Quarterbacking a New Era in College Sports: Jaden Rashada Rewrites the Playbook for Negotiating NIL Deals

In the NIL era, college athletes face an environment ripe for exploitation. Following Judge Claudia Wilken’s final approval of the $2.8 billion settlement in the federal antitrust class action, House v. NCAA, schools are now permitted to compensate athletes for their name, image, and likeness (NIL), with payments capped at $20.5 million per institution for the 2025–2026 academic year.¹[1]Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, In Re: Collegiate Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. 2025), ECF No. 978. In the meantime, third-party “collectives” continue to be the leading source of funding for NIL agreements.²[2]Ashley R. Lynman & Patrick Smith, When One (NCAA) Door Closes, Another (NIL) Door Opens: What Pre-Collegiate Enrollment NIL Deals Mean for Schools & NIL Collectives, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (March 13, 2024) https://www.mmwr.com/when-one-ncaa-door-closes-another-nil-door-opens-what-pre-collegiate-enrollment-nil-deals-mean-for-schools-nil-collectives/ These collectives purport to be “independent supporter-funded groups designed to source or create opportunities for student-athletes to license their NIL rights for compensation . . . .”³[3]Nicole Mayne & S. Amy Spencer, Deal structure options for NIL collectives, Nixon Peabody LLP (September 13, 2024) https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/articles/2024/09/13/deal-structure-options-for-nil-collectives Nonetheless, collectives usually work closely with the affiliated-school’s athletic department and coaching staff, suggesting to recruits that the collective speaks for the school. Athletes often find themselves negotiating NIL deals with these immensely powerful and wealthy collectives. The athletes are often unrepresented and vulnerable to being manipulated and misled by those who purportedly represent the school and offer financial rewards and athletic opportunity that they ultimately cannot deliver.

Some college athletes, like University of Georgia quarterback Jaden Rashada, are beginning to fight back. Rashada brought a lawsuit to challenge predatory conduct by another school’s coaches and university boosters during NIL negotiations that culminated in an allegedly exploitative and fraudulent deal.⁴[4]Complaint, Rashada v. Hathcock, et al. 24-cv-00219-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla. 2024), ECF No. 1. This article will recount the factual allegations and procedural posture of Rashada’s federal lawsuit and offer athletes practical guidance for avoiding NIL-related legal disputes.

Florida Schools Battle to Recruit Rashada Through NIL Deals

According to his complaint, Rashada was one of the most desired recruits in the high school class of 2023, ranked as the seventh best quarterback in the nation.⁵[5]Rashada v. Hathcock, et al. 24-cv-00219, 2025 WL 1043208 at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2024). In June 2022, Rashada committed to the University of Miami (“Miami”) after the school’s prominent booster, John Ruiz, promised him a $9.5 million NIL contract.⁶[6]Id. at *4. Despite Rashada’s commitment, the University of Florida (“UF”) continued to aggressively recruit him throughout the fall of 2022, ultimately hoping to flip his commitment. Three key figures – all named in Rashada’s complaint – led UF’s recruitment of the star quarterback: (1) Billy Napier, UF’s head football coach; (2) Marcus Castro-Walker, UF’s director of NIL and player engagement; and (3) Hugh Hathcock, a prominent UF booster who operates an independent NIL collective “Gator Guard.”⁷[7]Id. Rashada was represented throughout the high-stakes recruiting process by his high school friend, Jackson Zager, who, at the time, was just 20 years old and a sophomore at Southern Methodist University.⁸[8]Chris Hummer, How Jackson Zager, a 20-year-old former IMG QB who represents Jaden Rashada, is making waves in the NIL space, 247Sports (August 31, 2023). https://247sports.com/article/how-jackson-zager-a-20-year-old-former-img-qb-who-represents-jaden-rashada-is-making-waves-in-the-nil-space-215087157/

Rashada’s complaint tells the following story: In early November 2022, while Rashada was still committed to Miami, UF offered him a staggering $13.85 million NIL deal that was to be funded through Hathcock’s Gator Guard collective and his business, Velocity Automotive (Velocity).⁹[9]Rashada v. Hathcock, et al. 24-cv-00219, 2025 WL 1043208 at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2024) The close relationship between Hathcock and UF’s coaching staff, and UF’s close contact with Rashada, gave the appearance that UF was advancing the NIL offer. Prior to finalizing the agreement, Hathcock announced that the Gator Guard collective and Velocity would no longer fund Rashada’s NIL payments.¹⁰[10]Id. Instead, Rashada’s payments would be funneled through a different collective, “Gator Collective,” but would still be financed by Hathcock.¹¹[11]Id. Attorneys for the Gator Collective represented to Rashada that he would receive $500,000 upon committing to UF.¹²[12]Id. at *3. That same day, influenced by these promises, Rashada verbally changed his commitment from Miami to UF, and signed an NIL contract with the Gator Collective for $13.85 million.¹³[13]Id.

