The Big Ten Conference recently sent a letter to the NCAA requesting a pause on all investigations and infractions proceedings related to tampering, along with a complete overhaul of the existing tampering rules. While this may seem like an inside-baseball issue for college sports administrators, it raises important questions about the legal relationship between athletes, conferences, and the NCAA in a college sports world that has morphed into quasi-professional sports. Colleges can now directly pay players who are not considered employees, and restrictions on transferring from one school to another could invite antitrust lawsuits.
What Are the Current Tampering Rules?
Under NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.1.1.4, coaches and other university representatives are generally prohibited from contacting athletes at other schools outside of designated transfer portal windows. In practical terms, this means a coach cannot reach out to a player at another school and pitch the idea of transferring—at least not until that player has formally entered the transfer portal. The NCAA’s vice president of enforcement recently reinforced this position, warning schools that coaches and boosters cannot express interest in a player or even “suggest the possibility of a roster spot” to someone who has not yet entered the portal. Proposed penalties for violations include reducing a football team’s available roster spots and suspending head coaches.
Why the Big Ten Wants Change
The Big Ten’s position is straightforward: the current tampering rules were written for a version of college sports that no longer exists. First, there is a practical enforcement problem. A growing and widely shared belief that tampering is already occurring on a significant scale causes an imbalanced approach to rule following. Schools that follow the rules find themselves at a competitive disadvantage relative to those that do not, which in turn pressures even rule-abiding programs to engage in the same conduct. This kind of dynamic tends to erode the legitimacy of any regulatory framework.
Second, the 2025 House Settlement changed the landscape dramatically. Before the settlement, the idea of universities directly sharing revenue with athletes was virtually unthinkable. . Participating schools may now pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference revenue derived from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships. In short, college athletics now operates in many respects like professional sports, but the rules governing player recruitment and movement have not kept pace.
The Antitrust Dimension
From a legal standpoint, one of the most important aspects of this debate is antitrust law. When universities compete to recruit elite football players—offering compensation, endorsement opportunities, playing time, and a winning culture—they are functioning as buyers in what antitrust law would characterize as a labor market. The athletes, in turn, are the sellers of their services.
Antitrust law generally prohibits agreements among competing buyers that restrict competition for labor. Rules that limit when and how schools can communicate with potential transfers could be viewed as just that—an agreement among competitors to restrict the market for athlete services. If challenged in court, the NCAA would need to demonstrate that these restrictions serve a legitimate purpose and are no more restrictive than necessary, a standard that has proven difficult for the NCAA to meet in recent years.
The Employee Question and the Right to Transfer
A critical distinction in this area is that college athletes are not currently recognized as employees under the law. This matters for several reasons. As non-employees, athletes cannot unionize or collectively bargain over the rules that govern their recruitment and movement. In professional sports, labor agreements between leagues and players’ unions establish detailed frameworks for free agency, tampering, and player movement. No such mechanism exists in college athletics because there is no union advocating for a collective bargaining agreement to protect the college athletes.
At the same time, college athletes are students, and students have the right to transfer between institutions. This right creates a fundamental tension with efforts to restrict player movement. Two recent lawsuits illustrate the point. Duke University sued quarterback Darian Mensah after he entered the transfer portal despite having signed a Name, Image, and Likeness agreement that ran through 2026 and included a commitment not to transfer. The University of Cincinnati brought a similar breach-of-contract claim against quarterback Brendan Sorsby after he transferred to Texas Tech. In both cases, the athletes left their schools despite their contractual obligations. At present, Duke and Mensah were able to reach a settlement agreement, and the case between Cincinnati and Sorsby is ongoing. While these cases are based in contract, they highlight the complications of transfers and the difficulties that may arise in the enforcement of no-transfer clauses when the individuals in question are students exercising their right to change schools—not employees bound by a collectively bargained labor agreement.
What Comes Next
The NCAA faces a few potential paths forward. First, it could seek a federal antitrust exemption from Congress, which would allow it to impose and enforce rules like tampering restrictions without the threat of antitrust litigation. Second, it could move toward recognizing college football players as employees, which would open the door to unionization and collective bargaining—a process that could produce mutually agreed-upon rules governing transfers and recruiting. Third, and this appears to be the current approach, the NCAA can continue to enforce its existing rules and defend them in court as challenges arise.
Each option carries significant risk and uncertainty. A congressional exemption is far from guaranteed. Recognizing players as employees would fundamentally reshape the economic and legal structure of college athletics. And continued serial litigation offers no promise of a favorable or timely resolution and would be a very inefficient process. For the time being, the legal framework governing college sports remains in flux, and the Big Ten’s letter is the latest signal that the current rules are not sustainable in their present form.
Follow WeAreNIL to stay up to date on the latest sports news.