The University of Cincinnati athletic department is denying a claim from Brendan Sorsby’s agent that the school knew about the quarterback’s gambling and did nothing about it, while also suing Sorsby in federal court over his name, image and likeness contract. The school’s statement and lawsuit show the familiar machinery of institutional control: the university says it would never knowingly play an athlete who violated NCAA sports wagering regulations, and it has already taken Sorsby to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Who Gets Policed
Sorsby’s agent, Ron Slavin, made the accusation in an interview with KRLD radio in Dallas. The claim cuts straight through the polished language of compliance and education that universities love to wrap around their athletic programs. The University of Cincinnati responded Wednesday with a statement saying, “All of our student-athletes receive extensive gambling education multiple times throughout the year, and we would never knowingly play an athlete who violated NCAA sports wagering regulations. If we ever became aware of impermissible wagering, we would report to the NCAA and comply with sanctions.”
That is the official script: education, monitoring, reporting, sanctions. The people at the bottom of the hierarchy — student-athletes — are the ones expected to absorb the rules, while the institution reserves the right to decide when to act and how hard to punish.
The Apparatus Moves First
The NCAA banished Sorsby from competition for gambling activity that included wagers on his own team while on the roster at Indiana in 2022 and betting on pro sports. He later dropped his unprecedented legal battle to play for Texas Tech this year. The same system that polices athletes’ behavior also controls access to competition, eligibility, and the path to a professional career.
Sorsby declared for the NFL supplemental draft Tuesday and has until Monday to file. His attempt to speed up his professional career leans heavily on a rarely used offseason process designed for prospects not eligible for the league’s primary draft. He is tentatively planning to work out for NFL teams on July 10 at a Dallas-area high school, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press. That person spoke on condition of anonymity because the process for conducting the supplemental draft wasn’t complete.
The details are a reminder that even the route to the league runs through gatekeeping and paperwork. A rare process, a deadline, a tentative workout, an anonymous source — the whole thing is managed from above, with the player’s future hanging on decisions made far from the field.
Contracts, Courts, and Control
The University of Cincinnati is also suing Sorsby, accusing him of breaching his name, image and likeness contract following his transfer to Texas Tech. The university filed the lawsuit in February in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Slavin has said pursuing legal action against his client is misguided and that Sorsby intends to fight the lawsuit and any resulting damages.
That lawsuit puts the university’s power on full display. The same institution that claims it educates athletes about gambling is also using the courts to enforce a contract after Sorsby’s transfer. The legal system becomes another arm of the apparatus, turning a player’s movement and labor into a dispute over enforceable terms.
Sorsby’s on-field production last season for the Bearcats was substantial: he passed for 2,800 yards, 27 touchdowns and five interceptions, and also ran for 580 yards and nine scores. Those numbers sit beside the institutional fight over eligibility, contracts, and gambling rules — a reminder that the athlete’s work is valuable right up until the machinery decides otherwise.
The University of Cincinnati’s statement, Slavin’s accusation, the NCAA banishment, the supplemental draft, and the federal lawsuit all point to the same hierarchy: administrators, regulators, and lawyers set the terms, while the athlete is left to navigate the consequences.