Connect with us

Published

on

Clemson became the second school to sue the ACC in state court in an effort to extricate itself from onerous exit fees and a grant of rights that runs for another 12 years.

The lawsuit, filed in Pickens County, South Carolina, on Tuesday, follows a similar blueprint to the one filed by Florida State in Tallahassee in December. Both aim to challenge the veracity of the league’s grant of rights, while the ACC’s countersuit in North Carolina looks to uphold the agreement.

So, what does Clemson’s latest legal maneuver mean for the ACC and the future of realignment? ESPN answered some of the key questions.

Read more about the FSU lawsuit here.

Why did Clemson file its lawsuit now?

Whereas Florida State foreshadowed its lawsuit for months and announced it in grand fashion in late December 2023, Clemson’s efforts toward a potential exit have largely happened in the shadows. But make no mistake, Clemson has been essentially in lockstep with Florida State’s thinking all along, and with the recent announcement that future playoff shares to the ACC would be nearly half that of the SEC and Big Ten, it was yet another domino to fall in Clemson’s journey to this point. Florida State and Clemson understand that finding an exit strategy from the ACC will not happen overnight, so both lawsuits are largely about getting a running start toward the door.


What exactly is Clemson arguing?

Clemson is essentially making the same argument as Florida State, which boils down to claiming the financial penalties involved with the ACC’s exit fee (three times the ACC’s operating budget) are exorbitant and unreasonable, and the grant of rights (which gives the ACC ownership of each member’s TV media rights through 2036) unfairly restricts Clemson’s right to maximize its brand value.

According to the lawsuit, Clemson alleges the ACC’s exit fee and grant of rights “​​hinders Clemson’s ability to meaningfully explore its options regarding conference membership, to negotiate alternative revenue-sharing proposals among ACC members, and to obtain full value for its future media rights.”

In short, Clemson is suggesting that a grant of rights is unenforceable and illegal, a claim that could potentially have massive ripple effects throughout the college sports landscape if a judge agreed. But given the rapidly changing landscape of college sports, Clemson argues prohibiting free movement among schools could be a potential death sentence for its program.

“In this litigation, Clemson seeks confirmation of the plain language found in the Grant of Rights agreements and the related media agreements between the ACC and ESPN — that these agreements, when read together, plainly state that Clemson controls its media rights for games played if it is no longer a member of the ACC,” a statement from Clemson read. “Clemson also seeks a ruling regarding the unenforceability of the severe penalty the ACC is seeking to impose upon exiting members and confirmation that it does not owe a fiduciary duty to the conference as alleged by the ACC.

“The ACC’s position regarding the Grant of Rights, the exit penalty, and obligations owed by members to the conference, as detailed in its public statements and other court filings, leaves Clemson with no choice but to move forward with this lawsuit.

“Clemson has not given notice that it is exiting the ACC and remains a member of the conference.”


What is a grant of rights again? And why is it so important?

The grant of rights is a legal document signed by each member of the ACC that transfers ownership of media rights from the school to the conference. What this means is that the ACC, not Clemson — or any other member school — owns the rights to broadcasts of games. Schools signed this in 2013 as a reaction to the departure of Maryland to the Big Ten, under the rationale that the grant of rights acts as an insurance policy that would prevent anyone from leaving the league during the duration of the agreement, which in this case is through 2036, because a school without TV revenue would have little value to any other conference or enough revenue to stand as an independent.

In other realignment scenarios, schools either waited out the grant of rights (the Pac-12’s agreement ends in summer 2024) or paid a hefty buyout to leave early (Texas and Oklahoma paid $50 million each to the Big 12 to leave that agreement just one year early).

For Florida State, Clemson or any other school looking to leave the ACC, the dollars and duration are far more imposing. With 12 seasons remaining on the existing deal after this school year, a member would need to either wait far longer than they feel is acceptable or pay a nearly impossible buyout to get their media rights back. And this is in addition to the exit fee.

Hence, option No. 3: Go to court and hope to find a legal framework for exiting sooner and at a lower cost.

Clemson, however, is alleging the grant of rights only applies to teams in the league and would not carry beyond a school exiting. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what the grant of rights was designed to do, but it’s an interesting legal approach given the school’s reading of its TV agreement and grant of rights, which is redacted in public disclosures.


Should we expect more schools to follow in Clemson’s and FSU’s steps?

There’s a genuine question about why Clemson would do this at all if Florida State was willing to be the canary in the coal mine. While numerous other ADs — both inside the ACC and out — have said they’re keenly watching FSU’s efforts to exit the grant of rights, they’ve all sounded more than happy to let the Seminoles take the heat and, ideally, provide the blueprint for an exit strategy.

Clemson’s lawsuit suggests that the school sees value in helping set that blueprint and, in turn, potentially being among the first out the door. If both FSU and Clemson depart the league, others would surely follow — including, perhaps, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami and NC State.

