Manage your account
…
In a landmark moment in college athletics, one university has filed suit against another for the poaching of a college football player under contract.
The University of Wisconsin and its NIL collective filed a complaint in state circuit court on Friday against the University of Miami over alleged tortious interference, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports.
In a first-of-its-kind and, perhaps, a precedent-setting move, Wisconsin is seeking unspecified financial damages and a declaratory judgement deeming UM’s actions as wrongful for interfering with a binding revenue-share contract between UW and Xavier Lucas, a former defensive back who left the program in January to compete at Miami. It was a groundbreaking decision in which Lucas transferred without entering the portal (it had already closed) and after signing the contract with the Badgers.
The lawsuit details what transpired in the winter among the three parties: Wisconsin, Miami and Lucas. Wisconsin claims that Miami communicated with Lucas, “knowingly inducing” him, despite knowing he had entered a contract with the school, something it terms as “intentional” interference that “was not justified or privileged” and caused Lucas to “breach” his contract.
“Miami interfered with UW-Madison’s relationship with Student-Athlete A (Lucas) by making impermissible contact with him and engaging in tampering,” the suit says.
Wisconsin released a statement to Yahoo Sports on Friday, saying that it “reluctantly” filed the suit and that it is “committed to ensuring integrity and fundamental fairness in the evolving landscape of college athletics.” The university is not bringing legal action against Lucas.
The Big Ten Conference is supporting the suit against Miami.
“We stand by our position that respecting and enforcing contractual obligations is essential to maintaining a level playing field,” the statement said. “In addition to our legal acton, we will continue to be proactive to protect the interests of our student-athletes, our program and the broader collegiate athletics community.”
The case is poised to set precedent in the ability for schools to enforce tampering clauses within revenue-sharing agreements that were contingent on the House settlement’s passage. The settlement, the mechanism introducing athlete revenue sharing, was approved June 6.
Over the last several months, dozens of schools have signed players to revenue-share deals contingent on the settlement’s approval. Universities are intending these rev-share contracts to be binding documents that eliminate tampering and slow transfer movement.
The suit strikes at the heart of one of the festering issues within the industry: schools tampering and, ultimately, poaching athletes from other programs. While against NCAA rules, the enforcement of tampering has drawn little to no action from NCAA investigators who are hamstrung by court orders.
However, inside this new world of college sports, contracts stand to prevent such behavior by including specific clauses. Tortious interference describes the act of interfering with a person or entity that signed a binding agreement.
Wisconsin and Lucas struck a two-year revenue-share agreement that, like all of them, was set to begin July 1, the first date that schools can begin directly compensating athletes. Because of the agreement, Wisconsin refused to enter Lucas’ name into the portal after he requested a transfer.
A freshman last season, Lucas withdrew from classes and enrolled academically at Miami in January — a move to skirt NCAA rules requiring athletes to enter the portal to communicate with another school. Lucas enrolled for the fall 2025 semester but was reclassified to spring 2025.
Lucas’ attorney, Darren Heitner, told Yahoo Sports in January that he planned to file an antitrust lawsuit against Wisconsin if Lucas was unable to complete his move to Miami. He accused Wisconsin of blatantly violating NCAA rules by not inserting Lucas’ name into the portal as he requested and questioned the legality of the NCAA’s transfer portal in general.
The revenue-share agreement, a Big Ten-issued template form, binds Lucas — and all players who sign — to that specific school and grants that school a player’s non-exclusive rights to use and market their name, image and likeness. The agreement prohibits the player’s rights to be used by any other school while permitting him or her to sign outside marking agreements, according to those familiar with the template.
Lucas also signed an NIL agreement with the collective to compensate him until the university could legally, within settlement terms, compensate him with revenue starting in July. In the suit, Wisconsin describes Lucas’ promised payment as “substantial” and one of the highest among Badgers football players.
Two weeks into the opening of the portal window last December, Lucas, to that point having shown full commitment to Wisconsin, “shocked and surprised” the coaching staff with his request to transfer, the complaint says.
Lucas, who signed last year as a four star-rated high school prospect from South Florida, played in 11 games with 18 tackles in 2024. He requested a transfer after learning while home over the holidays that his father suffered a “serious, life-threatening illness,” Heitner told Yahoo Sports in January.
In its suit, Wisconsin questions Lucas’ rationale for seeking a transfer, writing that he provided “inconsistent” information to coaches on Dec. 21, four days after he originally asked for his name to be inputed into the portal.
The suit also claims that Miami had “multiple impermissible contacts” with Lucas during December and January. That included a Miami coach and a prominent Miami alumnus visiting Lucas’ Florida home in December with a “compensation commitment” for him to leave Madison. The offer was “more lucrative” than the one Wisconsin made.
Lucas’ move, though not a first, shined a more public light on the enforceability of the transfer portal. In a statement to Yahoo Sports in January, the NCAA said, “NCAA rules do not prevent a student-athlete from unenrolling from an institution, enrolling at a new institution and competing immediately” — an expected but jarring statement for those within the industry.
In order to transfer, a player is required to submit a transfer request inside the designated transfer portal window for his or her sport. Entering the portal is necessary as it then permits schools to contact and communicate with players. Schools are prohibited from communicating with those not in the portal as they risk violating NCAA rules related to tampering.
At the time, this was the first known public dispute between a player and school related to a revenue-share contract. As part of the NCAA and power conferences’ landmark settlement of the House antitrust case, schools are permitted to share millions in revenue with their athletes starting July 1. The revenue-share agreements are contingent on the settlement’s approval — a key clause that could make the contract unenforceable, some legal experts claim.
The NCAA’s transfer rules have been in the crosshairs for years now.
The association, a voluntary membership group where school leaders make the rules, has made significant changes over the years to provide athletes with more freedom of movement, some of them a result of court decisions.
For instance, a judge in the case “Ohio v. NCAA” prohibited the NCAA from enforcing a long-standing rule that required athletes to sit out a year before playing at their new school.
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of possible portal changes ahead. A group of power conference administrators are exploring ways to eliminate one of the two portal windows.
