Court Denies Brendan Sorsby Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
A federal judge ruled the University of Cincinnati lawsuit against the quarterback will move to discovery.
Updated on Oct. 29, 2026 in Football
Live Poll
Should NIL contracts be legally binding agreements that athletes must fulfill regardless of transfer decisions?
A federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by the University of Cincinnati against former quarterback Brendan Sorsby. The case will now proceed to the discovery phase and a potential trial.
Why it matters
The lawsuit centers on the enforceability of NIL-linked buyout clauses, as Cincinnati seeks to recover a $1 million fee following Sorsby's transfer to Texas Tech.
Sorsby received $875,800 under his Cincinnati NIL agreement before entering the transfer portal. He subsequently signed an estimated $5 million deal with Texas Tech.
The players
Brendan Sorsby
He is a college football quarterback who played for the University of Cincinnati before transferring to Texas Tech University.
University of Cincinnati
This public research university in Ohio is the plaintiff currently seeking restitution through legal action against its former athlete.
Texas Tech
This public research university located in Lubbock, Texas, is the institution where Sorsby currently plays college football.
The details
Sorsby argued that the university's financial demand was an unreasonable penalty for exercising his transfer rights, but the court rejected his motion to dismiss. The litigation stems from an agreement requiring the quarterback to remain with the Cincinnati program for two seasons.
Timeline
July 2025: Brendan Sorsby signed an NIL agreement with the University of Cincinnati.
December 2025: Sorsby entered the transfer portal and signed with Texas Tech.
April 2026: Sorsby filed a motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract lawsuit.
October 29, 2026: The federal court denied the motion to dismiss.
Season Trajectory
This case establishes a significant precedent for how athletic departments handle contractual disputes regarding NIL funds and player mobility. It signals a move toward rigorous judicial scrutiny of transfer-related compensation and long-term commitment agreements in college sports.
The transition to the discovery phase implies that internal communications and specific contract terms between the university and player will become public record. This legal path will clarify the enforceability of buyout clauses in current collegiate NIL agreements.
The takeaway
This case highlights the growing intersection of complex contract law and college athletics as transfer portal movement becomes more financially significant. Athletes and universities alike must now navigate the legal weight of buyout provisions in high-value NIL agreements.
Further reading
For more on the developments surrounding the team, visit the Cincinnati Football news section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by On3.
Live Poll
Should NIL contracts be legally binding agreements that athletes must fulfill regardless of transfer decisions?
