Among the many things this column is waiting for — a result in the Manchester City vs Premier League cage fight, Fenway Sports Group to buy a Spanish team, Gianni Infantino to give a press conference — none has been imminent for quite as long as a takeover at Tottenham Hotspur.

Much like soccer has been the fastest-growing sport in the United States for half a century, Spurs have been the next big English club on the block for a decade.

In that time, Spurs have built the best multi-purpose stadium in Europe and sold lots of shirts, but won only one trophy. During the same period, the Premier League has become majority-owned by American billionaires and Tottenham’s billionaire former majority-owner, British businessman Joe Lewis, has put his shares into a family trust, pleaded guilty to insider trading, and celebrated his 88th birthday.

This is a fruit ripe for picking and every investor, private-equity firm and sovereign wealth fund looking for a prize asset in the world’s most popular domestic football league has kicked the tyres at Spurs, taken the tour and run the numbers.

So, why hasn’t anyone bought them yet?

Well, one big reason is that the club has been run by Lewis’ business partner, Daniel Levy, since 2001 and he owns just over a quarter of the club’s shares. Most experts believe Spurs are worth about £3billion ($4bn), or perhaps a bit more now that they are back in the Champions League and the likes of Beyonce are filling the stadium over the summer. But Levy wants £3.75b, another $1bn at today’s exchange rate.

Quite the gap, then, but not so wide that you cannot start haggling, which is why the Spurs takeover story re-emerges every few months and will continue to do so until someone hits Levy’s number, which may have to come down a tad when Joe Lewis’ family decide they want their inheritances.

Levy watches Tottenham play AZ in last season’s Europa League (Justin Setterfield/Getty Images)

None of this is particularly shocking and has been widely reported, but The Athletic has been told by several potential suitors that there are two under-reported factors which may influence where this meeting of minds will come.

The first is that not everybody sees the same potential in Tottenham — the north London district, not the club — that Levy and Lewis did. Spurs are by far the biggest attraction in an area that has not seen much gentrification. It is also usually an hour’s taxi ride from the West End hotels and restaurants that the Premier League’s overseas ownership class enjoy.

And the second is the £775million in private placement notes that Levy used to refinance the cost of building the stadium. The size of that debt is not the problem, as the additional revenue from the club’s new home is more than meeting the interest payments. The issue is that Levy, thanks to his good timing and great salesmanship, got a sweet deal when those notes were sold to asset managers, investment firms and pension funds in 2021.

Spurs issued nine tranches of notes, with a range of repayment dates from 2035 to 2051 and interest rates between 2.49 per cent and 3.02 per cent. According to the club’s most recent accounts, Spurs had total borrowings of £851.5m at the end of June 2024, at an average rate of 2.79 per cent and average maturity of almost 19 years.

This means Spurs are paying an interest rate that is lower than inflation. So, in financial terms, they are not really paying any interest at all. This is great for Spurs but terrible for everyone who holds that debt, which is why they are all hoping for a takeover, too, so they can exercise their change-of-control clauses, get their money back and do something else with it.

The club’s new owners would have no problem finding other people — and perhaps even the same people — with whom to refinance the debt. It will just cost them about £20m a year more at the current rates, which adds up over 19 years.

However, neither of those two issues — Spurs’ location or Levy’s luck with the interest rate cycle — are permanent or insurmountable. London is a city of villages that have ebbed and flowed in appeal over the centuries, and any extra interest payments could be covered by a naming rights deal. Interest rates are also meant to be coming down.

So, sit tight, takeover watchers. Spurs will be bought by someone, at some point.

Not the boldest of predictions, maybe, but it is the best we can do.

The big Wrexham valuation debate

On the subject of valuation gaps, Spurs’ is a hairline fracture compared to the gaping chasm at Wrexham or, more accurately, the debate about Wrexham’s valuation on this column’s favourite social-media channel, LinkedIn.

It all started earlier this month with a Bloomberg report headlined “Wrexham AFC Weighs Raising Funds at £350 Million Valuation”. Citing unnamed sources, the report said the newly promoted Championship club were talking to advisers about selling a minority stake to boost the playing budget and pay for a new stand.

Sensible stuff, right? And entirely in keeping with what the club’s owners have said they would do and — in fact — have already done, as they sold a stake to the New York-based Allyn family last October.

