Alexander Brenner – College sports are rapidly evolving. The transfer portal and Name, Image , and Likeness (“NIL”) compensation have created a system where college athletes can earn significant amounts of money while also moving between schools without penalty. Just a few years ago, college athletes were not allowed to participate in athletics for a year after transferring, often discouraging players from moving between programs. These changes have introduced both new opportunities and challenges for athletes and universities alike.
The modern NIL marketplace grew rapidly after the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021), where the Court held that the NCAA’s limits on what schools could provide to athletes beyond traditional scholarships violated federal antitrust law. Although the case did not directly address NIL compensation, it signaled that broader restrictions on paying college athletes could be challenged. In a widely cited concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh went even further, questioning whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation limits could withstand antitrust scrutiny at all. That language increased pressure on the NCAA and helped accelerate the shift toward allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. College athletes now participate in endorsement agreements, promote brands on social media, attend marketing events, and collaborate with businesses that want to leverage their visibility.
Much of this activity is organized through NIL collectives—groups supported by donors and boosters that create sponsorship opportunities for athletes at a particular school. While NIL deals are typically structured as marketing agreements, they have also become a crucial factor in recruiting and retaining players. This system works relatively smoothly until an athlete decides to transfer.
The recent legal battle initiated by Duke University—after star quarterback Darian Mensah, who led Duke to an ACC Championship and threw for nearly 4,000 yards and 34 touchdowns during the 2025 season, entered the transfer portal on the final day of the window and ultimately committed to the University of Miami—highlights the growing tension between athlete mobility and increasing demands for contractual accountability in the NIL era. The dispute centered on NIL-related compensation Mensah received in connection with his time at Duke and whether those payments carried obligations tied to his continued participation in the program. Under the terms of the agreement, the parties were required to resolve disputes through arbitration, yet Duke sought court intervention to prevent further alleged breaches before arbitration could occur. According to Duke’s complaint, Mensah had entered into a multi-year NIL licensing agreement that granted Duke exclusive rights to his name, image, and likeness in connection with college athletics and prohibited him from enrolling at or competing for another institution during the term of the agreement. Duke alleged that Mensah’s decision to enter the transfer portal constituted a breach and repudiation of that contract, triggering its request for injunctive relief to preserve its rights pending arbitration.
On January 21, the assigned judge issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), temporarily limiting actions related to Mensah’s transfer and NIL arrangements while the court considered the dispute. The order indicated that the court found Duke’s claims sufficient to justify temporarily restricting Mensah’s transfer, particularly given Duke’s argument that allowing him to transfer would cause irreparable harm and undermine the pending arbitration. Two days later, on January 23, Mensah filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the TRO should be lifted and that the restrictions placed on his transfer were not legally justified.
Before the court could issue a ruling on the underlying contractual issues, the parties reached a resolution. On January 27, settlement was reached with Mensah confirming his commitment to the University of Miami, bringing the case to a close without a final judicial decision on the enforceability of the NIL agreement. Although the case did not produce binding precedent, it drew immediate attention to the legal uncertainty surrounding NIL agreements when athletes transfer programs.
At its core, the Duke–Mensah dispute asks a simple but consequential question: can an NIL agreement actually bind an athlete to a school?
From the perspective of collectives and donors, NIL payments are often connected to the athlete’s role within a specific program. If an athlete leaves that program soon after receiving compensation, those parties may argue that the purpose of the agreement has been undermined, as occurred in the Duke–Mensah dispute .
Athletes and their representatives may see the arrangement differently. In many cases, NIL deals are framed as compensation for marketing activities or promotional appearances rather than a commitment to remain at a particular school. When agreements are written this way, disputes can arise over what obligations truly exist once a player transfers.
To avoid conflicts like the Duke–Mensah dispute, NIL agreements may become more structured in the future. Contracts may include provisions such as:
- Payment distribution over time rather than payment upfront
- Unambiguous language addressing what happens if an athlete transfers
- Detailed definitions of promotional obligations tied to the agreement
The broader lesson from the Duke–Mensah dispute is that the NIL marketplace is evolving into a system defined by clearly stated expectations and enforceable obligations. What began as an opportunity for athletes to profit from their personal brands is increasingly becoming a framework where compensation is tied to conditions such as remaining at a particular school, the timing of payments, and the fulfillment of agreed upon obligations. As more money continues to flow into college athletics, disputes like the Duke–Mensah case will become more common forcing both universities and athletes to approach NIL agreements with greater precision and accountability. For athletes, that shift carries real consequences—transferring may mean forfeiting compensation or triggering contractual penalties that did not previously exist.
Although the Duke–Mensah dispute did not produce a landmark judicial decision, it reflects a broader shift in college athletics: NIL agreements are beginning to function like traditional business contracts, and the challenges that come with that evolution are only just beginning.
