forums

Wisconsin officially sues Miami over Xavier Lucas

The entire case if there is any merit, seems to come down to the alleged impermissible contact on 12/18. Which Heitner says never happened. Hard to see this going anywhere and I am sure there were people in Wisconsin who argued against this.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes. The "multiple years" thing truly concerns me.

And things are getting verrrrrry close to "statutory employee" status...
Click to expand...
Doesnt the B1G risk exposing themselves to the massive scrutiny that FSU is going through by pushing so hard to get a court to bless their templated contract as "enforceable"? They are going to put multiple institutions into a bind having to present that contract and answer questions that I'm not sure many of them are going to be able to from player representatives.

Didn't they have some verbiage in there that the institutions can put a minutes/snaps played clause and reduce the players share at their own discretion at any time? Basically if a player is getting close to a milestone they can sit them and not have to pay and not face any contractual repercussions.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes. The "multiple years" thing truly concerns me.

And things are getting verrrrrry close to "statutory employee" status...
Click to expand...
There have been comments that FSU has used a similar document including wording that FSU has the right to extend the initial agreement for an additional year without any terms being re-negotiated. That won't go over well.
 
Rickd said:
There have been comments that FSU has used a similar document including wording that FSU has the right to extend the initial agreement for an additional year without any terms being re-negotiated. That won't go over well.
Click to expand...


You said additional year (singular), but I believe they can extend for additional yearS (plural).
 
The latest episode of The Audible covered the lawsuit (the last 3rd of this episode).

The Audible is hosted by Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman (a former Cane) but Bruce was out this episode and Mandel had a college football legal analyst on to talk the lawsuit. They both came to the same conclusion that we all have... it seems very unlikely that Wisconsin is going to win this case and the cards are stacked in Miami's favor. Just thought I would share as it's coming from a non-biased source.
 
grover said:
smh. Colleges thinking they're in the film or record agent business. Next thing you know they'll want to own the intellectual property to the methods and processes used to throw a ball or tackle a ball carrier.
Click to expand...
MIAMI needs to patent the "tight spiral".
 
grover said:
smh. Colleges thinking they're in the film or record agent business. Next thing you know they'll want to own the intellectual property to the methods and processes used to throw a ball or tackle a ball carrier.
Click to expand...
If a player declares for the draft early, how is the NFL team that drafts him not committing tortious interference in the eyes of Wisconsin?
Like every argument they make as far as I can tell they COULD make against a team drafting him before his eligibility ends and he still has remaining years on his contract lol
 
Shogungts said:
The latest episode of The Audible covered the lawsuit (the last 3rd of this episode).

The Audible is hosted by Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman (a former Cane) but Bruce was out this episode and Mandel had a college football legal analyst on to talk the lawsuit. They both came to the same conclusion that we all have... it seems very unlikely that Wisconsin is going to win this case and the cards are stacked in Miami's favor. Just thought I would share as it's coming from a non-biased source.
Click to expand...
Almost like this lawsuit was never about UW and miami...
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
A couple of issues:

1. It appears (and I reserve the right to be wrong) that this might be the instructions related to Counts III and IV of the complaint. I believe that because:
a. There does not appear to be a "knowledge of the contract" instruction
b. There is some language at the beginning of the instruction for whether the "relationship" gives rise to a contract and whether that requires a separate set of "contract instructions", and
c. Counts I and II of the Complaint focus on Tortious Interference with a CONTRACT, while Counts III and IV of the Complaint speak of PROSPECTIVE contracts, and then (after re-alleging prior paragraphs) reference the RELATIONSHIP as the very next paragraph, and the fact that there are SEPARATE Counts I & II vs. III & IV leads me to think that there could be different and separate elements (i.e., one is not included in the other as a "lesser-included charge" type of a deal)

2. This is not to say that the instructions you attached are "wrong" or anything, and I don't think anyone is really an expert on Wisconsin forms and procedures, so I'm wondering if WI has SEPARATE instructions for the two different types of counts (I & II vs. III & IV) or if they simply make adaptations to the instructions provided, especially for Counts I and II on "knowledge" of the contract.