But that deal was at a valuation of £100m ($135m). OK, Wrexham were still a League One side back then, but it was a record for a third-tier side. So are we really suggesting they have more than tripled in value in less than nine months?

The answer is of course not… or perhaps, because Wrexham are unlike any other club in the English football pyramid.

First, they are Welsh. Second, they are the subject of a very popular Disney-made docuseries. And third, and we feel this column deserves a pat on the back for not mentioning this sooner, they are owned by Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds.

For those among you who only have time in their lives for football, McElhenney is an American TV actor, producer and writer, and Reynolds is one of the world’s best-paid actors and most recognisable faces. They bought the then-fifth-tier club for £2m in 2021, but three straight promotions, all charted in heart-warming fashion by Disney’s cameras, have brought them to the gates of the Premier League.

But come on, £350m?!? That’s not far off half a billion U.S. dollars. Most English Football League clubs are lucky to be valued at double their annual turnover. In Wrexham’s case, that would be £70m based on last season’s earnings or £100m on next season’s projected earnings.

The top Premier League clubs are valued at about five times their turnover, which reflects the league’s mega media-rights deals, as well as their huge stadiums, global fanbases and access to European football. For Wrexham’s touted price tag to make sense, you would need to apply a revenue multiple that only the most popular American franchises, in the biggest leagues, can command.

But Wrexham is not Los Angeles, and the Championship is not the National Football League. Hence the arguments on LinkedIn.

Of those, the most interesting has been between Alexander Jarvis, the founder of Abu Dhabi-based Blackbridge Sports LLC, and former Charlton manager and Southampton vice-chairman Les Reed.

Jarvis, who recently advised an American group on their purchase of a small stake in Portugal’s Benfica, among other deals, has written two posts about the Wrexham valuation, calling it “a total clown show”, “football’s most outrageous over-valuation”, and “a gamble on celebrity and hype that completely ignores the hard realities of running a football club in the Championship”.

Plenty of people have replied to him saying they agree, including William Storey, who is best known for a collapsed sponsorship deal with F1 team Haas and several failed bids for football teams. He might not be the best referee, then.

Reed, who has been Wrexham’s “football strategy consultant” since 2021, hit back with a post that pointed out Jarvis & Co “have never actually experienced running a club, let alone a club in the Championship”, before noting that Southampton’s former owners, the Liebherr family, eventually sold their shares in the club for close to 10 times their initial investment, which is impressive but not quite the point Jarvis was making about multiples of turnover.

Reed continued by raising the examples of Bournemouth, Brentford and Brighton, three clubs who have invested heavily to become “sustainable” Premier League clubs, and asked “why would serious investors not want a stake” in Wrexham’s “journey” towards the same destination.

Reed, speaking at the Soccerex Global Convention in 2016, has worked as an adviser for Wrexham since 2021 (Daniel Smith/Getty Images for Soccerex)

So, who is right? The guy trying to earn his crust by advising on football takeovers, or the chap who works for Wrexham?

Well, according to this column’s panel of secret football finance experts, it depends on whether Wrexham should be valued as a regular football club or if they have transcended that status and are now a global entertainment brand. If it is the former, they are worth about £100m, which is the valuation the Allyns came in at. If it is the latter, well, why not?

However, even that more conservative valuation is highly vulnerable to what is known in business as “key person risk”. If Rob and Ryan are struck by lightning, get bored, fall out, get sick or lose a court case, will Wrexham look so transcendent?

It is a good debate and there is only one way to settle it: the price someone actually pays for a stake in the club.

Divide and… continue?  

While very few clubs are as exposed to key person risk as Wrexham, all are vulnerable to any weakening in demand for the right to broadcast or stream their matches.

If you had to pick one reason valuations have kept rising in the big leagues on both sides of the Atlantic, it is that live sport has been a must-have for TV executives. This means their sports counterparts have only needed two rival broadcasters in any market to create an auction.

So, this month’s news that New York-based media giant Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) is splitting into two separate companies has prompted an outpouring of speculation about what it might mean for sport. So far, there is no real consensus.

For those who have missed this story, WBD was formed in 2022 by an expensive merger between two multinational media conglomerates, WarnerMedia and Discovery. But the company’s bosses have now decided to put all the cool, still-growing stuff in one company, Streaming & Studios, so it is not held back by the profitable-but-in-decline TV channels.

