This paper examines the legal controversy surrounding a proposed NCAA rule that would prohibit schools from hiring coaches who are already under contract at another institution. Using the Lane Kiffin departure from the University of Tennessee as a central example, the paper analyzes the legal measures the NCAA could use to enforce existing contracts and the challenges coaches might raise. Key cases discussed include Bloom v. NCAA, which upheld the NCAA's regulatory authority, and Law v. NCAA, which found salary restrictions to violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The paper also considers whether the NCAA is subject to anti-discrimination statutes such as Title IX under the precedent set by NCAA v. Smith.
In collegiate sports, one of the most controversial issues is the ability of coaches to move from one program to another. This is troubling because many schools claim that their best coaches are being lured away by larger programs offering more money. A prominent example is Lane Kiffin's departure from the University of Tennessee's football program after he was abruptly hired by USC. Commenting on his decision, Kiffin said, "This was not an easy decision. This is something that happens very quick. We've been here 14 months, and the support has been unbelievable here. I really believe the only place I would have left here to go was Southern California." In addition to his own move, Kiffin proceeded to recruit assistant coaches from the same and other programs. These actions highlight how coaches exploit opt-out clauses in legally binding agreements rather than honoring contracts signed in good faith ("Kiffin to Coach USC").
In response to such situations, the NCAA has considered implementing a rule that would ban one school from hiring a coach who is already under contract at another institution — a policy that has generated significant controversy. To fully understand what is at stake, it is necessary to examine both the legal measures and challenges such a rule would face, and the legal theories the NCAA could use to justify its actions.
The most significant legal basis the NCAA could invoke is its right to enforce existing contracts. Contract enforcement is a standard mechanism used throughout professional and collegiate sports when establishing agreements between management and coaching staff — in this context, management being the university board of regents. Beyond general contract law, NCAA policy requires that all parties to such agreements act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing. These requirements demonstrate that the NCAA's position is grounded in well-established legal practice (Poputto).
A key case supporting the NCAA's authority is Bloom v. NCAA. In that case, a professional skier sought to maintain his eligibility and play for the University of Colorado's football program. When he was declared ineligible, he sued the NCAA, alleging that its rules violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act on the grounds that a complex web of regulations provided no clear or consistent policy. The Colorado Court of Appeals sided with the NCAA, ruling that these regulations fell within the organization's legitimate authority to control the conduct of athletes and college sports. This precedent supports the argument that an NCAA rule addressing coaches who breach their contracts would similarly fall within the scope of the NCAA's recognized regulatory powers ("Bloom v. National Collegiate Athletic Association").
"Law v. NCAA limits salary restrictions under antitrust law"
"NCAA's exemption from Title IX and anti-discrimination law"
The NCAA's proposed rule banning schools from hiring coaches already under contract sits at the intersection of contract law and antitrust law. While existing precedent — particularly Bloom v. NCAA — supports the NCAA's broad authority to regulate its members, Law v. NCAA demonstrates that restrictions affecting coaches' earning potential face serious antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA's strongest defense rests on contract enforcement principles and its exemption from federal anti-discrimination statutes. Ultimately, the legality of such a rule would likely depend on how a court weighs the NCAA's interest in preserving contractual integrity against coaches' established rights under antitrust law.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.