Philly Front Office

EDITOR’S NOTE: Lawyer talk below.

You may have heard that Brian Kelly was fired as the head football coach of LSU on October 26. Well, turns out that isn’t true. While he was relieved of his duties, Kelly has yet to be formally fired by the University apparently. There’s a reason for that. They want to fire him “for cause.” Here’s why that is a HUGE deal.

When the news of the firing first hit the wire, it was a shock. Shocking not because it was unwarranted, but rather due to the $53m still left on the 10/$95m contract he signed with LSU back in 2021. Since he signed a guaranteed contract, that $53m is still owed to him. In these situations, it is usually assumed that the exiting coach accepts a buyout for close to, if not all, the amount left on the contract. Sometimes there are set off clauses in the contract which would lower the total owed if he were to accept a job elsewhere (basically so he isn’t getting paid twice). Well, on Monday Kelly filed a lawsuit against the school. The lawsuit alleges that after initially terminating Kelly and trying to negotiate a buyout, LSU is now claiming that they are firing him “for cause” and intend not to pay him anything. This is after Kelly rejected to buyout offers of $25m and $30m with no setoff.

Firing “for cause” is a contract term that is distinct to each agreement but generally means doing something bad. By “bad” I mean actions like getting arrested, violating school/NCAA policy, excessive alcohol use, drug use, and other such actions that reflect poorly on, or even actively hurt, the school. “Bad” however does NOT mean poor performance. Being bad at the job is part of the risk the school takes by hiring anyone. It is also subjective as hell and not something that can be litigated easily (this isn’t baseball arbitration we’re talking about). If the University successfully argues that he was fired for cause, they would not owe him a penny.

Part of being fired for cause is that LSU was required to let him know exactly why he was being fired for cause ahead of time. He would then have 7 days to fix or provide good explanation for whatever he was accused of if possible. The lawsuit is alleging LSU didn’t do this. The school counters by saying he wasn’t actually fired yet. Kelly disagrees.

I don’t know the law in Louisiana, but in Florida if a fireable reason comes to light AFTER a person has already been fired, a for cause termination will usually still hold up in court (crazy). LSU will likely need to have a smoking gun to get out of their obligation. They will need to have Kelly pretty clearly violating the terms of his contract in order to get away with not paying him everything he is owed. Considering LSU still hasn’t told Kelly why he has been fired or even acknowledging that he has been fired,¹ I’m dubious that they have anything on him. Again, being a bad coach doesn’t get LSU off the hook for the contract.

What this could be is negotiating through lawsuit. On one side, Kelly wants to put pressure on the University by making this whole thing VERY public. It reflects bad on LSU with the public and most documents will be available to anyone who wants them (like his contract and communications).

LSU on the other hand really doesn’t want to pay him the full amount he’s owed. Something like 95% of lawsuits settle in some way, so by stalling and making Kelly sue them they are hoping that they can negotiate their financial obligation down anywhere below the $53m owed. There does not seem to be an attorney’s fees clause in his contract either. This means that for the most part, LSU would not have to pay for Kelly’s attorney’s fees for having to bring this lawsuit which will likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. A long drawn-out mess benefits the University financially even if it looks terrible for anyone else potentially taking the job.

Unless LSU can produce a smoking gun, this case looks like a slam dunk… fine, “touchdown” for Brian Kelly. We’ll see how this plays out.

1. This is bullshit by the way. Announcing the firing but not completing the paperwork doesn’t mean he is still employed. Kelly argues this in the lawsuit. ↩︎