A Crucial Tampering Test Case: Lawyers’ Perspectives on the Wisconsin-Miami Lawsuit

By George Barclay and Blake Fromang 

Tampering is all about timelines. To paraphrase a quote from Alexander Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo, the difference between tampering and recruitment is only a matter of dates. The Wisconsin-Miami lawsuit is no exception.

On June 20, 2025, the University of Wisconsin entered uncharted territory when it filed a lawsuit against the University of Miami. In the first instance of one school suing another in the NIL era, Wisconsin’s lawsuit alleges that Miami tampered with cornerback and former four-star recruit Xavier Lucas (referred to solely as “Player A” in the lawsuit) and tortiously interfered with Lucas’ NIL agreement with VC Connect, Wisconsin’s primary Collective, and the revenue sharing agreement between Lucas and Wisconsin. Unsurprisingly, Miami denied these allegations and filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit. Below is a breakdown of the claims Wisconsin is making, Miami’s defenses against those claims, and the potential impact of this lawsuit if either Wisconsin or Miami wins. 

What is tortious interference?

As defined by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, tortious interference is when a person and/or business intentionally interferes with another person or business’s contractual relationship, causing harm to the person or business involved. Generally speaking, a party that makes a claim (i.e., Wisconsin) must prove multiple “elements” (think of them as a grocery list where every item must be checked off). 

In most states, a party claiming tortious interference must demonstrate to a court that (1) the party had a valid contract or business relationship with another person/entity, (2) that the accused party was aware of the existing contract or business relationship, (3) that the accused party acted intentionally to disrupt and interfere with the contract or business relationship in existence, (4) the interference caused a breach (or violation) of the contract or disruption to the business relationship, and (5) that the party suffered financial losses or some other harm because of the interference. 

Wisconsin’s Claims 

According to the Complaint filed by the University of Wisconsin, “Player A” (even though we all know they are discussing Xavier Lucas) signed two agreements around December 2, 2024, while the House Settlement was still being negotiated.

The first agreement Lucas signed was a document called a Memorandum of Understanding with Wisconsin. The Memorandum contained a revenue-sharing deal with the school, which would eventually become the House Settlement.

The second agreement Lucas signed, before Lucas’ payments began, was an agreement with VC Connect, Wisconsin’s primary Collective. Under this second agreement with VC Connect, Lucas was entitled to NIL payment while the House Settlement was still being negotiated.

In the Complaint, Wisconsin alleges that both the revenue sharing and separate VC Connect agreements had contractual provisions where Lucas affirmed that he had no conflicting obligations and that he would not enroll with any other institution. 

Wisconsin claims that after the transfer portal opened on December 8, 2024, Lucas left Wisconsin for winter break on December 15, 2024. The Complaint alleges that right before Lucas left campus for his hometown of Pompano Beach, Florida, he met with a position coach and informed him that while other schools were contacting him, he remained committed to Wisconsin. Then, on December 17, 2024, Lucas contacted his position coach and asked to be placed in the transfer portal. Wisconsin’s coaching staff informed Lucas that he had signed the two binding NIL agreements and would not put him in the transfer portal. Lucas and his mother informed Wisconsin that he wished to transfer due to family-related reasons. In response, Wisconsin reminded Lucas of his contractual obligations. Wisconsin claims it requested additional information from Lucas, which was never provided. 

On December 21, 2024, Wisconsin claims it was contacted by Lucas’ relative, who informed the school that Lucas wanted to enter the transfer portal for a reason unrelated to family. Lucas did not enter the transfer portal. On January 13, 2025, Lucas unenrolled from Wisconsin and enrolled at Miami on January 20, 2025, exactly one week later. 

According to Wisconsin, Miami contacted Lucas after the two agreements were signed and offered Lucas more NIL money than Wisconsin and VC Connect if he decided to leave Wisconsin’s football program. Specifically, Wisconsin alleges Lucas had an in-person meeting with Miami’s coach and a booster while home in Florida in December 2024. Wisconsin claims that Lucas’ relative informed them of this meeting with Miami in a phone call. 

