For four years, college coaches and administrators have lamented the “wild, wild West” nature of the transfer portal, with athletes hopping from school to school in search of more money, more playing time or a better fit. Now, some universities are invoking a new threat to keep their players: Leave, and you’ll owe us money.

Programs are chasing that kind of leverage under the assumption that they will soon be in a position to directly sign athletes to NIL deals without having to depend on outside collectives or individual donors to make arrangements. They would gain that ability with the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, which would permit schools to share as much as $20.5 million in revenue with their athletes in the next school year if the settlement is approved by a federal judge in California. A hearing is scheduled for April 7.

Many schools during the recent winter portal cycle used that anticipated revenue to make school-funded NIL deals that would go into effect only if the House settlement is approved. The Athletic reviewed redacted copies or was briefed on the terms of several Power 4 schools’ proposed or finalized contracts, which were shared on the condition of anonymity due to the private nature of the contracts.

While there is no such thing as a standardized NIL contract, all contained language intended to deter the player from entering the portal.

“You’re seeing some stuff similar to coaching contracts with the buyout language in there,” said agent Joe Hernandez of Just Win Management Group. “Which is something that you wouldn’t really see in an NFL player-team contract.”

One Big 12 school required the athlete to pay a buyout equal to 50 percent of his remaining compensation if he transferred before the end of the deal’s term. An ACC school required the athlete to pay back 100 percent of his earnings if he transferred before Jan. 31, 2026.

One Big Ten player’s contract, based on a suggested template the conference sent to all of its members, requires the athlete to pay liquidated damages in the event he transfers. Another defers two-thirds of the athlete’s payments for the coming season until the end of January — after the winter portal window closes.

“They can’t stop players from moving from school to school,” said NIL attorney Mit Winter. “But the buyout clause is an attempt to limit that by making the player have to pay back money to the school if they want to get out of that contract.”

Shane Burnham, a former FBS defensive line coach who is now director of football for Ascension Sports Consulting, said he recently reviewed the contract of a player who signed with an ACC school in January. The deal included a clause where the player would have to forfeit 50 percent of the money he’d received if he entered the portal in April.

“It’s predatory what these schools are doing,” Burnham said.

Industry sources say the practice did not become prevalent until the most recent transfer portal cycle, when programs’ general managers began negotiating NIL contracts directly. In the past, schools were more mindful of maintaining separation between the school and an outside collective, but that’s gone by the wayside with the advent of revenue sharing.

“There’s just so much money,” said Walker Jones, executive director of The Grove Collective, which supports Ole Miss. “It got to the point where collectives and schools felt they had to be protected.”

It remains to be seen whether that protection is realistic.

Wisconsin set the tone for this new era in January when it refused to enter cornerback Xavier Lucas’ name into the transfer portal after Lucas had signed a two-year NIL deal. Lucas still left the program and enrolled at Miami, which Wisconsin subsequently accused of tampering with Lucas.

“A request to enter the transfer portal after entering into such an agreement is inconsistent with the representations and mutual understanding of the agreement and explains the reason for not processing a transfer portal request under these circumstances,” Wisconsin said in a statement, which also hinted at potential legal action. “Under the terms of the agreement between Xavier and Wisconsin Athletics, it remains in effect and enforceable.”

The schools are asserting that these contracts are licensing agreements that don’t make the athletes employees, echoing a red line for the NCAA and universities. They also say that the payments are not for athletes to attend the university or to play for it, even as they try to disincentivize players from leaving.

Several figures interviewed for this story speculated or assumed that schools that sign transfers, rather than the players themselves, would be expected to pick up the tab for a buyout.

“It’s basically a carbon copy of what happens with coaches,” said Winter. “They all have employment contracts that say, ‘You can’t coach anywhere else, but if you want to break the contract, here’s what you have to pay.’ And it’s almost always the new school that pays the buyout.”

In interviews with several athletic directors, football general managers and lawyers, all sounded skeptical that the buyout provisions concerning transferring could actually be enforced.

“Our preference wouldn’t be to be the first school to have to take a kid to court to chase down your $25,000 or $50,000,” said an ACC football administrator. “But … the student-athlete would be aware that, ‘Hey, I signed this contract and if I go in the portal, there’s a chance I might owe this money back.’”

“Theoretically, this kid isn’t getting paid to play still,” said a Big 12 general manager whose program did not include a buyout, “so when push comes to shove, if it gets litigated, you’re not going to win that. Now, I see the advantage of potentially using it as a scare tactic to keep players. They don’t know better. But the second any agent gets involved, they’ll just bypass it.”

“The first team that sues a kid — I’d like to see their next recruiting class,” said a second Big 12 GM.

Three agents told The Athletic they’ve insisted the buyouts be removed or reduced from their clients’ deals. However, many players do not have agents and may be unaware that this is a possibility.

Winter said schools need to be careful not to insist on such a high buyout that it might be deemed a penalty, which a court would not enforce, rather than a reasonable estimate of damages.

Meanwhile, it’s believed that most schools’ NIL contracts this cycle were only one-year deals. (Star quarterbacks may be a notable exception.) If there are buyout clauses, the remaining payments owed might be minimal. Multi-year contracts would make the buyouts more prohibitive and, in theory, decrease roster attrition. But as tempting as it may sound to lock down players, in reality, schools may want their own roster flexibility.

“If there’s a buyout, it’s usually both ways,” said the first Big 12 GM. “So it would limit our freedom to just cut the kid if he doesn’t turn out to be good.”

Which would be especially pronounced at a school with a coaching change. A new football hire will invariably want to bring in “his guys,” but may be stuck with some well-paid underperformers who know they won’t make more elsewhere.

After four years of seemingly never-ending chaos and relentless legal challenges, NCAA president Charlie Baker and others have been hoping the House settlement will bring much-needed stability to the NIL space. Collectives are not likely to disappear — if anything, they may help programs spend more than $20.5 million — but the Power 4 conferences have enlisted Deloitte to serve as a clearinghouse for all deals above $600.

As it pertains to transfers, though, any sense of order does not feel imminent.

“I’m not sure my expectation is that the current revenue sharing contracts will change the (transfer) flow,” said Nebraska AD Troy Dannen. “It hasn’t shown to be that way yet.”

— The Athletic’s Jesse Temple contributed to this report.

(Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; Photos: Alex Slitz / Getty Images, AP Photo / Michael Conroy)