What do you find most seedy?
Contracts where the parties are clearly imbalanced in terms of power and sophistication are considered predatory and potentially unconscionable. Even if the terms ultimately work out to "fair," whatever that looks like, courts prefer seeing disclosure, notice, and representation at the time they're signed.
When the defendant answers we may see some of that (or more likely something purporting to substitute for all that), but I'm very skeptical because NIL deals are still the wild west--the people to whom these laws explicitly apply don't know the law or are actively ignoring the law, if there even is any, and the law just gets in the way of making money.
I didn't get into it here but the lawsuit also covers the sketchiness involving Dexter's agent (who wasn't licensed in FL, in contravention of U of F requirements) who had brought the deal to him, including the fact that U of F wasn't even notified of the deal's existence, as was required by the NIL statute and NCAA.
Below, you identify this as a payday loan on steroids. Payday loans are the exemplar of predatory contracts. This is a bit like a payday loan but also a bit like a reverse mortgage, the second commonly-cited exemplar of a predatory contract.
Why do you believe the contract won't be enforced?
I don't see the nexus between FL NIL law only covering college years and the terms of some contract going beyond those years. Perhaps those terms are simply not part of the NIL, as they have nothing to do with payment for autographs, etc.
Fla. St. sec. 1006.74(2)(j):
The duration of a contract for representation of an intercollegiate athlete or compensation for the use of an intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness may not extend beyond her or his participation in an athletic program at a postsecondary educational institution.
Louisiana, Georgia, and Arkansas have an identical clause in their NIL laws.
Further, U of F
specifically mandates that:
The duration of a contract for representation of student-athlete or compensation for the use of Name, Image and Likeness may not extend beyond participation in athletic program at institution.
25yrs is more than any NFL career, so I guess they're including deferred salary and pension too.
It's looks to me like a payday loan on steroids. The company is named "Big League Advance Funds" afterall, which makes their intent pretty clear. They probably already have made similar contracts post graduation before NIL, which have been enforced.
Sure it smacks of taking advantage of and a partial return to indentured servitude.
But I recall universities, including PSU, floating the idea of taking a % of career earnings for some period in lieu of tuition for certain majors. It was proposed as a means to make university accessible to those who couldn't afford it. Although intent may differ, I would see this practice similar to Dexter's case. I don't know what would be illegal or unenforceable about it, either.
There's probably a way to do this in a way that better protects the student athletes from the jackals but I don't think they're there yet. Fifteen percent is a lot, especially left open-ended as it is.
As El-Jefe noted above, if you run the numbers on the NFL contract Dexter ultimately signed, defendants would be repaid on their investment + $100k (presuming no other contract is signed and setting aside things like pensions and deferred salary), but the entire premise of the NIL deal was that Dexter was getting $436k in exchange for the value he would provide with his autographs, endorsements, appearances, etc. I don't closely follow SEC football to have even heard of Dexter or know whether he even tried to fulfill that side of the bargain, but I'm going to guess that the NIL part of the deal was merely a thin pretext to structure a payday loan.
If Dexter prevails and the court declares the contract void and unenforceable, which I believe it will, under basic contract principles restitution typically requires the return of the original payment (the $436k). However, Fl St. sec. 468.454(4) states that
(4) An agent contract that does not conform to this section is voidable by the student athlete. If a student athlete voids an agent contract, the student athlete is not required to pay any consideration or return any consideration received from the athlete agent to induce the student athlete to enter into the contract.
The NIL deal wasn't an "agent contract" per se, but I believe the NIL contract, since it was brought by the agent, would still fall under this.