GUEST POST: What we can learn by comparing three athlete revenue-sharing contract templates

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

Greetings from Just Outside Washington D.C., home of the 2026 NCAA Convention. It’s been wonderful catching up so with so many of you! Thanks for coming to our happy hour last night, and thanks to everybody who has chatted with us over the last few days.

I’ll have more about the event on Friday, when I get home and have a chance to organize all my thoughts. Today, I’d like to turn the time over to an actual expert, Kristi Dosh. Kristi is the founder of BusinessofCollegeSports.com and a consultant with College Sports Solutions. She’s also an actual lawyer, which makes her expertise particularly useful below.

After Washington’s NIL contracts were suddenly the most important thing in college sports for about 48 hours, Kristi dug into the Extra Points Library and looked closer at three different contract templates: at Purdue, Minnesota and Washington.

We’ve decided to unlock today’s newsletter from the paywall, so everybody can enjoy it. I’ll see you on the internet tomorrow!

by Kristi Dosh

Last week at Business of College Sports, I wrote about some terms in Washington’s revenue sharing contract template that might have been problematic for Demond Williams Jr. if he had transferred. As some people criticized Washington on social media for terms that are overreaching or broad, others reminded them that Big Ten schools are all using the same contract. 

That’s true. Kind of.

Yes, the Big Ten circulated a revenue sharing contract template. However, schools have the ability to tweak that template as they see fit — and they are. It’s been difficult to get even blank contract templates from schools through FOIA requests, but we did receive them from Washington, Minnesota and Purdue, and they do show that schools are making changes.

Obviously, contracts are modified even further once agents, attorneys and other advisors get involved, but I’m going to break down the most important differences in the three Big Ten school contract templates we have.

Of the three schools, Purdue has the most athlete-friendly licensing language, which I believe it added to the base template. Purdue says it won’t use or sublicense an athlete’s NIL in an “Individual Setting” for “Commercial Use” without the athlete’s approval. 

“Individual Setting” covers instances when the athlete appears alone or with up to four other athletes from any school in the same advertisement.

But we also have to look at the definition of “Commercial Use” to see what qualifies. The institution does reserve the right to use the athlete’s NIL on its own merchandise and to market the school, conference or NCAA, including marketing around events like bowl games, even if the bowl game has a third-party sponsor name attached.

At NACDA last year, I heard an athletic director say that one way they might try to offset the cost of revenue sharing is to license an athlete’s NIL to an athletic department sponsor like a grocery store. Under Purdue’s contract, that wouldn’t be allowed without the athlete’s approval. 

However, under the contract templates I have from Washington and Minnesota, the school could indeed do that, and the athlete would receive no additional payment for those sublicenses. Later language in Purdue’s agreement suggests the athlete would be compensated for a “Commercial Use” like this, if they approved it.

All three agreements have similar language allowing institutions to terminate if athletes:

Washington added three additional grounds for termination to its template:

Purdue added a different additional ground for termination: if an athlete is not in “Good Standing” (which is defined later in the story when I get into consideration provisions). Purdue also added language suggesting it will offer an athlete a 10-day opportunity to cure the breach, if it deems it curable. (As a quick side note here, both Purdue and Washington have a Dispute Resolution section that provides for written notice and a 10-day cure period for disputes, but Minnesota’s references using the institution’s “Student-Athlete Hearings Process.”)

All three agreements only offer the institution the right to terminate, offering no grounds for the athlete to terminate other than the “Release” detailed by Purdue in its addition to the transfer section of the contract. (More on that below.)

All three contracts contemplate exclusivity when it comes to being the only university/college with rights to the athlete’s NIL. Washington’s template has additional exclusivity detailed in Annex A to the contract, but the copy of Annex A I have from Minnesota is blank, and the copy of Purdue’s contract does not include Annex A.

Washington’s template has checkboxes where the institution could also elect to have the exclusive right to use the athlete’s NIL for merchandise (jerseys, hats and keychains are given as examples). It also has a list of additional categories where a box can be checked that includes: amateur athletics, apparel (including shoes), athletic equipment, health care, beverages, travel, financial institutions and wireless communications. 

That would rule out a lot of third-party NIL opportunities for an athlete, but it gives Washington the ability to monetize those categories itself or through a third-party collective or agency to help recoup its investment. I would imagine most agents would insist on removing these additional categories, however.

Each institution has some different language inserted in the Consideration provision that gives it flexibility to change the amount promised to the athlete in the contract. Here are the three portions that vary:

Washington: The Consideration is a projected amount based on the current promotional value of using the Athlete’s NIL. The Institution in its discretion may, after good faith discussion with the Athlete, adjust the Consideration to reflect an increase or decrease in the Athlete’s NIL value (e.g., a Heisman Trophy win may increase the NIL value and reduced playing time may decrease the NIL value).