Channing Dungey, chairman and CEO of Warner Bros Television Group and WBD U.S. Networks (Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Discovery)

The latter are being boxed up in a company called Global Networks and, just in case you did not work out which one of these two entities is the sexy one, it will be run by WBD’s head beancounter, while the chief executive is getting the company that makes Batman, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. And just to underline that message, all of WBD’s merger-related debt is being passed to the dowdier daughter.

If there is any agreement on what this means for the sports industry, it is that any impact will be felt first in the United States, where WBD’s streaming platform Max has struggled to find its place in a congested market, despite having a decent range of sports to offer. Does this mean that sport is no longer a must-have for any self-respecting media offering, or has WBD just packaged it badly?

The main sports brand is TNT Sports, which is joining the gang in managed decline at Global Networks. It has been part of the Max bundle but has recently lost its NBA rights after a 40-year connection with the league. It still has some baseball, college basketball, ice hockey and motorsport, but it does not have any NFL, so it is more of a nice-to-have than a must-have for most American sports fans.

The picture in the UK is a little different, as TNT Sports does have what most British armchair sports fans consider to be essential viewing, namely a package of Premier League rights and near-exclusive rights to UEFA’s club competitions. TNT Sports acquired the football when it formed a 50-50 joint venture with BT Sports in 2022, which united BT’s menu of football, rugby and assorted North American pastimes with Eurosport’s smorgasbord of cycling, tennis and the snowy stuff we watch once every four years in the Winter Olympics.

And then, just to confuse you even further, WBD’s streaming offer in the UK and Europe has been Discovery+, although it has started to turn that off and replace it with Max. Oh, and BT has also been trying, unsuccessfully, to sell its 50 per cent of TNT Sports, which really means that WBD has declined to pay BT’s price for the rest of the business.

TNT presenter Laura Woods quizzes Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard at last month’s Champions League final (Stu Forster/Getty Images)

To make some sense of all this, this column asked four media analysts for their takes on the WBD split.

Dan Harraghy of Ampere Analysis does not see any impact for WBD’s UK operations until HBO Max launches in early 2026. For him, the real lesson of this tale is the tension “between the high value placed on sports rights by linear TV players” and the negative outlook for traditional broadcasting, which would explain why so many leagues have stopped seeing growth in the value of their rights.

Even the mighty Premier League has had to throw in more content, spread out over the weekend, to get the same amount of money from its domestic partners.

Independent analyst Paolo Pescatore thinks the split will highlight something he has been saying for a while: TNT Sports is “an entity in slow, painful decline”. He thinks the joint venture was “poorly executed”, with subscriber numbers falling and losses rising, which is why nobody has bought that 50 per cent stake in the business. Pescatore also believes the rising cost of watching sport, coupled with confusion over where to watch it, has driven the rise in digital piracy.

Sports rights consultant Pierre Maes said he cannot see signs of any positive strategy for building an attractive streaming product in the UK and Europe, and dismisses the WBD split as a “desperate move to calm down the stock market”.

But the BBC’s former head of sports rights, David Murray, is a bit more optimistic.

“My initial view is that it’s probably a good thing for sport,” he said. “I never got their strategy of wanting to bundle the likes of HBO with TNT Sport. So, in theory, the Discovery+ proposition can be a lot more focused, which should keep the price lower and allow it to cut through more than it would have done as part of a broader bundle.”

Lower prices and more focus on providing a great sports product should be a benefit to consumers and sports rights-holders, as digital piracy is probably the number one threat to professional sport as we know it.

Missed deadline dashes Drogheda’s dream

Speaking of good times gone bad, we cannot have an edition of this column without a new cautionary tale about multi-club ownership (MCO).

This one concerns Irish club Drogheda United, who have just lost their appeal against a UEFA decision to prevent them taking part in next season’s Conference League, a prize they thought they had earned with their FAI Cup victory last November, because their American owners Trivela also have a stake in Danish side Silkeborg, who qualified for the same competition.

Under UEFA rules, two teams with common ownership cannot play in the same competition and any clash is avoided by removing the team that finished lowest in its league. In this case, UEFA looked at Drogheda United’s ninth-place finish in 2024 versus Silkeborg’s seventh-place finish this year.

Aaron McNally and Andrew Quinn celebrate winning the FAI Cup in November 2024 (Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

Trivela took its case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, claiming that neither the Football Association of Ireland nor UEFA told the Alabama-based group that European football’s governing body had moved forward the date for owners of MCO groups to create enough separation between their teams so they can potentially compete against each other.