Based on the foregoing, Wisconsin claims (1) that Lucas signed two valid contracts regarding NIL, (2) that Miami was aware of these contracts, (3) that Miami intentionally contacted Lucas to leave Wisconsin in exchange for increased NIL, (4) that the contact between Miami and Lucas caused Lucas to violate his two NIL contracts, and (5) that Wisconsin suffered damages by losing Lucas. 

Wisconsin seeks an unspecified amount of damages due to its financial harm and reputational harm of losing a high-caliber player like Lucas.  It also requested a declaratory judgment declaring that Miami tampered with Lucas. 

Miami’s Motion to Dismiss and Defenses

Last week, Miami filed a Motion to Dismiss Wisconsin’s Complaint on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. Miami argues that the Wisconsin State Circuit Court, where the case was filed, has no personal jurisdiction over it because Miami is not incorporated in Wisconsin and does not have its principal place of business in Wisconsin. According to Miami’s attorneys, the court has no power to issue a decision against it because Wisconsin failed to demonstrate either one of only two grounds recognized by the Supreme Court for personal jurisdiction of a business. Boiling down the legal concept, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant for any judgment, ruling, order, etc., to be enforceable against said defendant. If Miami succeeds in its motion, the case will be dismissed, and Wisconsin’s only foreseeable option is to refile the Complaint in the State or Federal Court in Miami if it wishes to pursue litigation. This will be discussed in further detail below. 

In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Miami submitted a sworn statement from Lucas in which he denies that any impermissible contact took place between himself and anyone associated with the Miami football program while he was in Wisconsin during the 2024 Fall Semester. Miami claims any and all contact was in Florida. Using Lucas’ statement, Miami claims that no tampering took place. 

Even if Wisconsin is successful on the personal jurisdiction issue, which is the sole issue on Miami’s Motion to Dismiss, and the case goes forward, Miami alleges as a defense that under the NCAA rules, a player is allowed to unenroll from one school and enroll at another. Additionally, Miami alleges that per the NCAA rules, a school must place a player into the transfer portal within 48 hours of receiving notice from a player that they intend to enter the portal. Miami claims that because Wisconsin failed to place Lucas’ name in the portal within 48 hours, they are barred from relief. Miami will likely file another motion to dismiss on this issue or move for summary judgment if the Wisconsin Court is unpersuaded by its personal jurisdiction arguments.

Key Legal Issues 

I.               Personal Jurisdiction 

Wisconsin and Miami have drastically differing views on personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear a case and issue a binding decision over the parties involved in a lawsuit. Personal jurisdiction can become complex when parties from different states are involved. 

Generally, there are two types of personal jurisdiction, general and specific. General personal jurisdiction, which allows a court to hear any case against a party so long as they are “at home” in either a person’s domicile or a corporation’s principal place of business, and any state in which the corporation is incorporated. (Editor’s note from Blake: There is no chance that Wisconsin can establish general jurisdiction over Miami. I have handled this issue in multiple cases throughout my career and will save you time. Wisconsin’s only option is to establish specific jurisdiction.).

Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, involves a three part test where (1) a party/corporation must intentionally contact and enter the forum state, (2) the dispute must arise from the contact between the party/corporation and the forum state, and (3) a court’s jurisdiction must be reasonable when you take into account the interests of the parties in the lawsuit, the interest of the forum state in deciding the case, and broader interests of the states. If you want more information on these concepts, click this link https://tlblog.org/a-primer-on-personal-jurisdiction/.

To resolve issues of personal jurisdiction, many states have enacted what are referred to as “long-arm statutes.” These laws are designed to allow state courts to have jurisdiction over out-of-state parties so long as there is (1) continuous activity within a forum state by an out-of-state party and (2) a lawsuit results from the continuous activity by an out-of-state party in the forum state. 

In its Complaint, Wisconsin cited its own long arm statute, Chapter 801.05. Wisconsin alleged that Miami’s tampering with Lucas was continuous contact with the state of Wisconsin, where the two agreements were to be performed in exchange for NIL money, and that this contact led to the lawsuit. To establish personal jurisdiction, Wisconsin needs to demonstrate in its Complaint that Miami contacted Lucas while he was in Wisconsin. 

