- The Sideline
- Posts
- Redshirt To Affect Rev Share Payments?
Redshirt To Affect Rev Share Payments?
Drama at Virginia Tech reveals potential issue in new college athletics era đź’°
Sideline Sports Law
October 02, 2025
When Judge Wliken granted final approval for the House settlement, college athletics entered a new era.
In the “Rev Share” era, universities can now pay college athletes directly.
However, a new era brings new issues.
For example, how are rev share payments to players affected when players transfer, redshirt, get injured, or refuse to play?
Are there specific provisions in contracts between schools and athletes that address these situations?
We got a taste of this situation last week when Virginia Tech allegedly dismissed a player and stopped revenue payments based on his preference to redshirt for eligibility reasons.
Here’s what we’ve learned so far:
Order of Events
A brief timeline (without specific dates) regarding the situation in Blacksburg:
Virginia Tech Football starts the season 0-3 and Head Coach Brent Pry is fired. Players with remaining eligibility have a 30-day window to enter the transfer portal.
An unnamed player, who we’ll call Player X, expressed interest in redshirting for the season. He wanted to remain with Virginia Tech, staying engaged in practices, team meetings, etc., and did not enter the transfer portal.
Here’s where things get messy:Virginia Tech treated the request as an “opt-out,” removed him from the roster, restricted his access to athletic facilities and sought to terminate his revenue-sharing agreement, ending payments and scholarship aid. The school also allegedly accused Player X of committing fraud.
Through his attorney Darren Heitner, Player X formally challenges the school’s interpretation and demands immediate reinstatement and a full payment of owed funds: “redshirting is a standard NCAA practice that does not constitute voluntary withdrawal or non-participation.”
Heitner and Player X believe that Virginia Tech’s decision violates revenue-sharing aspects of the House settlement. No legal action has been taken and Player X hopes to solve the situation amicably.
Virginia Tech, through a spokesperson or by its own statement, has not yet commented on the situation publicly
Redshirt Rules
The current redshirt rule: a football player can play in up to four games and elect to redshirt to preserve a year of eligibility as long as they have not done so before.
According to the NCAA, a redshirt decision is made at the campus level and is usually a dialogue between a coach and player.
Notably, just last month, a group of athletes sued the NCAA over its four-year eligibility rule, hoping to extend total eligibility to five seasons.
According to Virginia Tech reporter Andy Bitter, if the NCAA allowed players five seasons of eligibility over a five-year span, the new policy would eliminate Player X’s specific issue.
Another interesting point: will a courtroom or judge ultimately determine the precedent here?
Pay For Play?
Another major aspect of this situation is the issue of pay for play, which is still prohibited under NCAA rules. Thus, revenue share agreements are explicitly not pay for play.
So when a university stops paying an athlete based on the player’s decision to redshirt (and not play), what does that say about the underlying revenue share agreement? Is it actually pay for play under the guise of something else?
On the flip side, if revenue share contracts are based on the player’s likeness, then the value would likely decrease if the player has elected to sit out.
The pay for play issue will likely continue to remain murky for as long as athletes are not classified as employees.
Looking Ahead + My Thoughts
Did you think the House settlement would lead to more issues or more problems being solved?
I, for one, was worried it could lead to more murkiness. Or “absolutely bedlam” as one SEC president framed it.
To me, what makes this situation unique is the following: many revenue sharing contracts contain language that allows the university to get back money should a player decide to enter the transfer portal.
However, in this situation, Player X is not entering the transfer portal. He simply made a request to redshirt.
Do those same revenue sharing agreements contain language or provisions that address what a school can do re: payment if a player wants to redshirt?
To that point, I thought the CBS article made an excellent point on how this situation is an “early test” for university power and could set a precedent for other schools to follow suit: “NCAA rules prohibit a school from rescinding a scholarship, but with revenue sharing just beginning this past July, this serves as an early test on how much power schools have to withhold income.”
And that’s something I think a lot about in this new era of college athletics: who is at the bargaining table? Who is making decisions on the rules? Who has the power? And who has the enforcement capability or authority?
Rules without any type of enforcement sound more like guidelines to me. We’ve seen this type of situation with Xavier Lucas, a former Wisconsin DB who unenrolled at Wisconsin and joined the Miami football team without entering the transfer portal.
Depending on how this situation unfolds, we could also see other players choosing to redshirt to preserve eligibility while still getting paid.
Yesterday, On3 announced that Oregon RB Malki Hughes requested a redshirt for the season. The former Tulane RB rushed for 1,401 yards and 14 touchdowns last season.
Conversation Starters 🗣️
Napheesa Collier Calls Out WNBA League Office, Commissioner 🗣️
Minnesota Lynx All-Star Napheesa Collier called out the WNBA and Commissioner Cathy Engelbert in an end-of-year interview on Monday. Notably, Collier wears multiple hats: a WNBA star, a vice president of the WNBPA, and a co-founder of Unrivaled, a 3×3 league top players compete in during the offseason. As CBA negotiations between the union and league continue to stall, Collier’s comments come at a pivotal time — and less than a month away from the October 31 CBA expiration date.
Athletes Who Sued NCAA, UGeorgia See Majority of Claims Dismissed 🧑‍⚖️
In March 2024, Riley Gaines and 14 other female athletes sued the NCAA, University of Georgia and others over its transgender athlete eligibility policy. A U.S. District Judge dismissed all but one type of claim last week. The plaintiffs alleged the NCAA’s then-policy of allowing transgender athletes to compete on a sport-by-sport basis violated Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause and the right to bodily privacy. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson dismissed each claim except for the Title IX one, and said more information is needed. The case for those claims now heads to limited initial discovery.
A special thank you to those who helped me raise over $3,400 for Team For Kids as I crossed the finish line for world major marathon No. 3 in Berlin last week.
Didn’t hit my time goal but with temperatures reaching 81°F, I was genuinely happy to cross that finish line.
If you’d like to hear more about my marathon training experience or would like recs for Berlin, Prague, Munich, Salzburg, or Hallstatt (all incredible cities), reply directly to this email!
Enjoy the weekend,
Duggs
Know someone who will enjoy this newsletter? Share it with them and have them sign up here: https://thesideline.beehiiv.com/subscribe
Sources:
The Sideline’s work, including this article, is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed in the article belong solely to the author and do not express the views or opinions of the author’s employer.