Ole Miss is considering legal action against two football players who transferred to LSU after allegedly failing to pay contractually required buyouts to the University of Mississippi, according to comments from athletic director Keith Carter reported by the New York Times.
Carter identified defensive lineman Princewill Umanmielen as one of the two players involved. Both athletes left Ole Miss for LSU through the transfer portal and, under the terms of their agreements with Ole Miss, reportedly owe the school money that has not been paid.
What Ole Miss Says Is at Stake
In remarks cited by the New York Times, Carter said Ole Miss is evaluating whether to sue the two former players to recover the unpaid buyouts. Those buyouts were described as financial obligations written into the players’ agreements with the school, triggered when they chose to transfer.
Carter’s comments, as reported, indicate that Ole Miss views the matter not only as a financial dispute but also as a question of enforcing the contracts it has in place with athletes who depart the program. The potential lawsuits would aim to collect the money the university believes it is owed under those contracts.
The New York Times report did not specify the exact amounts allegedly owed, the precise language of the buyout provisions, or the timing of when payments were due. It also did not detail whether any formal legal filings have been made, only that Carter said the school is considering that step.
The Players and the Move to LSU
The New York Times identified Princewill Umanmielen as one of the two players now at LSU who, according to Carter, owe Ole Miss money under buyout terms. Umanmielen, a defensive lineman, transferred from Ole Miss to LSU through the NCAA transfer portal.
The second player was not named in the Times report. The article did not describe their position, previous role at Ole Miss, or current status at LSU beyond Carter’s assertion that two LSU transfers were involved.
Both players’ moves to LSU occurred in the context of the now-routine use of the transfer portal, which allows college athletes to change schools while preserving eligibility, subject to evolving NCAA rules. The New York Times report focused on the financial obligations Ole Miss says remain from those moves, rather than the athletic or competitive impact on either program.
How Contracts and Buyouts Enter the Picture
Carter’s comments, as relayed by the New York Times, suggest that Ole Miss has incorporated buyout-style clauses into certain agreements with players. These clauses, according to his description, require athletes to pay a specified amount to the school if they leave under defined circumstances, such as transferring to another program.
The Times report did not reproduce the text of any contracts or identify whether the obligations stem from scholarship documents, separate agreements, or other forms of contracts. It also did not indicate whether similar clauses are standard across Ole Miss athletics or unique to particular arrangements.
Because the underlying documents have not been made public in the reporting so far, outside observers do not yet have a detailed view of how the buyouts are structured, what triggers them, or whether they have been enforced in other cases. The New York Times account is based on Carter’s characterization of the obligations and his statement that the two LSU transfers have not paid what Ole Miss believes they owe.
Limited Independent Corroboration So Far
Independent corroboration of the dispute remains limited at this stage. The New York Times is the primary outlet directly reporting Carter’s comments about possible lawsuits and the unpaid buyouts.
The Times report does not include comment from LSU, from the players involved, or from their representatives. It also does not reference any publicly filed lawsuits or court records, underscoring that Ole Miss is, at this point, considering legal action rather than confirmed to have taken it.
Because of that, key details remain unverified beyond Carter’s account: the precise sums at issue, how long the payments have allegedly been overdue, whether any private negotiations have taken place, and what specific legal arguments Ole Miss might use if it goes to court.
Why the Dispute Matters
The New York Times report places this dispute squarely in the middle of the changing landscape of college sports, where transfers have become more common and contractual relationships between athletes and schools more complex.
By publicly acknowledging that Ole Miss is weighing lawsuits to enforce buyout provisions against players who have already joined another program, Carter has highlighted a tension between athlete mobility and contractual obligations. While the Times story does not delve into broader policy debates, it makes clear that at least one major athletic department is prepared to consider courtroom action to enforce its agreements with transferring athletes.
For now, the situation centers on two individuals, one of whom has been publicly named, and a single institutional response: Ole Miss evaluating whether to sue to recover money it says is owed. Until additional records, statements, or filings emerge, the dispute remains defined largely by Carter’s description of unpaid buyouts and the possibility—rather than the certainty—of legal action.
Readers watching this story can look for three concrete developments: whether Ole Miss files any lawsuits in court, whether LSU or the players respond publicly, and whether additional documentation of the buyout terms becomes available. Those steps would clarify both the financial stakes for the individuals involved and how far a university is willing to go to enforce such provisions.
