The Recruitment and NIL Agreement
In June 2022, Rashada initially committed to the University of Miami (UM) with a substantial $9.5 million NIL agreement. However, Rashada was lured away with a more lucrative NIL deal of $13.85 million, and ultimately changed his commitment to UF in November 2022. Per the Complaint, Rashada was due an initial $500,000 signing bonus less than a month after he signed the NIL agreement, with the remaining $13.35 million to follow.
Allegations of Fraudulent Inducement
As the lawsuit entails, UF, its employees, NIL collective, and boosters engaged in a coordinated effort to mislead Rashada into believing he would receive the $13.85 million NIL deal if he switched his commitment from UM to UF. Rashada was allegedly promised a $500,000 signing bonus, with the remaining millions to follow, but a day after the $500,000 signing bonus was due, UF’s NIL collective, the Gator Collective, sent a termination notice to Rashada, terminating the agreement.
Yet still, UF and its boosters continued to ensure Rashada that millions in NIL money would be paid if Rashada signed with UF. Rashada later signed with UF on December 21, 2022, relying on the promises made, according to the Complaint. But, after a prominent UF booster failed to wire $1,000,000 to Rashada, Rashada asked for his release from his letter of intent with UF, which UF granted. Rashada ultimately played for Arizona State during the 2023 season and recently transferred to Georgia.
Legal Claims and Financial Losses
While Rashada did not bring a breach of contract claim, which may signal a right of termination, the alleged-fraudulent intent to coerce a student-athlete to leave $9.5 million on the table is what is at issue with the lawsuit. Per the Complaint, the defendants’ actions caused Rashada not only to lose out on the $13.85 million NIL deal with UF but also the initial $9.5 million NIL deal with UM as well as other potential lucrative NIL opportunities. Rashada is seeking compensation for these financial losses in addition to punitive damages to the extent any of the defendants acted with malice.
Broader Implications for the NIL System
In a broader sense, Rashada’s complaint emphasizes how crucial it is to defend student-athletes’ rights throughout the NIL and college selection processes. The way the NIL system is currently set up encourages schools and boosters to take advantage of impressionable and unsuspecting student-athletes who are paid with NIL but should not be treated like employees in order to help their schools break records in revenue.Rashada’s claims are the first of its type against an active head coach and backer in what might be the start of many NIL lawsuit chain reactions.
Need for Transparency and Regulation
NIL was established to provide student-athletes with compensation in a system that has long exploited their athletic ability. Rashada’s situation, however, highlights the NIL system’s known drawbacks and potential for misuse, such as a lack of accountability, openness, and rules.
Although Rashada is leading the charge to pursue justice for ill-advised NIL transactions, his experiences are not unusual. NIL contracts and those financing NIL deals must to be closely examined and thoroughly screened in order to prevent such incidents.