3. I tend to agree with your point about the Declaratory relief, particularly as it is expressed in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. Up until this point, the Complaint has been talking about Xavier Lucas and the PAST, now UW wants the court to rhapsodize about the future. It is particularly interesting as it relates to the nature of the rev-share deals. The one that Xavier (and others signed) is completely different from those that will arise in the future. Once the House settlement is given life and a framework within the NCAA, any Big 10 rev share deals would be immediately executable and immediately enforceable (assuming they did not run afoul of any other rules). So we come right back around to the need to find the Lucas-UW rev-share deal invalid, unenforceable, and irrelevant from the outset of the signature. If so, and if the "soon-valid" contracts are going to govern future deals, then there is no need for declaratory relief.

4. Finally, there was some interesting language near the end of the instructions. The FIRST question for the jury is whether there is a valid contract, and as the form says, IN MOST CASES this question is answered by the court as a matter of law. BUT...that is likely not a valid statement here. Thus it seems like the court may need to have its own hearing/mini-trial on whether the Wisconsin rev-share deal is actually a contract BEFORE the rest of the questions ever go to a jury (or the bench) for determination of the other elements of tortious/intentional interference.
Click to expand...
These appear to be WI’s jury instructions for all four counts. They just have it set up this way so they can be edited. Thus (as you know, but for the benefit of others here…), the contract instructions can be inserted, or only the “prospective” language can be used, or it can be deleted, or both the “contract” and “prospective” language can be used, etc.

Wisconsin Civil JI - Wisconsin State Law Library

wilawlibrary.gov wilawlibrary.gov

Below are the jury instructions that would be inserted if the jury is to make the determination as to whether a valid contract exists. Y’all may be correct that the court may be making the determination and not the jury, but it’s worth looking at 1) because we don’t know yet; and 2) it’s the same law and guidelines the court will be considering (although contract law doesn’t vary much among states).


And just for kicks, here are the jury instructions on breach of a contract (a key element in tortious interference of a contract):


TheOriginalCane said:
View attachment 328982
Click to expand...
Let me add to this…

Re: the employer-employee v. independent contractor status, there have been a lot of cases over the past decade (mostly state law, however) that further defined these factors.

So things like the control factor became even more stressed with the advent of companies such as Uber, Amazon, and the like. What this means in terms of the RELATIONSHIP is how much control does the employer have over the employee/IC? Do they have to be at certain places at certain times? Are they told exactly what to do and how to do it? Are they made to wear a uniform? Do they have certain special, unique skills that they use in this job? (You can see where I’m going with this…)

Now, the Department of Labor modified the longstanding (since the 1940s) policy under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This modification expanded the test to determine the difference between an employee and an IC, and essentially brought together what was happening in state courts around the country, aligning the rulings into one federal standard.

The new rule was effective in March 2024, and looks to whether the work performed is an integral part of a potential employer’s business rather than part of an integrated unit of production.

Economic Reality Test (2024)
  1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill,
  2. Investments by the worker and the employer,
  3. Permanence of the work relationship,
  4. Nature and degree of control,
  5. Whether the work performed is integral to the employer’s business, and
  6. Skill and initiative.
The goal of the test is to decide if the worker is economically dependent on the employer for work or is instead in business for themself. All factors should be considered. No single factor determines a worker’s status, and no one factor or combination of factors are more important than the other factors. Instead, the totality of the circumstances of the working relationship should be considered.

Additional factors may be considered as well if they are relevant to whether the worker is in business for themself or is economically dependent on the employer for work.

www.dol.gov

Fact Sheet 13: Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

www.dol.gov www.dol.gov

Now let’s break this down in terms of what it means for CFB.

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill,

Can a worker profit/loss based on his own individual skill set, decisions, negotiations? NIL and rev/share deals are made on an individual basis, based on a player’s skills, negotiations, agency (and agents).

2. Investments by the worker and the employer,

Is the worker making investments that are entrepreneurial in nature? Players are given their equipment, they are provided nutritionists, coaches for all parts of their training, all hotels/transportation, housing, etc. They aren’t entrepreneurs and making any investments until they begin training for the NFL Combine.

