When NIL Contracts Bite Back: Enforceability and Athlete Mobility in College Football

NIL Moves from Compensation to Litigation:

NIL has yet to stop surprising the legal world. Within the first weeks of 2026, it has transformed from a mechanism for athlete compensation into a litigation strategy, with universities suing their own quarterbacks over alleged NIL contract breaches tied to transfer decisions. What started with Washington’s Demond Williams and has escalated into Duke’s lawsuit against Darian Mensah creates a new reality: NIL contracts are no longer just about compensation, but about control over athletes.

The Duke Mensah Case:

The most recent legal battle centers on Duke quarterback Darian Mensah. After initially announcing he would return to Duke rather than enter the NFL Draft, Mensah confirmed a multiyear NIL deal reportedly worth $8 million in exchange for two seasons with the program. Less than a month later, he reversed course and entered the NCAA transfer portal. In response, Duke filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the NIL agreement and prevent the transfer, arguing that the contract gave the university exclusive rights to market Mensah’s name, image, and likeness.

A North Carolina judge, Michael O’Foghludha, granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Mensah from enrolling at another school, signing a licensing deal with another program, or taking any other action that would breach the two-season NIL contract he signed with Duke, running through 2026. While Duke’s initial request to block him from entering the transfer portal entirely was denied, the TRO effectively froze key steps in his transfer process until a previously scheduled hearing on February 2, 2026. As of January 27, 2026, Duke University and Mensah settled the lawsuit, ending the transfer dispute before any court ruled on the enforceability of the NIL agreement.

The Washington Williams Case: NIL Power Without Litigation:

By contrast, the University of Washington quarterback, Demond Williams, never faced a formal lawsuit, but his situation demonstrates the power schools have regarding NIL agreements. In December 2025, Williams announced via social media his intent to leave the program, despite having signed a multiyear NIL contract reportedly worth several million dollars. As a result, Washington indicated that they were prepared to pursue legal action in order to enforce Williams’ contract. Though Williams also retained legal counsel, Williams announced he would remain at Washington, ending this chaotic 48-hour frenzy. Though this instance did not see a courtroom, it shows how universities are beginning to pursue legal avenues to enforce NIL contracts.

Legal Implications: NIL Contracts and Labor Mobility:

The legal issues raised by the Duke and Washington disputes extend beyond simple contract enforcement into uncharted territory for college athletics. At their core, NIL agreements are private contracts governed by state law, but the way they are structured in the emerging revenue‑sharing era is stirring debate about whether they should be treated like ordinary commercial contracts or something closer to employment restrictions. Experts have observed that many modern NIL contracts, especially those tied to continued enrollment and appearance on a team roster, resemble employment‑style arrangements that could face heightened judicial scrutiny if they limit an athlete’s ability to pursue opportunities elsewhere. Courts traditionally view restraints on labor mobility with caution, particularly where there is a significant power imbalance between the contracting parties. This is applicable to the case between student‑athletes and large institutions.

Recent efforts to classify student-athletes as employees, including a unionization petition by Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team, were withdrawn in 2024, leaving the persistent legal view that student-athletes are not employees under federal labor law. The evolving legal landscape also reflects broader antitrust concerns; recent cases challenging NCAA restrictions on NIL recruiting framed certain limits on compensation and movement as unlawful restraints of trade, signaling that anything resembling a restriction on athlete mobility may face legal pushback. 

What the Future Holds for NIL and College Athletics:

These cases show just how rapidly NIL is changing and gives a glimpse to what the future may hold. How courts and arbitrators handle these contracts could have a ripple effect, shaping how universities negotiate future deals, how much control they can exercise over athletes, and what freedom players have with transferring schools. For student-athletes, the stakes in scoring an NIL deal are higher than ever. Navigating NIL agreements may increasingly require legal guidance to protect both the athlete’s compensation, their ability to transfer, and their overall understanding of their obligations. For universities, the cases highlight the need for careful drafting, clear terms, and an understanding of the legal limits of enforcing NIL contracts. This new type of dispute in 2026 will set precedents that redefine the relationship between athletes and schools, showing that NIL is about far more than money, it’s also about power, leverage, and the evolving structure of college sports.

The Washington and Duke cases have possibly marked a turning point in NIL enforcement. If courts uphold enforcement of NIL contracts and cause restrictions on transfer mobility, universities could gain a powerful new leverage tool that puts power back into the hands of the athletic departments. If courts push back, NIL agreements may need to be restructured to avoid undue restraints on athlete autonomy. Either way, these disputes reveal that the next phase of NIL reform could be litigated as much in courtrooms as on fields and in boardrooms.

Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn.