The University of Cincinnati athletic department flatly rejected claims from quarterback Brendan Sorsby's agent that the school knowingly allowed him to compete despite gambling violations, underscoring the institution's formal compliance protocols and raising questions about accountability in collegiate athletics enforcement.
Sorsby's agent, Ron Slavin, alleged in a Wednesday interview with KRLD radio in Dallas that Cincinnati was aware of the quarterback's wagering activity. The university responded the same day with a direct statement: "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."
The dispute centers on Sorsby's NCAA-imposed ban from competition for gambling activity that included wagers on his own team while on the roster at Indiana four years ago in 2022, as well as betting on professional sports. The quarterback has now pivoted away from his legal fight to return to the field, declaring for the NFL supplemental draft Tuesday with a deadline to file by Monday.
The Compliance Question
Cincinnati's statement emphasizes the institution's layered approach to gambling education and its stated commitment to NCAA reporting requirements. The university's explicit denial suggests either a breakdown in communication between the athlete and compliance staff, or a fundamental dispute over what information the school possessed and when. The stakes are substantial: knowingly fielding an ineligible player carries severe NCAA penalties, including potential scholarship losses and postseason bans.
Slavin's claims, made public through a Dallas radio interview, appear designed to shift responsibility from his client to the institution. However, the agent provided no documentation or timeline supporting his assertion that Cincinnati had specific knowledge of Sorsby's gambling violations.
Legal and Financial Complications
The situation is further complicated by Cincinnati's ongoing lawsuit against Sorsby, filed in February in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The university is suing the quarterback for allegedly breaching his name, image and likeness contract following his transfer to Texas Tech. Slavin has characterized the legal action as misguided and stated that Sorsby intends to fight the lawsuit and any resulting damages.
Sorsby's statistics at Cincinnati last season—2,800 passing yards, 27 touchdowns and five interceptions, plus 580 rushing yards and nine scores—underscore the value the university believed it was receiving from the athlete. The contract dispute and compliance allegations now threaten the institution's ability to recover that investment.
Sorsby's pivot to the supplemental draft reflects a strategic decision to accelerate his path to professional football. He is tentatively planning to work out for NFL teams on July 10 at a Dallas-area high school, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the supplemental draft process was not yet complete.
Why This Matters:
The dispute between Cincinnati and Sorsby's agent exposes ongoing tensions in collegiate athletics compliance. Universities invest substantial resources in gambling education and NCAA reporting systems, yet face credibility challenges when violations occur. Cincinnati's categorical denial suggests either effective institutional controls or a significant compliance gap. The concurrent lawsuit over Sorsby's NIL contract adds financial pressure to the dispute, creating incentives for both parties to assign blame elsewhere. For other institutions, the case underscores the importance of documented compliance procedures and clear communication with student-athletes about wagering prohibitions. The supplemental draft option allows Sorsby to pursue professional opportunity while these disputes remain unresolved, leaving questions about institutional accountability and the effectiveness of NCAA enforcement mechanisms in collegiate sports.