What's next in Ole Miss' lawsuits against Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper?
- Story byNortheast Mississippi Daily Journal, Tupelo
- What's next in Ole Miss' lawsuits against Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper?
Ole Miss filed lawsuits against a pair of former football players now enrolled at LSU earlier this week – linebacker/defensive end Princewill Umanmielen and offensive lineman Devin Harper – for breach of contract for transferring after previously signing revenue share agreements with the Rebels.
The case was filed in Lafayette County Circuit Court on Monday and is seeking all "actual, consequential, and allowable damages" and termination payments of $550,000 from Umanmielen and $400,000 from Harper, per court documents.
Advertisement
Umanmielen, who transferred from Nebraska prior to the 2025 season, led the Rebels with nine sacks last year. Harper played in six games last season for Ole Miss as a true freshman. According to a timeline provided by Ole Miss, both players signed revenue share agreements with Ole Miss in early January before ultimately entering the transfer portal and signing with LSU later in the month.
Former Rebels head coach Lane Kiffin took the LSU job following the conclusion of the 2025 regular season.
Ole Miss claims it sent payment requests to both players on multiple occasions but never received responses. Ole Miss then reached out to LSU in March for payments on behalf of the players, though LSU "denied payment stating they are not a party to the contract."
Among the cruxes of the cases is whether the provisions in the contracts are enforceable based on reasonable damage estimates, college sports attorney Mit Winter and associate professor of legal studies at Boise State Sam Ehrlich both told the Daily Journal.
Advertisement
Because revenue sharing contracts are explicitly not pay-for-play agreements by NCAA rule, the amount in damages Ole Miss is seeking from each player should be based on their NIL value to the university. Are losing Umanmielen and Harper's NIL rights worth a total of nearly a million dollars in damages? Or is that the value of their on-field play?
The conversation would be different were these employment contracts, according to Winter, as it's easier to prove the value of a player's on-field impact.
"I don't think there's any question amongst anyone whether the contract itself is a legitimate, binding contract. I think where the question comes in is some of the provisions in the contract," Winter said. "You can have buyouts – or what in the legal world are known as liquidated damages provisions in these contracts – but they have to be a reasonable estimate of, in this case, Ole Miss' damages if the player breaches the contract. … Since these are still just technically NIL agreements and not employment agreements, there's some question of, well, is Ole Miss or any other university really damaged in the amount that's listed in the buyout by not having the specific athlete's NIL rights?"
The cases are fairly straightforward from Ole Miss' perspective – Umanmielen and Harper signed binding contracts, did not fulfill the terms of those deals and the damages being sought reflect the proper NIL value of being a member of the Rebels program, Ehrlich said. Ole Miss could also address the elephant in the room – that, despite what it may be called, revenue share agreements are in essence pay-for-play. Former Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby 's team argued as much when fighting its lawsuit against Cincinnati, per Sportico.
Advertisement
"Even if the contracts say they're not pay-for-play, it's kind of widely accepted that they are," Ehrlich said. " … I think there's a very reasonable possibility where a judge says, 'Yeah, I know it says it's not pay for play, but everyone knows it is. So we're just going to treat it that way.'"
The players, then, could argue the damage estimates for breaching revenue share contracts are not considered reasonable.
"I think for the players, I think their best argument is saying it's unenforceable, that the buyout is not something that reasonably reflects the value lost in the contract and its actually just a penalty for breaking the contract," Ehrlich said. " … You are penalizing me – you're not trying to recoup the value of the contract that you're losing; you're trying to penalize us for breaking the contract, and that's not allowed under the law."
A similar scenario arose in the winter when former Duke quarterback Darian Mensah – who had already signed a revenue share agreement with the Blue Devils – entered the transfer portal and enrolled at Miami. According to the Associated Press, Duke sued Mensah, "seeking to block his efforts to transfer and reach a contract with another school to play elsewhere next season." The sides eventually reached a settlement.
Advertisement
Should Ole Miss' lawsuits against Umanmielen and Harper reach trial, there's a high likelihood they wouldn't begin until after the season has already ended, both Ehrlich and Winter said. Both agreed a settlement was a likely outcome, with the sides ultimately meeting "somewhere in the middle" on the buyouts, according to Ehrlich.
If the cases do make it to trial, they could set several new precedents regardless of outcome.
"If it goes to trial and we have a court saying that these buyouts are unenforceable penalties, that would be pretty significant," Winter said. "On the other hand, if we have a court saying this is enforceable and the athlete has to pay and the athlete breached, that would also be significant. So, if it did go to trial, I think whichever way it turned out would be significant."