In response, Miami argues that it has no contacts whatsoever with Wisconsin. And that its principal place of business is in Miami, Florida, it is not incorporated in Wisconsin, and denies any contact with Lucas while he was in Wisconsin. The key inquiry here is whether Miami’s coaching staff/employees/agents sent alleged tampering communications (emails, text messages, phone calls, DMs, etc.) to Lucas while he was physically in Wisconsin. Stated differently, did Miami’s alleged tampering communications cross state lines into Wisconsin?

What should we make of these two drastically different arguments by the two sides? 

Miami’s arguments that it had no contact with Lucas while he was in Wisconsin are hard to believe. In the NIL era, programs are doing their homework on potential transfers during the regular season, and that’s when most schools begin reaching out to players. Let’s use a recent example that is a bit painful (sorry, Vanderbilt fans). London Humphreys impressed the hell out of Kirby Smart when Vandy played Georgia in 2023, and Humphreys torched the Bulldogs’ defense for a touchdown on the opening drive. After that game, people connected to Georgia’s program began reaching out to Humphreys while the regular season was still going on. Humphreys didn’t just magically choose Georgia in the portal. Similarly, it’s likely Lucas didn’t just magically choose Miami as his destination. 

But as skeptical as Miami’s defense on tampering may be, Wisconsin still needs to establish a minimum contact necessary to satisfy its long arm statute. How can Wisconsin do that when its Complaint is light on details about when the tampering took place in the state of Wisconsin and when Miami improperly interfered with Lucas’ NIL deals? 

Here is how the process works. The plaintiff (Wisconsin) drafts a complaint that alleges jurisdictional facts (e.g., “The Court has jurisdiction because defendant [list wrongful action the out-of-state defendant did in the state where the complaint is being filed].”). The out-of-state defendant (Miami) can file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (if the defendant does not do this immediately and files an answer to the complaint, this defense is waived). At this stage, the burden is on the defendant to show a lack of personal jurisdiction.

As a defendant, there are two ways of handling a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

First, a defendant can argue that the plaintiff did not plead enough or sufficient jurisdictional facts and make an argument solely on those grounds. (Important note: on motions to dismiss, the court is required to take the plaintiff’s complaint allegations as true and cannot consider anything outside of what is alleged in the complaint). If a defendant is successful, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiff can refile an amended complaint with additional jurisdictional allegations.

Second, in addition to arguing that the plaintiff did not plead sufficient jurisdictional allegations, a defendant can file an affidavit/declaration saying that the jurisdictional allegations are not true and explaining why they are not true. If the defendant elects the second option, which Miami did here, the burden shifts from the defendant (Miami) to the plaintiff (Wisconsin) to prove, by affidavit/declaration, that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Generally, a plaintiff, to satisfy her/his/its burden, is entitled to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to test the defendant’s affidavit/declaration and discover facts that would subject the defendant to the court’s jurisdiction. These personal jurisdiction discovery motions exist to hold out-of-state parties’ feet to the fire and make sure that they aren’t insincere in order to avoid jurisdiction from a court of law.

Right now, the ball is in Wisconsin’s court. Wisconsin can file a motion for limited personal jurisdictional discovery to oppose Miami’s Motion to Dismiss, namely, Lucas’ sworn statement and any other sworn statements Miami used in support of its Motion to Dismiss. In jurisdictional discovery, Wisconsin can conduct discovery (the gathering of written information and documents, and in some cases deposition testimony) to try to show that Miami did, in fact, have minimum contacts with Wisconsin by contacting Lucas in Wisconsin. Discovery, such as cell phone records, social media messages, travel records, GPS locations, etc., could help Wisconsin survive Miami’s jurisdictional-based Motion to Dismiss. If no documents are found in discovery demonstrating contact in Wisconsin between Lucas and Miami, then Miami will likely prevail on its motion, and the case will be dismissed (meaning Wisconsin’s claim cannot be heard in the state of Wisconsin).

