UGA-Damon Wilson ll legal battle begs question of NIL contract enforceability

Wilson signed a three-page term sheet with Classic City Collective — the University of Georgia athletics booster collective — detailing how he would be paid $500,000 for the usage of his name, image and likeness over 14 months.

Georgia paid Wilson the $30,000 initial licensing payment as detailed in the term sheet that stipulated a buyout should Wilson leave early.

Wilson elected to transfer after playing in the Sugar Bowl, and UGA followed up with requests for Wilson to pay the $390,000 buyout in the term sheet.

ESPN reported “several legal experts” reviewed player contracts and said “schools are inappropriately attempting to use liquidated damages as a de facto ‘buy out fee’ for players who break a contract to transfer.”

Wilson’s recent countersuit claims that the term sheet he signed is not a legally binding agreement.

The 42-page lawsuit, acquired by The Atlanta Journal Constitution, seeks to grant Wilson relief from paying the lump sum and suggest UGA should be liable for any damages that hurt Wilson’s reputation and his ability to negotiate a different deal.

Wilson’s lawsuit also claims that Georgia’s looking to enforce the contract — the de facto “buy out” clause — is a “strong-arm tactic.”

Two questions seem to be at the root of this:

The interesting twist is, what happens if a school signs a player to an agreement, but then refuses to pay?

Could the school say the agreement wasn’t binding, or that it changed its mind and decided to give the deal to someone else on the team?

It would seem to be a two-way street.

The ESPN article quoted one of Wilson’s attorneys, Jeff Jensen as saying, “Georgia appears intent on making an example of someone, they just picked the wrong person.”

Wilson’s lawsuit states he did not have legal counsel with him when called into a football office to sign the agreement last December.

It was Wilson’s understanding that the term sheet was intended to precede a “full License and Option Agreement.”

That’s where the legality of the paperwork needs to be determined.

But if the paperwork is indeed legally binding, it would seem that if it’s like the buyout clauses in head coach’s contracts, it would be enforceable.

Georgia obviously couldn’t pay all of its outside linebackers the amount it agreed to pay Wilson, so when he left, the team lost a key asset.

Wilson led Missouri in sacks this season, while Georgia had only eight sacks through the first eight games, ranking outside of the Top 100.

The timing of Wilson’s transfer — during the early portion of the portal window — came amid expanded portal days that were available only to teams still on the College Football Playoff.

The vast majority of other elite transfer candidates in the early portal window had already left their programs for new homes, or reached agreements to stay with their current schools.

The Bulldogs scrambled to sign Army transfer Elo Modozie out of the portal, presumably agreeing to some financial terms.

Modozie has made four tackles on the season with a half-tackle for loss and no sacks on the 130 snaps he played — 46 (35.4%) in run defense, 70 (53.8%) in pass rush and 14 (10.8) in pass coverage.

Wilson, last year, played 417 defensive snaps, 153 (36.7%) in run defense, 216 in pass rush (51.8%) and 48 in pass coverage (11.5).

At Missouri this season, Wilson played 461 defensive snaps, 165 (35.8) in run defense, 290 (62.9) in pass rush and 6 in coverage (1.3).

The breakdown of football duties is worth noting, as part of Wilson’s countersuit is that his decision to enter the portal came after “knowing he needed a change to showcase his full skill set to NFL teams,” as UGA’s defensive scheme had at times required him “drop back into coverage.”

It’s another facet of the case, as a judge could be asked to determine if the player had cause to break the contract.

Against Notre Dame in last year’s Sugar Bowl — the only game Wilson played after signing the contract/term sheet — Wilson played 20 snaps on defense, 9 (45%) in run defense, 9 (45%) in pass rush and 2 (10%) in coverage.

Will, or should, contract terms for players also include specifics on the type of defensive assignment they will be doled out at their position?

Further, does Missouri — which signed Wilson through the portal despite the pending terms of his agreement with Georgia — bear any responsibility for the lump sum/buyout?

The lawsuit begs several questions that college football, in this new era of NIL dealings and free agency via the portal, has not yet answered.