Until this year, owners had until the start of June to dilute their shareholdings in one club or put all of their shares in a blind trust, but UEFA shifted that deadline to the start of March.

Drogheda United, of course, are not the only side to miss this memo, as FA Cup winners Crystal Palace are still waiting to find out if they will be allowed to take their place in the Europa League alongside their co-owner John Textor’s French side Lyon.

The two cases are not identical, as there is no dispute that Drogheda and Silkeborg are controlled by the same owner, whereas Textor has never had that much sway at Palace, but Trivela’s travails demonstrate that UEFA is getting increasingly strict with MCO groups.

“We are totally gutted by this outcome for the club, its players, its staff and its supporters,” Trivela co-founder Ben Boycott tells The Athletic.

“To all of them, I’m deeply sorry that we’re going through this. We genuinely felt we had a compelling case before CAS, a point somewhat reinforced in the observation that this appears to have been a split (2-1) decision among the arbitrators.”

Trivela has committed to filling the €500,000 (£425,000) hole in Drogheda United’s budget left by the removal of European football, but is still processing what Boycott believes was a “very harsh decision which ignored a number of mitigating factors and months of good-faith efforts on our part to come to a solution with UEFA”.

It has been a tough few weeks for Trivela as their English outfit, Walsall, were 12 points clear at the top of League Two with 11 games to go, only to lose form and end up in the play-offs, where they rallied to beat Chesterfield in the semi-finals, only to lose 1-0 at Wembley to AFC Wimbledon.

More clubs equal more opportunities for disappointment.

Regulator reaches final straight

And let us wrap up this edition of the Business of Football with another column staple: an update on the arrival of English football’s independent regulator.

We will keep this short and sweet — it really is coming now.

For the first time since this process started in 2021, something has happened ahead of schedule. On Tuesday, the Football Governance Bill passed through the committee stage of the legislative process, without requiring the three further days that had been scheduled for debate.

The next step is the report stage, then the third reading of the bill in the House of Commons, before moving to a final consideration of amendments and royal assent. But with the Conservative Party’s Premier League-backed rearguard action running out of puff, the bill’s supporters are confident it will become law before the politicians break up for their summer recess on July 22.

Which means we can all start moaning about the regulator’s shortcomings from next season.

(Top photo: Catherine Ivill – AMA/Getty Images)

LOWELL – The UMass Lowell hockey team’s full 2025-26 slate has been revealed, with the season kicking off against Hockey East foe Merrimack College on Friday, Oct. 3.

The schedule will consist of 34 regular-season games, with opponents from five different conferences, including Hockey East. It is highlighted by a two-game home set against the defending national champions.

The slate will feature 15 home games, including the addition of a home exhibition against Bentley University on Dec. 28. The remaining 20 games will be played on the road on opposing ice or at neutral sites. This is a change of pace from last season, which featured 17 games at the Tsongas Center.

Following opening night against Merrimack, the River Hawks will hit the road to take on the Warriors again on Oct. 10, before hosting defending national champion Western Michigan on Oct. 17 and 18.

That brings the team to a three-game stretch of away games, beginning in Erie, Pa., for a two-game set at Mercyhurst on Oct. 24 and 25, and returning to Hockey East action with an away-and-home series with Providence to close out the month (Oct. 31 and Nov. 1).

November will continue with more conference play, as the River Hawks take on New Hampshire on Nov. 7 and 8, before another road trip to New York the next week (Nov. 14 & 15). The squad will play Union to begin the weekend, before a matchup with RPI the next day.

The team will then be on a bye week after the trip to prepare for a return to New York for the Adirondack Winter Invitational in Lake Placid on Nov. 28 and 29, where they will look to take home the title for the second consecutive year. They will face off against Clarkson on Friday, with St. Lawrence waiting for them on Saturday afternoon.

UMass Lowell takes on two conference opponents during December, as a home-and-away series with Boston College is in the cards for Dec. 5 and 6, following by a solo game with Maine in Portland, Maine on Wednesday, Dec. 10 to finish off the month’s games. However, the exhibition with Bentley at home on Dec. 28 will warm the River Hawks back up after a break, preparing them for an action-packed second half of the season.

The new year will be rung in at the 2026 Cactus Cup, a tournament that will be hosted by UMass Lowell for the second consecutive year in Palm Springs, Calif., at Acrisure Arena on Jan. 2 and 3.