If the case is dismissed or Wisconsin voluntarily chooses to dismiss the case in Wisconsin state court, Wisconsin can re-file the case in a Florida court (Miami-Dade County), preferably a Federal Court (the Southern District of Florida), to solve the jurisdictional issue. To file a case in Federal Court, a party must establish that the Federal Court has jurisdiction by showing (1) diversity of jurisdiction (which means that the parties are from completely different states), and (2) that the dispute involves a sum of money over $75,000.

The idea behind Federal Court jurisdiction is to allow a foreign/out-of-state party to get a more even playing field with the judge (state court judges are locally elected or appointed, and federal judges are appointed by the President) and jury (jury pools for Federal Court cases expand farther geographically than state court). In this case, Wisconsin will satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Court because the two universities are in different states, and Lucas’ NIL deal is worth more than $75,000. 

The only downside of these two options is that both will make the proceedings last longer. If Wisconsin truly believes it has a smoking gun with Miami’s contact within the state of Wisconsin, it should file a Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery. If not, it should consider moving the case to the Federal Court in Florida.   

II.            The NCAA’s Transfer Portal Rules 

While not at issue in the Motion to Dismiss’ jurisdictional arguments, Miami has claimed that Wisconsin violated NCAA rules when it failed to put Lucas’ name in the portal. Under NCAA rules, when a player with eligibility remaining informs a school that they desire to enter the transfer portal, a school has 48 hours to place the player’s name into the portal. Wisconsin admits in its Complaint that it did not put Lucas’ name into the transfer portal. 

The ultimate question here is when Miami contacted Lucas. If Miami contacted Lucas before December 17, 2024, and offered him more NIL to encourage him to leave Wisconsin, then Wisconsin’s failure to put Lucas’ name and information into the transfer portal is irrelevant because Lucas breached his NIL deal with Miami’s assistance and/or encouragement before any portal discussions took place. 

However, if Miami did not contact Lucas before December 17, 2024, it could be argued by Miami that Lucas’ NIL deals were void because Lucas informed Wisconsin that he wished to enter the portal, thereby ending his association with Wisconsin. Miami would then argue that Wisconsin was interfering with Lucas’ ability to leave the university by refusing to enter his name in the portal within the required time period. Some dangerous precedent could also be set if schools are allowed to ignore athletes’ requests to enter the transfer portal. 

While Wisconsin could argue that Lucas was obligated to go through the portal to switch schools, this argument might not carry the day. Following Wisconsin’s lawsuit, the NCAA issued a statement to Yahoo Sports and Ross Dellenger, stating that a player who unenrolls at one school and enrolls at another does not violate NCAA rules. So long as the enrollment does not take place mid-season, a player who does so does not violate any rules. At the same time, the NCAA prefers players to enter and exit the transfer portal to avoid messy situations like this lawsuit.

III.          Potential Impact on NCAA Athletics 

If Wisconsin survives Miami’s Motion to Dismiss and ultimately prevails in its lawsuit, more schools could be encouraged to sue other schools when there is suspicion of tampering with players or coaches. If Miami wins its Motion to Dismiss, it could have the opposite effect. 

Currently, NIL deals involve basic contract law. Without federal legislation, courts will likely have to get involved as schools and players seek to enforce their NIL deals. And because so many instances of tampering are fact-specific, this will lead to different results in different courthouses. As disgusted as fans may be that courts are deciding issues of tampering, this may be the new normal in the ever-evolving landscape of the NIL era. 

IV.          Other Thoughts

Interestingly, Lucas is not a defendant in Wisconsin’s lawsuit. If Wisconsin’s allegations are true, Lucas was one of the culpable parties. This could be a strategic move by Wisconsin, as the school likely aims to avoid being the first to sue a player for leaving its program. Suing a player could harm the reputation of a competitive program like Wisconsin’s. 

There is also a constitutional reason why Wisconsin may have elected to leave Lucas out as a defendant. The Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude, can be interpreted to prohibit the enforcement of personal service contracts when a party is unwilling. In other words, Wisconsin cannot force Lucas to fulfill the remainder of his NIL agreements if he wants to leave the school. 

That said, Wisconsin could still seek remedies against Lucas for violation of his NIL deals. Most likely, Wisconsin decided to make a business decision and not be the first school to sue a former player, which could hurt recruiting.