Can You Bench A Transfer? NIL Meets The Non-Compete Era

As college athletics continue to embrace commercial realities, the old rules of contract law are catching up fast. A new lawsuit filed by the University of Wisconsin ("Wisconsin") and its affiliated collective, VC Connect, LLC ("VC Connect"), against the University of Miami spotlights a fresh frontier in the evolving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape—where competition on the field now intersects with non-compete principles once reserved for the workplace.

This case underscores a growing truth: universities, collectives, and athletes can no longer treat NIL contracts as casual or unenforceable. These deals carry real legal weight—and real risk.

The Contract and Alleged Breach

On June 20, 2025, the University of Wisconsin and its affiliated collective VC Connect, LLC, filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin State Court against the University of Miami ("Miami"). The lawsuit relates to NIL agreements that Wisconsin and VC Connect had signed with a football player believed to be defensive back Xavier Lucas.¹

The complaint alleges two agreements:

1. The University Contract—granting Wisconsin an exclusive license to Lucas's NIL rights for two years and prohibiting him from granting those rights elsewhere or enrolling to compete for another institution.
2. The Collective Contract—between Lucas and VC Connect, providing interim compensation until university payments could begin following approval of the House settlement.

Together, these provisions resembled traditional non-compete agreements found in employment contracts.

Wisconsin and VC Connect (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), claim that Miami engaged in impermissible recruiting contact, leading Lucas to request entry into the transfer portal. Despite reminders from Wisconsin officials about his contractual obligations, Lucas unenrolled and publicly announced his move to Miami on January 13, 2025, shortly before joining official workouts there.

The Lawsuit and Legal Claims

The Plaintiffs assert multiple claims, including:

• Tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships; and
• Declaratory relief to confirm the enforceability of the underlying agreements.

Miami, in turn, has moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state certain claims.

What's at Stake: The Future of NIL "Non-Competes"

The Wisconsin-Miami case raises novel—and consequential—questions. Can a university or collective legally restrict an athlete from transferring to another school? Does a two-year "exclusivity" clause amount to a non-compete restriction, and if so, is it enforceable against a college athlete?

Further, the nuances of different states non-compete laws may also come into play and could create certain advantages and disadvantages depending on what state the athlete is transferring to and/or playing in. Indeed, the restrictive covenant laws in California (where non-competes are outright banned for employees) are different than Florida and Michigan (where non-competes are enforceable if they are reasonable and serve a legitimate business purpose). As such, there could be a situation where one University in one state could bench a transfer (e.g. enforce a non-compete), but another University in another state could not bench that same transfer.

Although Wisconsin did not assert a direct non-compete claim, future cases may. Supporters argue that athletes voluntarily enter into these agreements and can bargain for exclusivity like any other professional. Critics counter that student-athletes are not employees, and such restrictions could unfairly limit their freedom to compete or transfer.

Either way, the NIL era has brought contract law—and potentially non-compete law—onto the playing field.

Looking Ahead

The Wisconsin-Miami dispute will not be the final word on non-compete enforcement in college sports. But it serves as a clear warning: as NIL contracts expand and become more sophisticated, so too will the legal scrutiny surrounding them.

With the House settlement now permitting direct university payments to athletes, expect to see more NIL disputes invoking traditional contract doctrines—and perhaps even testing the limits of non-compete law in a collegiate setting.

Footnote

1. The Plaintiffs did not use Lucas's name in the Complaint, rather they referred to him as "Student-Athlete A." A copy of the Complaint can be found by clicking here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.