Why isn’t tortious interference a thing with coaches contracts?
- Thread starter rumsearch
- Start date
Similar to “bad faith” in the insurance context, it exists as a cause of action on the books, but virtually impossible to prove up.
Most schools are ran by over-educated incompetent people who don’t have the will to buck the system.
These contracts have early termination clauses, which is where the buyouts come in. If a coach exercises his early termination clause, then he isn't breaching the contract, so there is no interference, tortious or otherwise.
However, Wisconsin did sue Miami for tortious interference in convincing Xavier Lucas to transfer in the middle of his two year NIL deal. That case is in its early stages. There is a lot of question over whether Lucas had a binding contract, and whether any Miami staff was actually involved in Lucas' decision to transfer.
However, Wisconsin did sue Miami for tortious interference in convincing Xavier Lucas to transfer in the middle of his two year NIL deal. That case is in its early stages. There is a lot of question over whether Lucas had a binding contract, and whether any Miami staff was actually involved in Lucas' decision to transfer.
That’s the academic side. Athletics is different.
The main problem is the National level setup with the consequence that colleges are encouraged to fire and hire coaches before the season ends because of when signing takes place.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see in the future that there will be only one signing period beginning a week after playoffs end.
The Media will, of course, call it after Kiffin… maybe the Kiffin Period or something like that.
I think Kiffin's period is what is happening right now.
