The University of Cincinnati’s lawsuit against Brendan Sorsby is a breach-of-contract case filed in February 2026 seeking $1 million in liquidated damages after the quarterback transferred to Texas Tech in the middle of an 18-month name, image, and likeness deal. The suit sits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and is one of the first cases to test whether a university can force a departing athlete to pay a contractual buyout under an NIL agreement.
The NIL Contract Sorsby Signed
Sorsby signed an 18-month NIL agreement with Cincinnati effective July 1, 2025, ahead of his second season as the Bearcats’ starting quarterback. The deal gave the university a non-exclusive license to use his name, image, and likeness for promotional and goodwill purposes, and it expressly excluded broadcast NIL rights. Sorsby was paid $875,800 in monthly installments across one completed football season, with the agreement scheduled to run through December 15, 2026.
Section 12(f) of the contract is the provision now in dispute. It required Sorsby to pay Cincinnati $1 million within 30 days if he transferred to another university before the term expired. The clause described that sum as “liquidated damages and not as a penalty.”
The Transfer That Triggered the Suit
After a season in which he threw for 2,800 yards and 27 touchdowns and earned second-team All-Big 12 honors, Sorsby told Cincinnati on December 1, 2025, that he was done playing for the Bearcats, including the bowl game. He entered the transfer portal later that month, committed to Texas Tech on January 4, 2026, and signed with the program two days later. Texas Tech reportedly agreed to pay him upward of $4 million.
According to Cincinnati’s complaint, Sorsby never paid the $1 million the contract demanded. His agent, Ron Slavin, publicly called the demand an “unlawful penalty under Ohio law,” noting that Sorsby had already been paid $875,800 for a season he completed in full.
What Cincinnati Is Asking For
Cincinnati filed its complaint on February 25, 2026, in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, as case number 1:26-cv-00200. The case was assigned to Judge Michael R. Barrett. The university is seeking a jury trial, the $1 million buyout, and attorney’s fees. It argues that Sorsby’s departure triggered the contractual clause and caused “ongoing substantial harm” that would be difficult to calculate, and it characterizes the $1 million figure as “significantly below market value” given the $4 million to $6 million Sorsby stood to earn at Texas Tech.
Cincinnati is represented by David DeVillers, Chris Bayh, and Daniel A. Cohen of Barnes & Thornburg. Sorsby retained Joseph Braun and Richard Wayne of Strauss Troy. Braun told reporters that Sorsby’s separation from the university had been “amicable,” that Sorsby had helped coordinate his departure and assisted in recruiting his replacement, and that other Cincinnati athletes who left had not faced similar action. He called the lawsuit an “ominous message” to future recruits.
Sorsby’s Motion to Dismiss
Sorsby’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on April 27, 2026, under Rule 12(b)(6). They argued the liquidated damages clause fails the test set by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. (1984) on three grounds.
The first argument is that Cincinnati’s actual damages are not difficult to calculate. The defense pointed to an Ohio statute that sets statutory damages for unauthorized use of a person’s likeness between $2,500 and $10,000, arguing the NIL rights licensed in the contract had minimal real value. The second is that $1 million is disproportionate on its face, exceeding the $875,800 Sorsby actually received. The third is that the parties never mutually intended the clause to function as a genuine damages estimate.
Underlying all three arguments is a broader theory: that the agreement was a “pay-for-play employment contract” dressed up as an NIL deal to satisfy NCAA rules. The defense noted that Cincinnati had no obligation to actually use Sorsby’s NIL, that his payments tracked the football season rather than any marketing activity, and that the exclusion of broadcast rights removed what they called the primary source of a college quarterback’s commercial value. The motion also asked the court to strike Cincinnati’s claim for attorney’s fees, arguing the university had identified no contract provision, statute, or bad-faith conduct that would support such an award under Ohio law.
Cincinnati’s Opposition and Current Status
Cincinnati filed its opposition brief on May 18, 2026, arguing that Sorsby was an adult who signed a binding contract with the advice of a professional agent, and that NCAA transfer rules do not release athletes from obligations they voluntarily assumed. The university also alleged that Sorsby had breached the endorsement terms of the agreement by promoting Texas Tech, including an appearance on a Times Square billboard, while the Cincinnati contract was still in effect. Cincinnati said it had tried to work with Sorsby’s agent before the transfer to preserve both the relationship and its investment.
Sorsby’s reply followed on June 3, 2026, and the parties entered a stipulated protective order the same week. As of mid-June 2026, briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete, Judge Barrett had not ruled, and a status conference was set for July 10, 2026.
Why This Case Is Being Watched
No court had previously ruled on the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in a university NIL agreement, which is what makes Cincinnati’s suit a possible precedent-setter. Legal analyst Michael McCann, writing for Sportico, noted that the case sits at the intersection of contract law and the broader debate over whether college athletes are employees. A finding that the NIL agreement was effectively a wage arrangement disguised as a licensing deal could force universities to restructure these contracts.
Professor Sam Ehrlich observed that Cincinnati framed its damages around Sorsby’s value as a “university representative” rather than as an athlete, a deliberate choice meant to avoid the appearance of paying for on-field performance. Cincinnati cited Kent State University v. Ford and Vanderbilt University v. DiNardo, both coaching-contract cases with liquidated damages clauses, in support of its position. Sorsby’s team argued those precedents involved acknowledged employment relationships, while the NIL agreement was structured to deny that any employment relationship existed.
Several other schools have pursued similar buyout disputes without producing a ruling on the merits. Duke sued quarterback Darian Mensah in January 2026 over a reported two-year, $8 million NIL contract; a judge granted a temporary restraining order but later denied a broader injunction, and the parties settled on January 27, 2026, on undisclosed terms allowing Mensah to transfer to Miami. The University of Georgia Athletic Association pushed a $390,000 claim against former defensive end Damon Wilson into private arbitration after he transferred to Missouri. Washington’s threatened litigation against wide receiver Demond Williams Jr. prompted him to return to the team and issue a public apology without any court filings. None of those cases produced a judicial ruling, which is why the Cincinnati suit remains the most likely vehicle for establishing precedent.
The Separate NCAA Gambling Case
The Cincinnati breach-of-contract lawsuit is distinct from a second legal fight involving Sorsby’s NCAA eligibility, though the two are often confused. The NCAA investigated Sorsby’s gambling activity after he admitted wagering at least $90,000 on sports, including roughly 40 bets on Indiana football games while he was a backup quarterback there in 2022, along with bets on Indiana basketball and Cincinnati basketball. He spent five weeks in an inpatient gambling rehabilitation facility in Arizona after the NCAA alerted him to the investigation.
Sorsby, represented by Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn, sued the NCAA in Lubbock County District Court in May 2026, alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. On June 8, 2026, District Judge Ken Curry granted a temporary injunction allowing Sorsby to resume football activities at Texas Tech, subject to six preconditions that included a two-game suspension. Georgia and Nebraska announced the same day that their athletic departments would refuse to schedule future competitions against Texas Tech in any sport. The NCAA filed an emergency motion on June 15, 2026, with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas seeking to stay the injunction, and a trial in Sorsby v. NCAA was scheduled for February 2027.
Facing that pressure, Sorsby applied for the 2026 NFL supplemental draft on June 15, 2026. Withdrawing his suit against the NCAA would invalidate his injunction and return him to ineligible status for college football. No player had been selected in the NFL supplemental draft since 2019, and the NFL had not publicly responded to his application as of mid-June 2026. The Cincinnati lawsuit continued on its own track before Judge Barrett, with the motion to dismiss awaiting a decision.