Every fall, millions of Ohioans spend Saturdays debating whether a coach made the right decision on fourth down. Far fewer pay attention to the document that becomes just as important when the season goes sideways: the coach’s employment contract. Most people assume those agreements are unique because the salaries are extraordinary. They aren’t.
Strip away the television cameras, the buyouts, and the booster money, and a college football coach faces many of the same employment issues as any chief executive officer. Boards hire them to lead large organizations. They manage hundreds of employees, oversee significant budgets, serve as the public face of the institution, and operate under constant public scrutiny. When things go well, everyone wants to claim credit. When they go poorly, every decision, from hiring assistants to handling employee complaints, can become the subject of intense review. That is why coach contracts are worth reading, even if your business has nothing to do with athletics.
Over the last several years, athletics at both the college and professional levels have produced a series of high-profile employment disputes. Jim Tressel resigned from Ohio State amid an NCAA investigation involving players and memorabilia. Urban Meyer’s tenure with the Jacksonville Jaguars ended amid allegations concerning his treatment of employees. Michigan State terminated Mel Tucker for cause following allegations of misconduct, prompting litigation over the university’s contractual right to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in remaining compensation. The facts are different. The legal questions are remarkably similar.
For employment counsel, one question comes up more than almost any other: Can we terminate this executive without creating a bigger problem than the one we’re trying to solve?
That question rarely has a simple answer. It almost always begins with the contract.
“For Cause” Is Not a Magic Phrase
Business leaders sometimes assume that a broadly worded “for cause” provision gives an employer unlimited discretion to remove an executive whose conduct reflects poorly on the organization. Courts generally do not see it that way. Like every other contractual provision, a “for cause” clause means what the parties agreed it would mean. If an agreement permits termination for conduct that brings the organization into public disrepute, the next question is obvious: what qualifies as disrepute? Is an arrest enough? A lawsuit? A policy violation? Conduct outside the workplace? Embarrassing but lawful behavior? Reasonable people may answer those questions differently, which is precisely why they end up in court.
The Mel Tucker litigation illustrates the point. Public commentary has focused on the underlying allegations. The lawsuit itself, however, is largely about contract interpretation. Michigan State maintains that Tucker’s admitted conduct triggered the agreement’s “for cause” provisions. Tucker argues the university failed to satisfy its contractual and legal obligations before ending his employment.
Those arguments are not unique to college athletics. Every employer with a senior executive under contract should recognize them.
Buyouts Are Really Risk Allocation
When the public hears that a university owes a dismissed coach $40 million or $70 million unless it can establish “cause,” the reaction is often disbelief. Why would any employer agree to that? Because the parties are allocating risk.
The university wants stability. The coach wants security. Both know the relationship may end before the contract expires, but neither knows why. The buyout reflects that uncertainty. It also forces the employer to slow down before making a termination decision. When tens of millions of dollars are at stake, decisions tend to become more deliberate, investigations more thorough, and documentation more disciplined.
Most businesses will never negotiate a contract with an eight-figure buyout. They can still learn from the underlying principle. Significant employment decisions deserve careful contractual planning before the relationship begins, not after it starts to unravel.
The Investigation Often Becomes the Case
One lesson appears repeatedly in executive employment litigation. Employers frequently assume the lawsuit will focus on the employee’s conduct. Instead, the litigation turns to the employer’s investigation. Who interviewed the witnesses? What documents were reviewed? Did the executive have an opportunity to respond? Did the employer follow its own policies? Were similar situations handled the same way in the past?
Those questions may sound procedural, but they often determine the outcome. Judges and juries expect employers to make difficult decisions. They also expect those decisions to rest on a process that appears thoughtful, consistent, and fair.
For public employers, the stakes are even higher. Constitutional due process principles may come into play, adding another layer of scrutiny to decisions that are already governed by contract and policy.
Every Executive Contract Deserves a Fresh Look
Most organizations spend surprisingly little time revisiting executive employment agreements after they are signed. Years pass, leadership changes, the business evolves, new risks emerge, and the contract remains untouched. That is often a mistake.
The last decade has reshaped the employment landscape. Social media can create reputational crises overnight. Internal investigations are more common. Boards face greater scrutiny from shareholders, employees, and the public. Allegations that once remained private now become national headlines within hours. Yet many executive agreements still rely on boilerplate language drafted for a different era.
Employers should ask themselves a few practical questions:
- Does the agreement clearly define what constitutes “cause”?
- Can the executive be placed on paid administrative leave while an investigation proceeds?
- Is the employer obligated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond before termination?
- Does the agreement address reputational harm, cooperation during investigations, or violations of company policy?
None of those questions is particularly interesting, until the day they become urgent.
Takeaway for Employers
College football has become one of the country’s most visible laboratories for executive employment law. The salaries attract headlines, but the contracts tell the more useful story.
Behind every buyout dispute or high-profile termination is a set of questions that employers confront every day. How much discretion did the parties actually negotiate? What process does the contract require? Has the employer documented enough to defend its decision if challenged?
Those questions are not unique to athletics. They arise in manufacturing companies, hospitals, financial institutions, technology companies, family-owned businesses, and nonprofits across Ohio every year. The difference is that most of those disputes unfold quietly, without television cameras or postgame press conferences. The legal principles, however, are exactly the same.
Contact
Questions about an executive agreement or a pending termination decision? Contact KJK Labor & Employment attorney Dave Campbell (JDC@kjk.com).