Examining Morality Clauses in Collegiate Athletics
(What follows is an excerpt from an article that appeared in Sports Litigation Alert. The full article can be viewed at )
By Alexandra Miljanic, 3L, University of North Carolina School of Law
The evolution of college athletics has not only impacted student-athletes, but also football coaches, whose contracts have evolved from handshake agreements to written ones containing increased salaries and responsibilities which in turn require more sophisticated contract language.[1] Contracts address key issues including salary, responsibilities, duration, and the focus of this blog post, termination.[2] Termination provisions are usually either: (1) “termination for cause” which “provide for circumstances under which the university may terminate the coach . . . [and] is relieved of its duty to further provide the coach with compensation and benefits due under the contract,”[3] or (2) “termination without cause” which “provide what the coach’s compensation will be if the university [dismisses them] for any reason other than those laid out in the termination for cause provision. . . .”[4]
The distinction between termination type is of immense importance, as demonstrated by Michigan State University’s (MSU) firing of football head coach Mel Tucker (Tucker) for cause on September 27, 2023 – a distinction that, for MSU and Tucker, has at least 80 million reasons to matter.[5] MSU terminated Tucker for cause under what is “known as the morals clause sometimes referred to as moral turpitude or morality clause.”[6] Morality clauses allow contracting parties (university) to terminate a contract when the other party (coach) behaves in a manner that could harm the reputation of the university or embarrass it, which is rather subjective and leads to disputes.[7] This paper will explore the legal issues surrounding the enforceability of morality clauses using MSU’s termination of Mel Tucker as a model, and applying Patricia Sanchez Abril & Nicholas Greene’s five-factor legal rubric for analyzing morality clauses to conclude that MSU properly enforced the morality clause when terminating Mel Tucker with cause.
[1] Matthew J. Mitten, Timothy Davis, N. Jeremi Duru & Barbara Osborne, Sports Law and Regulation: Cases, Materials, and Problems 287 (6th ed. 2024).
[2] Id.
[3] Martin J. Greenberg, Termination of College Coaching Contracts: When Does Adequate Cause to Terminate Exist and Who Determines its Existence?, 17 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 197, 205 (2006).
[4] Id.
[5] Matt Mencarini & Kenny Jacoby, Experts: Ugly Court Fight Between Former Coach Mel Tucker, MSU Likely, Lansing State J. (Aug. 1, 2024, 12:45 PM), https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/campus/2023/09/27/mel-tucker-michigan-state-sexual-harassment-litigation-whats-next/70902024007/.
[6] Adam Epstein, An Exploration of Interesting Clauses in Sports, 21 J. Legal Aspects of Sport 5, 22 (2011) (emphasis removed).
[7] See Patricia Sanchez Abril & Nicholas Greene, Contracting Correctness: A Rubric for Analyzing Morality Clauses, 74 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 3 (2017).