University of Florida Reneges on NIL Promises to Rashada

On December 6, 2023, one day after Rashada was scheduled to receive an initial $500,000 for committing to UF, the Gator Collective terminated the $13.85 million deal.¹⁴[14]Id. at *4. Despite the termination, Castro-Walker assured Rashada’s agent, Jackson Zager, that Rashada’s contract would be re-assigned back to Hathcock’s Gator Guard collective.¹⁵[15]Id.

By the time National Letter of Intent Signing Day came around – which took place on December 21, 2023 – Rashada had received only $150,000 of his $500,000 signing bonus.¹⁶[16]Id. Coach Napier personally spoke to Rashada, and after assuring him that Hathcock would pay $1 million as a partial payment of the $13.85 million deal, Coach Napier urged the quarterback to sign his Letter of Intent to play football at UF.¹⁷[17]Id. Within the hour – and after Castro-Walker threatened that UF would rescind its offer – Rashada signed his Letter of Intent to attend UF.¹⁸[18]Id.

By January 2023, Rashada had not received any additional payments promised by UF, nor had his NIL deal been re-assigned to Gator Guard as promised by Castro-Walker.¹⁹[19]Id. Despite further assurances by Castro-Walker of Hathcock’s commitment to pay Rashada, the quarterback never saw the money.²⁰[20]Id. On January 18, 2023, Rashada withdrew his commitment to UF, and subsequently began his college career at Arizona State University.²¹[21]Id. Rashada played at Arizona State during the 2023-2024 season before transferring to the University of Georgia for the 2024-2025 school year.²²[22]Id.

Rashada Sues for Fraud in Florida Federal Court

In May 2024, Rashada filed an eight-count federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida, against Coach Napier, Castro-Walker, Hathcock, and Hathcock’s company Velocity, seeking over $10 million in damages for the parties’ alleged fraudulent activities.²³[23]Complaint, Rashada v. Hathcock, et al., No. 24-cv-219 (N.D. Fla. May 21, 2024), ECF No. 1. The claims in Rashada’s First Amended Complaint, which all arise under Florida state law, allege that: (1) the defendants fraudulently misrepresented their intent to pay Rashada $13.85 million, and fraudulently induced him to flip his commitment to Miami based on that misrepresentation; (2) the defendants aided and abetted each other’s false and fraudulent misrepresentations that induced Rashada to flip his commitment to Miami; (3) the defendants conspired to defraud Jaden by agreeing to fraudulently induce him to flip his commitment to Miami; (4) the defendants negligently supplied false information to induce Rashada to flip his commitment to Miami; (5) the defendants tortiously interfered with Rashada’s $9.5 million NIL agreement and business relationship with Miami; (6) the defendants aided and abetted each other to advance the tortious interference with Rashada’s $9.5 million NIL agreement and business relationship with Miami; and (7) Velocity is vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of Hathcock.²⁴[24]First Amended Complaint, Rashada v. Hathcock, et al., No. 24-cv-219 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2024), ECF No. 37. Rashada’s lawsuit was filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Rashada’s lawsuit marked the first time that a college athlete sued a coach and school booster for failure to fulfill NIL promises.²⁵[25]Krisha Sanghavi, Jaden Rashada sues Billy Napier over failed $13.85 million NIL deal: Rashada id the first-known college athlete to sue their coach or booster over NIL negotiations, The Independent Florida Alligator (May 21, 2024) https://www.alligator.org/article/2024/05/jaden-rashada-sues-billy-napier-over-failed-13-85-million-nil-deal#:~:text=Rashada%20is%20the%20first%2Dknown,or%20booster%20over%20NIL%20negotiations

On April 8, 2025, the federal court ruled that Rashada could proceed past the motion to dismiss stage on the following claims: (1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (2) Aiding and Abetting Fraud; (3) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (5) Vicarious Liability to the extent based on surviving claims.²⁶[26]Rashada v. Hathcock, et al. 24-cv-00219, 2025 WL 1043208 at *13 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2024) The court, however, dismissed Rashada’s claims alleging: (1) Civil Conspiracy; (2) Tortious Interference; (3) Aiding and Abetting Tortious Interference; and (4) Vicarious Liability to the extent based on dismissed claims.²⁷[27]Id. Although the litigation remains in its early stages, the court’s decision to allow Rashada’s fraud claims to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage is significant given that fraud claims face a high pleading bar, and surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion required Rashada to allege facts with particularity. For what appears to be the first time in the modern era of college athletics, a court has ruled that college coaches, athletic department staff, and prominent boosters may be liable for deceptive and fraudulent conduct during NIL negotiations. Although it is too early to tell if Rashada’s suit will ultimately be successful, this represents an important victory for college athletes.

