How will Washington pay athletes in a post-House world? A look at the contract template

As Washington coach Jedd Fisch explained on the first day of the December signing period, players on the Huskies’ 2025 football roster will be primarily compensated via two different entities — one old, and one very new.

From January through June — for players who are enrolled, anyway, which is most of the team — UW’s donor collective, Montlake Futures, will handle name-image-likeness payments, as has become standard operating procedure. Beginning July 1, though, the school may begin paying players directly, assuming a federal judge grants final approval of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement in April.

As a reminder, the House settlement includes two main components:

• The NCAA — via its own reserves and reduced distributions to member schools, primarily in the Power 4 conferences — must pay about $2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years for lost NIL and revenue-sharing opportunities to former athletes.
• Athletic departments may now share up to about $20.5 million annually with athletes (and that figure is set to rise each year). Fisch has said on several occasions that UW plans to share the maximum allowable amount of revenue. While precise details remain scarce, informed observers estimate Power 4 programs will direct the majority of their revenue-share allotment — between $13-16 million — to football players.

Fisch and others have referenced a “standardized” revenue-sharing contract template being used across the Big Ten; Sportico shared some details of one such agreement after viewing a copy last month.

I requested and recently received a blank copy of a template for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) from the UW via a public records request. It’s a fascinating study in how rapidly college athletics are evolving.

Because this is only a template, it’s possible that the precise nature of these deals will vary from athlete to athlete or school to school — this is a good comparison of how schools in different leagues, including the Big Ten, are structuring their deals — and any House-related contracts are of course conditioned on the settlement receiving final approval (the MOU stipulates as much). But the template is largely intended as a plug-and-play document to be used across the Big Ten, and should give you a strong sense of what these deals are likely to entail, and the manner in which players are going to be paid.

Here’s what I found most interesting from studying the MOU template.

While “revenue sharing” is the term most often used to describe these newly allowable payments, the MOU language centers specifically around NIL. Chiefly, schools are purchasing an NIL license grant, sublicense rights and rights after eligibility.

The agreement permits the school a sub-licensable, transferable license to use just about any conceivable facet of the athlete’s name, image and likeness for the duration of their eligibility. If an athlete transfers, the school agrees to make a “reasonable attempt” not to use their NIL to promote them as part of the program, but retains the right to “archival uses and historical signage,” as well as other uses that do not imply current team membership. The school also is “permitted to sell-off” any existing products featuring the athlete’s NIL after a transfer.

The MOU template also dictates that the school may freely sublicense — “through multiple tiers” — the athlete’s NIL rights, with no additional compensation due to the athlete.

The school and its sublicensees are not required to discontinue use of the athlete’s NIL after their eligibility expires, but they can’t use the athlete’s NIL to sell goods or services.

In exchange, the school will pay what is known in contract terms as a “consideration,” but which you or I might better know as “cash.” The MOU template refers to “consideration periods,” which you or I might better know as “the increments in which I get paid.”

UW provided three documents in response to my request — one which included a blank, 12-month payment schedule beginning July 1; another for a six-month term beginning July 1, presumably to align with the football calendar; and another which included a six-month term plus an incentive payment (my assumption is that beginning in January, all or most football contracts will span 12 months).

In each agreement, the “consideration period” (i.e. pay increment) is one month, which is consistent with how Montlake Futures pays its 12-month contracts, per executive director Andrew Minear.

Any football incentive payment would be due within 30 days after the conclusion of the 2025 regular season and must be conditioned upon a “formally registered official game statistic.” The player also must be enrolled and on the roster to receive the payment.

Yes, schools are still pretending this isn’t pay-for-play. Per the MOU template: “The parties understand and expressly agree that the Consideration is not provided in exchange for the Athlete’s commitment to attend the Institution or participate in the Institution’s Program (i.e., not “Pay-for-Play.”).”

This clause seemingly is at odds with another clause which dictates — in bold font, even — that the school, “after good faith discussion with the Athlete,” may increase or reduce the agreed-upon compensation relative to the athlete’s “NIL value.” In fact, the MOU states, the proposed payment structure is “a projected amount based on the current promotional value of using the Athlete’s NIL.”

The example cited: “a Heisman Trophy win may increase the NIL value and reduced playing time may decrease the NIL value.”

The MOU template also takes pains to make clear that athletes are not employees, going so far as to stipulate that athletes may not claim as much and, by signing the agreement, waive “to the fullest extent permitted by law” any right to sue the school, NCAA or Big Ten “resulting from any claim that the Athlete is an employee of the Institution.”

Should an athlete transfer (or enter the transfer portal) prior to the end of a “consideration period” — again, that’s one month, per the templates UW provided, though perhaps that could vary by school — the athlete would owe the school a prorated portion of their monthly compensation as liquidated damages. Could this serve to disincentivize transfers and stabilize rosters? Obviously, the case of (former) Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas will be an interesting one to follow, regarding the binding nature of these agreements.

Leave a comment

The MOU template includes a clause that bars the athlete from suing over reduced NIL value related to playing time, “or any other decision regarding the Athlete’s role, or impacting Athlete’s performance, or prohibiting the Athlete from participating in the program’s events, games or matches.”

The template includes a confidentiality clause, barring the athlete from disclosing the terms of the MOU to anyone other than “parents, guardians, attorneys or other competent representatives,” or as required by law or NCAA or Big Ten rules, without the school’s prior written approval. The school may disclose the athlete’s name and personally identifiable information to third parties (including the media), “as necessary,” such as to correct inaccuracies, but without violating the athlete’s rights under FERPA.

(Already, at least one school has refused to disclose even redacted versions of its NIL agreements.)

As this is a template for an MOU, it stipulates that a good-faith effort must be made to finalize a long-form contract within 180 days of signing. That long-form agreement is to include a right-of-first-refusal provision for the school “related to any offer from another institution” regarding an NIL or revenue-sharing deal. The MOU template also calls for the long-form agreement to include a provision which opens a mandatory negotiating window, to discuss extending the agreement, 60 days before the end of the final consideration period (i.e. Nov. 1 for football).

There is a “morals clause,” too, in which the athlete must agree not to behave in any way that might harm the school’s image or “bring disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule” upon the school, NCAA or Big Ten. The agreement also is conditioned upon the athlete remaining eligible and in “good standing” academically.

Another clause asks the athlete to acknowledge that the school denies the existence of any “broadcast NIL” rights — essentially, NIL rights related to appearing on television broadcasts — and that if any law is passed to the contrary, the school “shall be deemed to have been granted a license to exercise all such rights in ‘BNIL.’”

The school can terminate the agreement, with no further financial obligation, if the athlete violates any of the terms; is convicted of (or pleads guilty to) any crime; enters the transfer portal; is deemed medically ineligible; violates NCAA or conference rules; or if there is a head coaching change during the contract term. A change in relevant law also would allow the school to terminate the agreement.

I thought this was interesting language, too: any athlete signing this MOU agrees that “none of Athlete, Athlete’s family members, nor any representative acting on behalf of Athlete will initiate contact with admission or athletic staffs at other institutions in a way that conflicts with the Athlete’s commitment herein.”

On the signature page, the athlete also is asked to confirm that they received “a fair and ample opportunity to seek the advice of counsel, and have a lawyer, parent, guardian or other competent representative assist in discussions” or “review, comment on, or advise” before signing.

— Christian Caple, On Montlake