The River Hawks will be joined by Minnesota State University, Mankato, St. Cloud State and Yale and will open up the tournament against Minnesota State on day one. The tournament format calls for the losers of the first-round games to square off first on night two, followed by the championship game between the two round-one winners on Saturday evening. The River Hawks will look to repeat as tournament champs.

UMass Lowell will then play Hockey East games only for the remainder of the regular season, beginning with a two-game set with Connecticut on Jan. 9 and 10, followed by two series against Boston University (Jan. 16 and 17) and Maine (Jan. 23 and 24) to bring them into February.

It will be a battle of the UMass schools to kick off February, as the River Hawks will take on the Massachusetts Minutemen three consecutive times, first with a solo daytime matchup on Sunday, Feb. 1, before a two-game set the next weekend on Feb. 6 and 7. The River Hawks then follow that up with a two-game road trip to Vermont (Feb. 13 and 14) and an away-and-home series with Northeastern (Feb. 20 and 21), as a bye week rounds out the month.

March begins with another road matchup with Merrimack on March 6, before hosting Boston University the next night for the regular season finale. The Hockey East playoffs are set for March 11-21.

For the likes of the Michigan Wolverines, the House vs. NCAA settlement was a small blip in the spending the athletic program already participates in every year, and it will be merely a percentage that must be allocated to athletes rather than other expenses.

But that’s not the case for the entire country, let alone the rest of the Big Ten. While Michigan and Ohio State bring in more than $160 million in athletic revenue every year, other Big Ten members such as Maryland, UCLA and Rutgers are much lower on the list, generating $81 million, $82 million and $72 million, respectively.

While these are still big numbers to the untrained eye, the Big Ten has been given direction to give $20.5 million to its athletes as part of direct revenue sharing during the 2025-26 academic year. While this is 10 percent of its revenue for Ohio State, it is 28 percent for Rutgers, according to NIL-NCAA. This could cause a massive disparity in salary caps, funds towards travel, training facilities expenses, staffing and many more costs that some programs just do not have the money for.

Under the direction of House vs. NCAA, Division I programs are asked to follow a model that gives 75 percent of the $20.5 million to football (coming out to $15,375,000), 10 percent to men’s basketball ($2,050,000), five percent to women’s basketball ($1,025,000) and five percent to the school’s other varsity sports.

While this is a nice, overarching framework, that may not be practical in the grand scheme of things. If a program like Rutgers wants to be competitive for years to come, other strategies may need to be enlisted regarding the allocation of that money.

How revenue sharing should be distributed across the Big Ten

The Wolverines have 29 varsity sports that Warde Manuel is dedicated to keeping. The Buckeyes have 36, Maryland has 20, Northwestern has 19. As you can see, giving five percent to sports other than football and basketball can vary greatly between schools, and this is where strategy may come into play.

Take UCLA for example, a powerhouse in women’s gymnastics. Or USC, the national leader in beach volleyball. If programs want to compete for both Big Ten championships and national championships, putting money into these smaller programs could be where we see dynasties start forming.

While football has the big, flashy number now, things can change very quickly when programs start getting ahead of the competition.

Say in a year that athletic departments have more flexibility with their allocation of revenue sharing money. With scholarship limits already increased for the upcoming academic year, there is little-to-no oversight on how schools should be spending their money. Sure, if Michigan is spending $146,000 per year on each of their football players, it may be more difficult to compete with that by taking money away from other football programs.

However, realizing there are other ways of competing may be the first domino that needs to fall for schools to pivot and find their lane elsewhere. Here is a list of one sport outside of football and basketball that each Big Ten should prioritize going forward based on recent success (i.e. Big Ten championships and standings):

1. Iowa – Wrestling
2. Illinois – Men’s and Women’s Golf
3. Indiana – Men’s Soccer
4. Maryland – Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse
5. Michigan – Ice Hockey
6. Michigan State – Ice Hockey
7. Minnesota – Ice Hockey
8. Nebraska – Women’s Volleyball
9. Northwestern – Field Hockey
10. Ohio State – Women’s Volleyball
11. Oregon – Baseball
12. Penn State – Ice Hockey
13. Purdue – Wrestling
14. Rutgers – Rowing
15. USC – Beach Volleyball
16. UCLA – Women’s Gymnastics
17. Washington – Men’s and Women’s Track and Field
18. Wisconsin – Women’s Volleyball

This list displays a very unique situation in which school’s of different sizes, athletic program revenue and geographical location could potentially run a particular sport if they allocate the right amount of money to that sport.

