Root, I don't know what the contract says or what the conflict is. Usually contract disputes are due to poor language that allows multiple interpretations of the language. If the contract is iron clad, then if someone breaks their part of the contract they are liable for the losses of the others.
The player can go to Miami, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have to pay the Wisconsin NIL consortium for losses, depending if the contract was well written and covers the present contingency.
In short, what was the written agreement between the two?
My point is that there is no special certification that makes a contract valid.
The issue is the contract is based on something that does not exist in college football. Schools which are the NCAA, by their own rules, are not allowed to directly pay players. They are required by their own rules to enter a player into the Portal within 48 hours of the players request.
Wisconsin had players sign contracts that are specifically prohibited by their own rules and failed to carry out the task as defined by their pin rules.
That is a very weak legal case. Yea we did things we agreed that we would not do them didn’t do things we arreed we would do.
Good luck wining that case.
The second issue is the NIL collective. Again it is against NCAA rules to have pay for play contracts. So no Wisconsin and their NILs which can work with the school AA have allegedly written a contract that violates the rules that Wisconsin agreed to abide by.
Clearly this will be decided in the courts