Brian Kelly Sues LSU for Allegedly Undermining His Buyout Clause
Former LSU coach Brian Kelly has recently initiated a lawsuit against the university concerning his buyout agreement. Filed late Monday, Kelly’s complaint argues that LSU aims to undermine his $54 million buyout by attempting to dismiss him “for cause.” This strategy has become increasingly attractive for institutions looking to mitigate financial payouts to former coaches.
Details of the Lawsuit
According to legal documents obtained from Kelly, LSU’s representatives held discussions with his legal team where they conveyed that he had not been formally terminated. During this conversation, LSU asserted, for the first time, that they believed there were justifiable grounds for a “for cause” termination.
Understanding “For Cause” vs. “Without Cause”
Coaching contracts typically offer two main clauses for termination: “for cause” and “without cause.” When a coach is terminated “without cause,” the school is responsible for paying out the remaining contract amount. Conversely, a “for cause” dismissal releases the school from any financial obligations. Generally, specific criteria must be met for this type of termination.
Implications for LSU and Future Coaches
This lawsuit raises significant concerns about the integrity of LSU’s actions. Viewing the situation pragmatically, it seems LSU may be attempting to negotiate a lesser payout to Kelly. His attorneys appear confident that there is no valid reason for termination based on performance alone, given that dissatisfaction with game outcomes does not constitute legitimate grounds.
- Kelly’s lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment, asserting LSU lacks basis for a “for cause” termination.
- If unsuccessful, LSU risks establishing a precedent that may deter potential future coaches.
- This incident could prompt future coaching candidates to demand stricter contract protections.
Ultimately, while LSU has the right to terminate Kelly for underperformance, presenting this as a “for cause” decision undermines their position. Such steps might appear unprofessional and financially motivated rather than justified by legitimate concerns about performance.
