual arrangements restrict competition by limiting players’ ability to move freely between institutions. If agreements effectively prevent athletes from transferring schools without financial punishment, courts may examine whether such practices unlawfully restrain trade.

Legal scholars note that these disputes reflect a broader structural tension in college athletics. Historically, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) treated student-athletes as amateurs rather than employees. However, recent court decisions — including the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Alston — weakened the NCAA’s authority to restrict education-related compensation.

Although the Alston decision did not directly address NIL payments, it signalled increased judicial scrutiny of NCAA rules. Since then, the regulatory environment has become more uncertain, and private contracting has expanded rapidly — sometimes without standardised drafting practices.

As a result, many NIL agreements were drafted quickly, often using broad language. Some contracts state that athletes “shall not transfer” during the agreement period without prior written consent. Others require athletes to “repay all compensation received” if they fail to fulfil participation obligations.

These clauses are now being tested in court.

Legal experts suggest that the enforceability of such provisions will depend on several factors:

• Whether the language clearly defines the parties’ obligations
• Whether the payment structure reflects genuine commercial consideration
• Whether the damages clause represents a reasonable estimate of loss
• Whether enforcement would violate public policy or antitrust principles

In the context of college athletes — many of whom are young and lack professional representation at the time of signing — courts may examine whether agreements were negotiated fairly and transparently.

The disputes also raise questions about contract drafting quality. Ambiguous wording, inconsistent definitions, and unclear termination provisions can significantly weaken enforceability. For example, if a clause states that an athlete “shall maintain good standing” without defining the term, courts may struggle to interpret whether transferring schools automatically constitutes breach.

If courts begin striking down these clauses, the consequences could extend beyond individual athletes. NIL collectives and universities may need to revise their standard form agreements. More precise drafting, clearer limitation of liability provisions, and carefully structured repayment mechanisms may become essential.

Some commentators believe the disputes could accelerate discussions about collective bargaining. If athletes were recognised as employees, compensation structures would likely shift from individual NIL contracts to negotiated labour agreements.

For now, however, the legal landscape remains uncertain. Several cases are ongoing, and courts have not yet established consistent precedent regarding NIL-related liquidated damages or transfer restrictions.

What is clear is that contract language — particularly clauses concerning obligation, termination, and damages — will play a decisive role in determining the outcome.

These disputes also demonstrate a fundamental principle of contract law: a clause that appears valid on paper may become vulnerable when tested against enforceability standards.

As litigation continues, the drafting of NIL agreements — and possibly broader sports contracts — is likely to become more sophisticated, more cautious, and more closely aligned with established contract doctrine.