Terminating College Head Coaches' Employment with Cause for NCAA Rules Infractions

College athletics and its finances are in flux due to several recent incidents. Many athletics departments claimed to lose millions of dollars due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The NCAA v. Alston Supreme Court decision will result in universities and athletics departments providing their student-athletes with additional education-related benefits. Due to the NCAA’s rule change permitting student-athletes to monetize their names, images, and likenesses, companies will likely divert sponsorship resources from athletics departments and toward student-athletes directly. Thus, it is increasingly important for athletics departments to be prudent with resources. One area where university athletics departments have historically wasted millions of dollars is head coach severance payments. Some have paid head coaches millions of dollars in severance upon terminating their employment. More specifically, universities, through their employment contracts with head coaches, put themselves in a no-win situation when they must make an employment decision regarding a head coach if the NCAA accuses that coach of committing a significant NCAA rules violation. Under the current standard head coach contract, universities often have two options. A university may terminate the coach’s employment without cause and pay the coach a large severance payment. Alternatively, if the university wants to terminate the coach’s employment with cause and avoid the severance payment, it must continue to employ and pay the coach while awaiting adjudication of the violation allegation, which can take years and result in litigation. This Article examines this no-win scenario for universities by first exploring a head coach’s job responsibilities and the relevant employment contract provisions under which they perform them. Next, the Article analyzes instances where prominent head coaches violated NCAA rules and how their employment contracts shaped their universities’ handling of the resulting employment decisions. Finally, the Article proposes contract language that would provide universities flexibility and potential cost savings when faced with an employment decision for a rule-breaking head coach.