When asked questions about other potential revenue pools, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said, “We thought volleyball could be a sport that could drive more revenue.”

Similarly, Penn State athletic director Dr. Patrick Kraft said, “We’re trying to be able to manage the money so that if we need to move on someone, no matter what the sport is, we have the ability to say, ‘Hey, there’s the No. 1 fencer in the world, and we need to go use rev-share to maybe tilt it our way, we’re going to be able to do that.”

From golf to wrestling to lacrosse and every sport in between, we could see Big Ten schools separate themselves from one another, taking home Big Ten championships, the prize money and the publicity that would come with it.

How can the Big Ten leave their mark as a conference, and individually?

Revenue sharing is meant to create many benefits for programs. It increases the scholarships a school can give out, giving programs more flexibility with recruiting and roster spots. It should make athletes happier about their worth, and it gives coaches and staff another resource to use when recruiting and retaining athletes. And, in theory, it evens out the competition, allowing for schools to have the same resources as one another to compete for championships.

However, there are still going to be economic and resource disparities. It is how each school handles these inequalities which will be the true test of sustainability and continuous success.

Kirby Smart’s Bold Recruiting Strategy

In the fiercely competitive landscape of college football, Kirby Smart has emerged as a formidable force on the recruiting trail. The head coach of the University of Georgia has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to building a powerhouse program, particularly evident in June when his team secured commitments from four highly sought-after recruits within just a week. This surge in talent acquisition appears to be a strategic counterbalance to the recent challenges faced by the program, including the departure of 18 players, a situation that could easily destabilize any team.

Navigating the Aftermath of Player Departures

The mass exodus of players from Georgia has left a significant mark on Smart’s coaching journey. Each departure represents not just a loss of talent but also a challenge in maintaining team cohesion and morale. The impact of these transitions can be profound, as Smart works to foster a culture of resilience and adaptability among the remaining players. The recent recruiting successes signal that Smart is not merely reacting to these losses but is proactively shaping the future of his program.

The NIL Landscape and Its Implications

A pivotal element in this recruiting narrative is the evolving landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. Smart’s recent stance on NIL compensation, particularly the $220,000 figure, has sparked significant discussions within the college football community. This figure represents not only a monetary value but also a philosophical approach to how athletes are compensated in the collegiate arena. Smart’s clear position on NIL could serve as a double-edged sword—while it may attract recruits who value integrity and a strong program culture, it could also deter others who are swayed by more lucrative offers elsewhere.

The Future of Georgia Football Under Smart’s Leadership

As Kirby Smart navigates these complex dynamics, the future of Georgia football hinges on his ability to blend traditional recruiting strategies with the new realities of NIL. The recent influx of talent suggests that he is adept at adapting to the changing landscape, yet the true test will come as he balances the financial aspects of recruitment with the foundational values of his program.

Conclusion: A New Era of College Football

Smart’s journey illustrates the shifting paradigms within college athletics, where the intersection of talent acquisition, player welfare, and financial considerations is more pronounced than ever. As he continues to build his roster amid the challenges of player retention and NIL negotiations, the implications of his strategies will resonate far beyond the field. Kirby Smart is not only shaping the future of Georgia football but also contributing to the broader conversation about the evolution of college sports in a new era.

The University of Wisconsin and its NIL collective VC Connect filed a joint lawsuit on Friday against the University of Miami alleging it knowingly induced one of the Badgers’ football players to abandon a lucrative name, image and likeness contract to play for the Florida school this upcoming season.

Allegations of tampering rarely get to this level and the 23-page lawsuit, which was filed in state court in Wisconsin and obtained by The Associated Press, is unusual. Depending on its resolution, it could have a a wider impact on future NIL deals across college athletics.

The player in question in the filing is referred to only as “Student-Athlete A.” But the case summary describes facts that line up with the situation involving cornerback Xavier Lucas, who last December announced his plans to enter the transfer portal.

Shortly afterward, Darren Heitner, who has been representing Lucas, indicated that Wisconsin was refusing to put Lucas’ name in the portal and that it was hindering his ability to talk with other schools. In January, Heitner announced that Lucas would be playing for Miami this fall.