Minnesota: The Consideration may be subject to regular review and assessment at Institution’s discretion.

Purdue: The Student-Athlete will not be entitled to, and the Institution will have no obligation to pay any portion of the Consideration for any period(s) of time the Student-Athlete is not in Good Standing. Without limiting any rights or remedies available to the Institution, the Consideration may be reduced (on a prorated basis) to reflect the day(s) the Student-Athlete is not in Good Standing.

“Good Standing” means the Student-Athlete meets all of the following criteria: (i) is enrolled in the Institution, (ii) is compliant with the terms of this Agreement, (iii) complies with all Institution rules, NCAA rules, Conference rules, and academic standards, and other standards, requirements and regulations set forth by the NCAA, the Conference, and the Institution, thereby being authorized to participate in collegiate-level athletic competitions sanctioned by the NCAA, Conference, and Institution, (iv) is academically and athletically eligible to compete during the sport’s designated NCAA competition season(s), and (v) is on the active roster of the Team(s).

The Minnesota and Washington provisions allow the schools to adjust compensation in either direction — up or down. Purdue’s only contemplates a reduction, but it at least gives us a mathematical formula for figuring it out (by prorating based on the number of days the athlete isn’t in “Good Standing”) instead of just leaving it up to the school’s discretion. 

Minnesota’s contract also conditions payment on the athlete being in “Good Standing” (with the same definition), but it does not have the language quoted above from Purdue’s about the pro rata reduction. Instead, it has the discretionary language quoted above.

Washington is the only one of the three to add a liquidated damages clause that would apply to a transferring athlete, which says the athlete, or the institution they transfer to, would owe an amount equal to the money not yet paid out on the contract.

However, Purdue has an additional clause in a later section on transferring that contemplates a release of the athlete’s obligations under the contract if the transferring institution buys it out (but notably doesn’t call it liquidated damages):

The Institution, in its sole discretion, may agree to accept a buyout payment from a transferee school (on the Student-Athlete’s behalf) or the Student-Athlete or otherwise mutually agree to terminate the Agreement (“Release”).

Although all three agreements each have a section titled “Rights and Duties Upon Transfer” that states the school no longer has to pay the athlete if they enter the transfer portal or transfer, Purdue has added some additional language specifically stating that it is not obligated to enter the athlete in the transfer portal: 

The Student-Athlete acknowledges and agrees that, during the term of the Agreement, the Institution is not obligated to enter the Student-Athlete into the transfer portal or otherwise assist or facilitate the Student-Athlete’s transfer to another college or university.

You may remember Wisconsin and Washington declined to enter Xavier Lucas and Williams, respectively, into the transfer portal.

That clause in Purdue’s contract goes on to say that even if the athlete transfers, the athlete can’t authorize the use of their NIL with the new university during the term of the contract. Although my interpretation is that the Washington and Minnesota contracts effectively accomplish the same thing, the wording isn’t as clear and explicit as Purdue’s.

All three agreements have a list of representations the athlete is making. They boil down to this: The athlete is agreeing they have the ability to enter into the contract, aren’t violating the rights of any third party and won’t make a similar commitment to another school themselves or through their representative.

After that, the contracts diverge a little. Minnesota and Washington both have clauses that says the athlete — along with their family members and any representative acting on behalf of the athlete — will not “initiate contact with admission or athletic staffs at other institutions in a way that conflicts with the Athlete’s commitments herein.”

Purdue has removed this clause, which I assume was in the original Big Ten template since the other schools have matching language.

Washington has also added two additional clauses:

Athlete has not violated any criminal statute, or engaged in any conduct, which could lead to the filing of felony criminal charges against Athlete, and is not aware of any possibility of such criminal charges being filed as of the execution of this MOU, and

Athlete is not subject to, named as a party in, or aware of any potential involvement in, any civil lawsuit where Athlete could be liable for damages. 

This leads into a morals clause section that is virtually identical across all three contracts. However, Purdue has added some additional language at the end saying any determination by the institution that the athlete has breached the morals clause “shall be made in good faith.” It goes on to say that “[w]here practical” the school will provide the athlete with notice and an opportunity to respond prior to take any action.

Arguably, this additional language might not make any real difference in the application of this clause to an athlete’s situation since “good faith” and “where practical” are open to interpretation.

This is not an exhaustive list of every difference between the contracts, but does hit on the differences I believe are most interesting or important. With an experienced agent or attorney involved, I think an athlete would get down to a very similar contract with any of these schools in the end. 

However, some significant substantive differences might exist if an athlete were to sign without proper representation. This is important to understand — not only for athletes, but also for other institutions that might make offers to these athletes in the transfer portal.