The University of Georgia Athletic Association (UGAA)’s NIL lawsuit against former linebacker Damon Wilson II, who transferred to Missouri earlier this year, could become a standard type of litigation as more and more athletes sign NIL deals with one school and then transfer to another.
The specific legal dispute is straightforward: UGAA claims that Wilson, 20, breached his NIL contract with Classic City Collective (CCC)—a Georgia-aligned former NIL collective—and failed to pay a liquidated damages provision that was triggered upon breach.
A four-star recruit from Venice High School (Fla.), Wilson played for the Bulldogs in the 2023 and 2024 seasons and, while on the Tigers in 2025, earned second-team All-SEC recognition as he amassed nine sacks—tied for third-best in the SEC.
According to litigation records at Athens-Clarke County (Ga.) Superior Court, Wilson signed a 13-month, $500,000 NIL deal with CCC on Dec. 21, 2024. The deal runs from Dec. 1, 2024, to Jan. 31, 2026 and was contingent on Wilson being enrolled as a student at Georgia and part of the football team. He was paid $30,000, his first monthly licensing fee payment, on Dec. 25, 2024. UGAA emphasizes that Wilson accepted this payment, meaning the contract went into effect. On Jan. 6, 2025, Wilson announced he was entering the transfer portal, a move that Georgia says constituted a breach of the NIL deal. About a week later Wilson withdrew from Georgia and began the process of transferring to Missouri. It’s unknown how much money Wilson received to transfer to Missouri.
Georgia moved to close CCC over the summer, when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval of the House settlement, and has partnered with Learfield on NIL matters. Relevant to the school’s dispute with Wilson, CCC assigned its Wilson contract to UGAA, meaning the athletic association has the legal right to enforce the contract.
UGAA argues that under the NIL deal’s liquidated damages clause, Wilson, as the licensor, must pay all remaining license fees that would have been payable. The remaining value, according to court filings, is $390,000.
In May, attorney Spence Johnson wrote a demand letter to Wilson on behalf of CCC. The letter told Wilson that while CCC “does not want to unnecessarily undermine your financial future,” CCC also “insists that its student athletes be accountable for promises they make.” Wilson was told he had 14 days to pay or else CCC would “pursue legal action against you based on your breaches” of the NIL deal.
In August, Johnson wrote another letter to Wilson. Johnson said that UGAA had been assigned Wilson’s NIL deal with CCC. The letter indicated Wilson didn’t pay as demanded and that the NIL deal calls for arbitration to resolve disputes. In October, UGAA, through Johnson, filed a lawsuit to compel arbitration, with the complaint stating that Wilson hasn’t responded to demand for arbitration. There is no attorney listed for Wilson and it does not appear from the court docket he has responded to the litigation.
The actual legal controversy—alleged breach of contract—is ordinary, but the circumstances are extraordinary. A university, through its athletic association, is suing a former student athlete who transferred for reneging on his NIL deal.
A lawsuit like UGAA v. Wilson would have been inconceivable five years ago, but in the new college sports world, it’s the kind of case that could become more common.
Through antitrust litigation and accompanying settlements, college athletes can now transfer without sitting out of sports for a period of time. That approach is consistent with college students in general as they can transfer schools, but typical college students aren’t signing NIL deals.
There’s plenty of money to be made, too, for power conference football players to switch schools. University-aligned NIL collectives can pay athletes, some of whom also stand to benefit from the injunctive relief portion of the House settlement. Participating colleges can directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with $20.5 million pegged as the initial annual cap. There are thus three buckets of money for some college athletes: revenue share, NIL deals and athletic scholarships.
And playing in college could become something of a career depending on the ultimate trajectory of antitrust litigation brought by Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia—the runner-up for the 2025 Heisman Trophy—and other seasoned college athletes. They wish to continue playing college football past the NCAA eligibility clock, which limits eligibility to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including JUCO and D-II play, within a five-year period.
College sports, at least football at power conference schools, resembles professional sports—except without free agency restrictions and similar player restraints found in the NFL. Those restraints are lawful because the NFL collectively bargains them with the NFL players association. They are thus protected by the non-statutory labor exemption, which reflects U.S. Supreme Court decisions that provide antitrust immunity for bargained rules relating to wages, hours and other working conditions. The non-statutory labor exemption can’t apply in college football because the athletes are, for now at least, not recognized as employees and under labor law only employees can unionize.
Unless and until college football players are recognized as employees who in turn unionize, cases like UGAA v. Wilson could happen again and again. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a reflection of the chaotic blend of pro and amateur sports known as modern day power conference football.