The situation is fallout from the rapid changes engulfing college athletics, specifically a combination of two things: Athletes went to court and won the ability to transfer with much more freedom and the 2021 NCAA decision clearing the way for them to strike NIL endorsement deals now worth millions of dollars. That has changed the recruiting landscape and forced the issue of contracts and signed commitments to the fore.

“Indeed, student-athletes’ newfound NIL rights will be rendered meaningless if third parties are allowed to induce student-athletes to abandon their contractual commitments,” a portion of the lawsuit reads.

Wisconsin said in January that it had credible information that Miami and Lucas made impermissible contact with each other before the former Badgers cornerback decided to transfer.

Wisconsin and VC Connect allege that the inducement for Lucas to attend Miami happened within days of him entering his NIL agreement to play for the Badgers, and that they incurred substantial monetary and reputational harm. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and “a declaration that Miami’s conduct directed towards Student-Athlete A constituted tampering.”

A message left with the University of Miami seeking comment was not immediately returned. In a text message Friday, Heitner declined to comment on the lawsuit but he said that Lucas still plans to attend Miami and play football.

Wisconsin said it had the support of its leadership and the Big Ten Conference in filing the lawsuit, noting its commitment to “ensuring integrity and fundamental fairness in the evolving landscape of college athletics.”

“While we reluctantly bring this case, 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 action, we will continue to be proactive to protect the interests of our student-athletes, our program and the broader collegiate athletics community.

Lucas, who is from Pompano Beach, Florida, had 12 tackles, an interception and a sack as a freshman for Wisconsin last season.

Heitner said that Lucas hasn’t received any money from Wisconsin and therefore owes no money to the school.

Heitner also argued that Wisconsin had violated an NCAA bylaw by not entering Lucas into the transfer database within two business days of the player’s request.

Wisconsin issued a statement at the time saying it hadn’t put Lucas’ name in the portal because he had entered a two-year binding NIL agreement.

In April, the surprise transfers of brothers Nico and Madden Iamaleava from Tennessee to UCLA prompted fresh questions about contracts and buyouts.

Nico Iamaleava, who led Tennessee to the College Football Playoff last season, walked away from a reported $2.4 million NIL contract. Arkansas freshman quarterback Madden Iamaleava entered the portal after spring practices wrapped up.

Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek released a statement indicating he would support efforts by the Razorbacks’ NIL collective to enforce buyout clauses in athlete contracts. Iamaleava reportedly had a contract valued at $500,000 upon signing with Arkansas.

Brad Marchand is one of the top pending unrestricted free agents (UFAs) who can hit the market on July 1. Both the Florida Panthers and Marchand have expressed interest in getting a new contract done. However, with Panthers stars Sam Bennett and Aaron Ekblad also needing new deals, there is certainly a possibility that No. 63 could end up becoming a UFA at the start of next month.

After the playoff run Marchand just had, he would be a very popular target if he became available on the free-agent market. The 37-year-old winger has proven that he is still a star and that he can still step up big time in games that matter most.

Advertisement

Due to this, in his most recent 32 Thoughts column, NHL insider Elliotte Friedman mentioned several potential suitors for Marchand if the Panthers are unable to re-sign him by July 1. These teams include the Utah Mammoth, Toronto Maple Leafs, Los Angeles Kings, New Jersey Devils, and Washington Capitals.

The Mammoth making a push for Marchand would be understandable, as they could use a star winger like him as they look to take that next step and become a playoff team. Meanwhile, the Maple Leafs, Kings, Devils, and Capitals also make sense as possible suitors, as they each are playoff-caliber teams with high expectations for next year. Thus, bringing in a clutch playoff performer like Marchand would be huge for them.

Nevertheless, it is going to be intriguing to see what happens between Marchand and the Panthers this off-season. If Florida is unable to keep him around, it’s clear that the future Hall of Famer will have plenty of other options to consider.

Brad Marchand Has Big Message For Panthers GM Bill Zito Brad Marchand is one of the

Advertisement

Florida Panthers’ top pending unrestricted free agents (UFA) with the summer here. The star winger has undoubtedly increased his value after his marvelous playoff run, as he recorded 10 goals, 20 points, and a plus-17 rating in 23 games. With this, he was one of the major reasons why the Panthers were able to repeat as Stanley Cup champions.

Photo Credit: © Sergei Belski-Imagn Images