Examining Morality Clauses in Collegiate Athletics

Find expert witnesses and attorneys who can meet your needs

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).