Transferring Without The Portal?

Significant implications for the future of college athletics 🔀

Author

Sideline Sports Law
January 23, 2025

If you thought 2024 was a wild year for college athletics, I got news for you.

We’re only 23 days into the new year, but 2025 is shaping up to be another chaotic and transformative year for college sports.

You may have seen the headlines. The University of Wisconsin didn’t allow football player Xavier Lucas to enter the transfer portal.

So what’d Lucas do? He unenrolled, left Madison, and enrolled at the University of Miami.

According to Wisconsin, the dispute is “another significant moment in the evolution of college athletics.”

I agree.

Here’s what went down:

From Madison to Miami

A brief timeline of how Xavier Lucas ultimately became a Miami Hurricane:

December 2023: Lucas, a 4-star cornerback from Pompano Beach, FL, commits to Wisconsin.

August - November 2024: Lucas records 12 tackles and one interception in his Freshman season for the Badgers.

December 2, 2024: Lucas enters into a two-year NIL agreement with Wisconsin.

December 19, 2024: Via Twitter, Lucas announces he is entering the transfer portal. Despite an NCAA Bylaw that requires a school to enter an athlete’s information in the portal database within two business days, Lucas’ name never appears.

December 27, 2024: Despite meeting all NCAA requirements, Lucas shares, via Twitter, that “Wisconsin is refusing to release me into the transfer portal.”

January 17, 2025: Lucas transfers to UMiami without entering the transfer portal and after signing a revenue-sharing agreement with Wisconsin.

The exact details between December 2 and January 17 aren’t crystal clear, however, each side is confident in their perspective and believes they were, in one way or another, wronged.

One question remains at the epicenter of the dispute — was the December 2, two-year NIL revenue-sharing agreement signed by Lucas valid, enforceable, and/or binding?

To understand where each party stands, let’s explore the statements from Xavier (and his lawyer), Wisconsin, and the Big Ten.

According to Xavier Lucas (& His Attorney)…

On January 7, Lucas retained Darren Heitner for representation in his ongoing dispute with Wisconsin. Yes, you’ve heard the attorney’s name before: Heitner represented the six former FSU players who sued their former coach a few weeks ago.

According to Heitner, attempts to resolve the situation with Wisconsin representatives proved unsuccessful. When Lucas reached out to Head Coach Luke Fickell and expressed his desire to transfer, Fickell tried to convince the Wisconsin DB to stay. Heitner told Yahoo! Sports that Lucas wanted to transfer home to Florida after his father suffered a “serious, life-threatening illness.”

Heitner, an active Twitter user, shared several insights the day that Lucas became a Hurricane. Several of Heitner’s tweets may preview legal arguments if this dispute results in future litigation.

According to Heitner:

  1. The Dec. 2 revenue-sharing agreement is conditioned on:

    • approval of the House settlement (which hasn’t received final approval); and

    • Lucas attending classes no later than Spring 2025 (he unenrolled from the school)

  2. Wisconsin improperly denied Lucas’ right to enter his name in the transfer portal, violating NCAA rules

    • cites to NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3.1, which requires a school to, upon notification, enter an athlete’s information in the national transfer database within two business days

    • contends that the NCAA must punish Wisconsin for violating its Bylaws, and failure to punish would allow other schools to ignore the Bylaws and harm players

  3. Wisconsin has not paid any monies owed to Lucas and thus, he owes no reimbursement to the university

If you ask Wisconsin…

The day after Lucas transferred to Miami, Wisconsin released a statement.

Embedded in the school’s lengthy reply, here are several arguments that may also materialize into key legal arguments:

  • Lucas entered into a “binding” two-year NIL agreement with Wisconsin Athletes, that included “substantial financial compensation” and “remains in effect and enforceable”

  • Student-athletes who sign “these agreements” and then request to enter the transfer portal are acting “inconsistent with the representations and mutual understanding” of the contract

  • Wisconsin has "credible information indicating impermissible contact” between Lucas and Miami

The school concluded by stating they will continue to review the facts and evaluate “all options” to determine appropriate next steps — a possible hint towards initiating legal action.

FWIW, Heitner responded to Wisconsin’s statement, pointing out seven issues and why it’s important “for athletes to gain more rights and escape the grip of institutional control.”

The Big Ten Weighs In

Fully backing conference member Wisconsin (you surprised?), the Big Ten released a statement on the same day as the university. Notably, the Big Ten called the allegations against UMiami of tampering and contract interference “very troubling.”

The conference went a step further, claiming Miami’s actions undermine the effort of the ACC to collaborate with other major conferences and develop a “sustainable framework for college sports.”

Signing off, the Big Ten emphasized how this situation demonstrates a “critical need for substantive governance reform.”

Looking Ahead + My Thoughts

My first reaction to this situation?

This situation could establish precedent for the enforceability of NIL revenue-sharing agreements. And I believe, with rev-sharing slated to begin later this year, the outcome of this dispute carries significant implications.

But Wisconsin’s statements add a new layer to the situation: tampering and contract interference allegations.

How will universities and the NCAA regulate and govern college athletes who wish to transfer?

If the House settlement is approved in April, schools may start sharing the millions in revenue with their athletes beginning on July 1.

Finally, something tells me this dispute is far from over. It may be tempting to think Lucas and his attorney “won” because the defensive back is now at Miami. But I don’t think they’re completely out of the woods yet.

Wisconsin may initiate legal action against Miami and name other parties they believe assisted in alleged tampering or contract interference.

Only time will tell how the Xavier Lucas dispute unfolds.

What I do know: the result carries crucial implications and could set precedent at a time where uncertainty remains the status quo.

I’ll be closely monitoring the situation and subsequent action taken by all parties involved.

Conversation Starters 🗣️

NFLPA Offers Substantial Buyouts; Investigates Its Role With OneTeam 🏈

Last Thursday, Sports Business Journal reported that the NFLPA offered buyouts to approximately half its 150 employees. Three days later, due to a whistleblower alleging corruption, the labor union was back in the headlines as it investigated its role with OneTeam — a joint venture between major players’ unions and several equity funds.

Athletes.org Organizes “Players-Only” Meeting 💪

Several miles from the CFP Final, 50 current and former athletes gathered at a “Players-Only” meeting hosted by Athletes Org, an organization that hopes to be the future players association for college athletes. The two-day summit included conversations about NIL, the transfer portal, looming House settlement, and provided educational opportunities for teach players about the labor landscape.

Speaking of the House settlement, shout out to lead plaintiff and former Arizona State swimmer Graham House for showing love on our Instagram post:

My football picks went 0-5 last week so I’m gonna sit this one out… but can someone please beat the Chiefs?

Stay warm,

Duggs

Help me reach 100 subscribers (I’m sitting at 99):

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.