Precedential Value of Florida Court’s Decision to Sustain Rashada’s Complaint

Since Rashada’s lawsuit, at least four other athletes have brought claims alleging breach of an NIL contract and fraud. As such, the court’s decision in Rashada’s case is likely to serve as key precedent for current and future NIL-related disputes. In December 2024, three Florida State University (FSU) basketball players – Darin Green, Josh Nickelberry, and Primo Spears – sued their coach Leonard Hamilton for failing to deliver on verbal promises to pay each of them $250,000 in NIL compensation.²⁸[28]Second Amended Complaint, Green, et al. v. Hamilton, 2024 CA 202172 (Fla. Leon Cty. Apr. 2, 2025), ECF No. 1. Critically, the players were neither represented by counsel, nor an agent in their discussions with Hamilton. Like Rashada, the FSU players brought claims under Florida state law, and allege fraudulent conduct on the part of Hamilton.²⁹[29]Id.

Also in 2024, Matthew Sluka, a former quarterback at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV), found himself in a similar situation as Rashada when he transferred to UNLV based on an alleged verbal agreement promising $100,000.³⁰[30]Associated Press, QB Matthew Sluka, who left UNLV over NIL dispute, enters portal, ESPN (October 31, 2024). https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/42116182/qb-matthew-sluka-left-unlv-nil-dispute-enters-portal Sluka, like Rashada, was represented by an agent throughout his negotiations with UNLV. However, after only three games at UNLV, he decided to transfer after it became clear that the school would not fulfill those payments.³¹[31]Id. Unlike Rashada and the FSU basketball players, Sluka chose not to sue UNLV because of the lack of a written contract between the parties – he was only verbally promised $100,000.³²[32]Aman Sankineni, Matthew Sluka: NIL Disputes and the Necessity of Contracts, The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (2024).

Five Lessons From Rashada’s Situation For College Athletes Negotiating NIL Deals

While access to NIL compensation marks a major win for college athletes, Rashada’s case highlights the pitfalls of the current NIL system, and underscore the urgent need for greater transparency. Although comprehensive and effective solutions to these issues will take time to develop, in the meantime it is crucial that high school and college athletes adhere to five key principles to protect themselves:

1. Obtain a Competent Lawyer or Reputable NIL Agent. The legal intricacies of contract law, coupled with the power imbalance between coaches and athletes, makes it essential for athletes pursuing NIL deals to retain legal counsel or an experienced NIL agent. While Rashada and Sluka had a NIL agent at the time of his negotiations with UF, his agent was inexperienced and only a sophomore in college.³³[33]Id. at *4. Age does not equate to ability, but the power imbalance between athletes and influential figures such as coaches and boosters underscores the necessity of experienced and skilled representation.
2. Beware of the Booster. Most NIL deals, like Rashada’s deal with UF, involve collectives that are independently operated from the school. As such, these entities have different priorities and less accountability than a university. While Rashada’s lawsuit may bring greater accountability for collectives, athletes must not assume that a promise from a booster is a promise from the school.
3. Get it in Writing. As demonstrated by Rashada’s case, most NIL negotiations are informal and take place through phone calls, text messages, and other verbal communication.³⁴[34]Rashada v. Hathcock, et al. 24-cv-00219, 2025 WL 1043208 at *13 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025) The absence of written agreements creates challenges for individuals like Matt Sluka, whose inability to produce a written contract ultimately discouraged him from pursuing legal action against UNLV. As such, it is essential that athletes, at the very least, reduce their final NIL agreements to writing.
4. Consider the Long-term Stability. Today’s college athletics environment is increasingly defined by universities extending substantial NIL offers, leading some athletes to prioritize immediate financial incentives. Rashada, for example, pursued a $9.5 million deal with Miami and later a $13.85 million deal with Florida. Yet in 2023, he ultimately began his college football career at Arizona State for “almost [no NIL compensation],” only to transfer to the University of Georgia the following year.³⁵[35]Chris Hummer, How Jackson Zager, a 20-year-old former IMG QB who represents Jaden Rashada, is making waves in the NIL space, 247Sports (August 31, 2023). https://247sports.com/article/how-jackson-zager-a-20-year-old-former-img-qb-who-represents-jaden-rashada-is-making-waves-in-the-nil-space-215087157/ Rashada, Sluka, and many others are suffering the consequences of chasing high NIL offers. While Rashada may eventually recover damages through his lawsuit, individuals like Sluka might not have that option. While not every athlete is in a position to turn down high offers, it is essential they understand the harsh reality that a lucrative NIL deal may not materialize long-term despite assurances from coaches and boosters.
5. Take Your Time. Although not all athletes have the time to carefully evaluate NIL offers, it is crucial that they remain calm amidst the intense pressure applied by universities and boosters. It is reasonable to infer that in Rashada’s situation, UF’s persistent efforts to flip his commitment from Miami, coupled with the threats of rescinding the offer, ultimately led him to sign with UF. In such situations, the power, wealth, and influence of schools and their boosters can overwhelm already-vulnerable, young athletes.

By securing competent representation, exercising caution when negotiating with school boosters, and ensuring that contracts are documented in writing, athletes can better protect their interests and maximize their NIL earning potential.

Written by: Aidan J. Flannery
Aidan is a 2026 J.D. Candidate at Brooklyn Law School.