Six former Florida State players sue Leonard Hamilton over broken NIL promises
- Six former players allege they were promised $250,000 each from coach Leonard Hamilton.
- The players claim Hamilton failed to fulfill these promises, resulting in the lawsuit.
- The case highlights ongoing frustration with NIL agreements in college sports.
In Florida, six former basketball players from Florida State University have filed a lawsuit against head coach Leonard Hamilton, claiming he failed to deliver on promised payments of $250,000 each as part of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation. The lawsuit, filed in Leon County circuit court, asserts that Hamilton guaranteed the payments through his business partners during team meetings and private discussions, including an April 2023 meeting where the promise was reiterated. Despite this assurance, the players alleged they received no payment and became increasingly frustrated as the season progressed. The situation escalated when the players reportedly threatened to boycott a practice ahead of a game against Duke on February 17. Hamilton intervened, assuring them the payments would be forthcoming, which led them to participate in the game despite their considerable dissatisfaction. They lost that game, which served not only as a point of contention regarding their unpaid compensation but also highlighted the growing tension surrounding NIL deals in college sports. Throughout the lawsuit, players indicated that they had relied heavily on these promises, some having transferred to Florida State specifically under the assurance of receiving substantial NIL payments. The lawsuit now seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages per player, alongside punitive damages aimed at deterring similar future conduct in college sports. The ongoing legal case illustrates broader issues within the collegiate athletics landscape, particularly the enforcement and reliability of NIL agreements as schools and coaches navigate this relatively new financial model for athletes. This lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as it fits into a larger narrative involving various NIL disputes across college sports, raising questions about contractual obligations and the responsibilities of coaches towards recruited talent.