Spence wrote:The only what this ends up working is for the players to sign actual contracts a period of time. Question is who is the entity that signs the contracts? The collective? The schools?
And that is the dispute Wisconsin is having with Xavier Lucas ...
The reason why the Big 10 released their statement of "Full Support" for Wisconsin, on the matter, is because the Big 10 schools started signing 2 year exclusionary contracts with these kids.
The only problem for Wisconsin, is that this practice is not yet legal. Wisconsin State Law says Schools/Educational Institutions are not permitted to directly pay Athletes for field/court/pool performance.
Until legislation is the house gets passed, these Big 10 contracts are not binding. They are only a Memorandum of Understanding.
Lucas wanted out of Wisconsin, and asked to be entered into the Transfer Portal. Wisconsin broke the Transfer rules when they did not enter his name within the required time period.
Once a player asks to be entered into the Portal, the School has 2 working days to comply.
Wisconsin refuse, stating they have a Binding Contract, which not yet permitted by League Rules, or Wisconsin State Law. After a month and a half went by, Xavier Lucas retained an attorney to handle the case.
Wisconsin still refuse to put his name into the Portal, so, he withdrew his name from the institution Academically, and had his Credits transferred to the University of Miami.
He did so, because Wisconsin was attempting to withhold his name, until after the transfer window for the Spring Semester had closed. Despite no exchange of money having been made.
Lucas transferred his name academically with 2 days left of transfer eligibility.
Now, Wisconsin is publicly citing Miami with Tampering, stating they have "Credible Information that Miami tampered with the Transfer process."
However, I happen to know, this is just an optics ploy. Miami never reached out to him. And they tried to stay away from it as much as they possibly could, until Lucas reached out to them.
It's pretty telling, that Wisconsin made this claim Publicly, but did not cite this in their dispute claim in court.
It's also rather telling, that Wisconsin made the statement that, "They have Credible Information."
What they did not say, is that they have Credible Proof, or Credible Evidence.
I passed along a position to Lucas' Lawyer, that they could make a case for Indentured Servitude.
To my surprise, he made that statement in an Interview the very next day.
We'll see if that makes it into the court room. But now that the language is out in the open, Wisconsin had better tread lightly, less they end up with a Civil Rights case on their hands, over an ineligible contract that should never have been drafted in the first place.
.
.
.