3. Permanence of the work relationship,
Is the work project-based, or is the worker able to take on multiple employers at a time (indicates IC status)? Obviously, the players cannot. Even though the time they are in school in temporary, the law probably would not see that as an IC relationship for this factor as they cannot play for more than one school at a time.

4. Nature and degree of control,
Does, and how much does, the employer control the worker’s aspects of the work and how it is completed?

Players have pretty much every aspect of the work controlled, including who, what, where, when, why, and how. This factor also include disciplinary action, which we know is also included. The court should absolutely find that this factor is satisfied.

5. Whether the work performed is integral to the employer’s business, and

Is the work is critical, necessary, or central to the potential employer’s principal business? This one could go either way. Universities are nonprofit academic institutions first and foremost. However, there is a good argument to be made that a profitable football program increases revenue, academic standings, pays for many aspects of the academic side, etc. It will be interesting to see this one play out.

6. Skill and initiative.

Does the worker use special abilities/skills to perform the job? Probably yes, given the high standards of a D1 football player.

Conclusion: these schools have to know this is coming. I find it highly unlikely that they are all going into RevShare and none of their attorneys have warned them. It’s so blatantly obvious it is coming, IMO. It’s been discussed for years in the sports world and these updates have been happening in the legal arena. But that’s EXACTLY why FSU wrote that crap about not allowing their kids to have counsel in future negotiations. They want to continue to be able to exploit them while they can.
 
Calinative said:
If a player declares for the draft early, how is the NFL team that drafts him not committing tortious interference in the eyes of Wisconsin?
Like every argument they make as far as I can tell they COULD make against a team drafting him before his eligibility ends and he still has remaining years on his contract lol
Click to expand...
We haven’t seen the contract, so obviously this is an assumption, but it seems the contract only excluded other universities and not NFL teams. Thus, they wouldn’t have a tortious interference case because they wouldn’t believe Lucas breached his contract.
 
Calinative said:
If a player declares for the draft early, how is the NFL team that drafts him not committing tortious interference in the eyes of Wisconsin?
Like every argument they make as far as I can tell they COULD make against a team drafting him before his eligibility ends and he still has remaining years on his contract lol
Click to expand...
Or simply suing the player for declaring early for the NFL draft.
 
GojiraCane said:
Or simply suing the player for declaring early for the NFL draft.
Click to expand...
As I said above, that scenario would not be a breach of the contract. Thus, no one would need to be sued, not Lucas nor the NFL team that drafted him.

Wisconsin’s competition is not the NFL; it is other universities. They would celebrate a player being drafted early because it HELPS them create further revenue, in terms of better recruits, PR / marketing opportunities, etc. But him going to another schools, with whom they compete for players and revenue opportunities, is an issue, legally and financially.
 
caneingville said:
As I said above, that scenario would not be a breach of the contract. Thus, no one would need to be sued, not Lucas nor the NFL team that drafted him.

Wisconsin’s competition is not the NFL; it is other universities. They would celebrate a player being drafted early because it HELPS them create further revenue, in terms of better recruits, PR / marketing opportunities, etc. But him going to another schools, with whom they compete for players and revenue opportunities, is an issue, legally and financially.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in that contract per se, but could it not be argued that an early departure by the athlete to any other profession - be it the NFL, pro wrestling, Hollywood - is competition. Competition for the athlete’s time and four years owed of service. Or at least suing the athlete to regain lost funds, much like the Detroit Lions did to Barry Sanders.
 
GojiraCane said:
Perhaps not in that contract per se, but could it not be argued that an early departure by the athlete to any other profession - be it the NFL, pro wrestling, Hollywood - is competition. Competition for the athlete’s time and four years owed of service. Or at least suing the athlete to regain lost funds, much like the Detroit Lions did to Barry Sanders.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the contract is all that matters here.
 
Advertisement
Correct me if I’m wrong but is he capable of missing any of the season given the ongoing lawsuit with Wisconsin or is that just a money issue?
 
Back
Top