This is a much more accurate statement than the bull**** that
@Gennaker Cane vomited out.
However, there are some interesting elements to discuss.
FIRST, is that it is NOT JUST "the University of Wisconsin" that is the plaintiff. It is ALSO their collective that is a named plaintiff. So you have a very interesting (and possibly novel) question of whether an entity that is NOT an arm of the state (the Collective) can gin its way into "sovereign-immunity/non-citizen-status" by joining with a state institution as joint plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Similarly, one could argue that "the state" (University of Wisconsin) cannot extend ITS sovereign-immunity/non-citizen-status to another non-state entity by filing as a joint plaintiff.
SECOND, you can also use the role of the COLLECTIVE to show that the University of Wisconsin is NOT acting as "an arm of the state" in this situation at all, but they are entering into a joint venture of sorts which should NOT enjoy the benefit of "sovereign-immunity/non-citizen-status". The US Constitution, the Eleventh Amendment, and the various rules on "citizenship-status" were not intended to apply to situations where a state university joins with another entity in a venture that goes beyond "arm of the state" types of activities.
Until seeing some of the details of the allegations, it is also hard to know how much of the "contracts" were entered into by the Collective vs. the University of Wisconsin. Having spoken with a few Wisconsin attorneys on the Wisconsin boards back in December-January, I know some things about how this deal was conceptualized and presented that go beyond "newspaper article" summaries.
Finally, we can look to the overall "agreement" (I won't even use the word "contract" here) to try to assess what in the **** Wisconsin thinks they can pursue, no matter the venue.
From all indications, it would appear that Xavier Lucas "signed" a document on December 12th and then effectively repudiated it on December 19th when he texted his intention to enter the transfer Portal.
So what happened in this MAGICAL 7-day period when Wisconsin suffered GRIEVOUS HARM? Yeah, that's a funny one.
We all know that the Big 10 developed a common template agreement to try to transition from "old NIL" to "future not-yet-in-existence revenue sharing". Fine. And from statements made by Darren Heitner and others, hundreds of Big 10 athletes were presented templates, many of which their agents/attorneys red-lined before signing. OK.
But in the case of Xavier Lucas, a teenager over a thousand miles from his home, he was presented the template agreement from Wisconsin and pressured to sign it during final exams, without meeting with his family, without meeting with any legal or contractual representatives. And somehow, without alleging ANYTHING that Wisconsin did between December 12th and December 19th, they would have us believe that they suffered massive pecuniary and "reputational" damages from ONE player submitting paperwork to enter the Portal.
How?
---Did Wisconsin print thousands of Xavier Lucas football jerseys during that one week period that they are now forced to sell at 90% discount?
---Did Wisconsin recruit/sign any HS or Portal players or FAIL TO recruit/sign any HS or Portal players based on their one-week detrimental reliance on Xavier Lucas's apparent promise to return to Wisconsin?
---Did Wisconsin suddenly "lose" any roster players or potential recruits because of the "reputational harm" created by ONE player entering the transfer Portal during a period when he was ALLOWED to enter the transfer portal?
What Wisconsin would have us believe is that Xavier Lucas absolutely wanted to remain at Wisconsin BUT FOR the tampering and devious behavior of the Evil Miami Minions. Wisconsin wants you to ignore geography (Lucas is from SoFla), family issues (sick relative), friends (guys he once played with who are on the Miami roster), and any possibility that a week-later realization that Wisconsin had taken advantage of Xavier Lucas's young age and minimal legal knowledge to convince him to sign a grossly one-sided contract. Wisconsin wants you to believe that a teenager being asked to sign a contract CONTINGENT on a major court case that had not yet been decided was some sort of well-reasoned adult decision to enter into a contract, a contract that should be enforced by a court regardless of the massive power/financial disparity between the parties, and without Xavier Lucas being offered the advice to consult with his attorney and/or a tax professional.
Even worse, it is not even apparent that the agreement forms an enforceable contract whatsoever. In the first place, it was ALWAYS contingent upon a future SPECULATIVE event that had not even happened (the House settlement). Second, based on comments from various parties that no money was paid during the magical week of December 12th to December 19th, it does not appear that any CONSIDERATION was paid to Xavier Lucas that would represent the bare minimum necessity for Wisconsion to have entered into a contract. Finally, without seeing the actual "contract" (or "contracts") that would bind the DIFFERENT plaintiffs (the University AND the Collective), it is impossible to tell what was intended and whether the parties were actually bound in agreement, or if instead, it was an agreement to agree upon something in the future when some other event happened that was not certain to happen.
Finally, we look at the damages. And for the life of me, I cannot fathom how a magical ONE WEEK PERIOD caused Wisconsin ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER. Sure, it sucks to lose a talented player. I get it. And it definitely sucks to lose him to his hometown school where he will be surrounded by friends or family, and where Wisconsin loses the ability to keep him isolated from his world by living in Madison. But Wisconsin never paid Xavier Lucas a dime under the contract(s) they claim he knowingly entered into. We know **** well that they didn't give him a cent of "revenue-sharing" that was unapproved and hasn't even come into being yet, 7 months later. So until Wisconsin tells us what was "done" in one week that cannot be "undone" without the payment of pecuniary damages, we can safely assume that number is zero-point-zero.
At the end of the day, all Wisconsin has is a signature. And they want us all to believe that the signature was fairly given for adequate consideration, when we all know that simply didn't happen. Wisconsin wants us to believe that a teenager in the middle of final exams INTENDED to be bound by a future lawsuit settlement that he didn't understand at all. And that his signature, outside of the consultation of his family and advisors, should be enforced as if it was an ordinary average business contract entered into by two sophisticated and well-advised business entities.
It's crap. All Wisconsin has to offer is a "conflicting" statement made by a family member of Xavier's, and not Xavier himself. Sure, Wisconsin wants everyone to honor Xavier's signature when his family was cut out of the discussion, but then put all the weight on the words of a single family member when its apparent "conflicting nature" suits Wisconsin's needs.
It's all bull****. It's gonna take a bit of time for a logical and rational judge to sort through the irrelevant bits, but this should go in Miami's favor relatively easily.
Call Jaret Davis and get Greenberg Traurig on retainer, stat.