But there are also two big problems with any departure scenario.

First is the money. These lawsuits are effectively a referendum on the cost of departure. That dollar figure, whatever it ultimately is, could be prohibitively high for schools looking to leave. On the flip side, the high cost could provide an incentive to stay if Clemson and FSU are forced to write sizable checks that would then be distributed among the remaining league members.

On Feb. 29, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors approved a policy change that might make it more difficult for public state schools — including North Carolina and NC State — to jump from one conference to another. Under the new rules, any chancellor of a school wanting to change leagues must provide the system president with advance notice and submit a financial plan. The president has the authority to approve or reject the move, and he must notify the Board of Governors, which could vote on the conference transition as well.

The second issue is where schools might land. Several athletics directors who spoke with ESPN said they did not believe the SEC or Big Ten were eager to expand again at the moment, and even the Big Ten’s most recent additions — Washington and Oregon — came in at a fraction of full value. Leaving the ACC is one thing. Having a home afterward is another.


What happens now?

Clemson’s lawsuit was filed in South Carolina, making it the third different state where some form of litigation is ongoing about the ACC’s grant of rights. Deciding who has jurisdiction is the next big step, and even that is likely months away from a ruling. Once any ruling on venue is made, there are likely to be appeals of that ruling, too. In other words, it’s unlikely we’ll learn anything about the enforceability of the ACC’s exit fees and grant of rights any time soon.

Continue Reading

Sports

Follow live: Kings look to take 3-0 series lead vs. Oilers

Published

on

By

null

Continue Reading

Sports

Hagel suspended for Game 3 due to hit on Barkov

Published

on

By

Hagel suspended for Game 3 due to hit on Barkov

Tampa Bay Lightning winger Brandon Hagel was suspended one game by the NHL Department of Player Safety on Friday night for what it labeled “an extremely forceful body check to an unsuspecting opponent” that injured Florida Panthers captain Aleksander Barkov.

Hagel will miss Saturday’s Game 3 in Sunrise, Florida. The Panthers lead the series 2-0.

Around midway through the third period of Thursday’s Game 2, Tampa Bay was on the power play while trailing 1-0. Barkov pressured defenseman Ryan McDonagh deep in the Lightning zone. With the puck clearly past Barkov, Hagel lined him up for a huge hit that sent the Panthers captain to the ice and thumping off the end boards.

A penalty was whistled, and the officials conferred before calling a “five-minute penalty.” After review, Hagel was given a 5-minute major for interference. Barkov left the game with 10:09 remaining in regulation and did not return to the Panthers’ 2-0 win.

Lightning coach Jon Cooper said after the game that he didn’t expect Hagel to receive a major penalty for the hit.

“Refs make the call. I was a little surprised it was a five, but it was,” he said.

The NHL ruled that Hagel’s hit made “some head contact” on Barkov.

“It’s important to note that Barkov is never in possession of the puck on this play and is therefore not eligible to be checked in any manner,” the league said.

In the Friday hearing, held remotely, Hagel argued that he approached the play anticipating that Barkov would play the puck. But the Department of Player Safety said the onus was on Hagel to ensure that Barkov was eligible to be checked. It also determined that the hit had “sufficient force” for supplemental discipline.

It’s Hagel’s first suspension in 375 regular-season and 36 playoff games. He was fined for boarding Florida’s Eetu Luostarinen in May 2022.

The Panthers held an optional skate Friday. Coach Paul Maurice said Barkov “hasn’t been ruled out yet” but “hasn’t been cleared” for Game 3.

“He’s an irreplicable player,” Panthers defenseman Seth Jones said of Barkov. “One of the best centermen in the league. He’s super important to our team.”

The Lightning lose Hagel while they struggle to score in the series; they scored two goals in Game 1 and were shut out in Game 2. Tampa Bay was the highest-scoring team in the regular season (3.56), with Hagel contributing 35 goals and 55 assists in 82 games.

Continue Reading

Sports

Goalies Montembeault, Dobes leave Caps-Habs

Published

on

By

Goalies Montembeault, Dobes leave Caps-Habs

The Washington Capitals and Montreal Canadiens lost their starting goalies because of injuries in Game 3 of their first-round series Friday night.

Canadiens starter Sam Montembeault was replaced by rookie Jakub Dobes, who made his playoff debut, in the second period. Capitals starter Logan Thompson left late in the third period after a collision with teammate Dylan Strome.

The Canadiens won 6-3 to cut their series deficit to 2-1.

Montembeault left the crease with 8:21 remaining in the second period and the score tied 2-2. Replays showed him reaching for the back of his left leg after making a save on Capitals defenseman Alex Alexeyev. Montembeault had stopped 11 of 13 shots. For the series, he stopped 58 of 63 shots (.921 save percentage) with a 2.49 goals-against average.

Dobes, 23, was 7-4-3 in 16 games for the Canadiens in the regular season with a .909 save percentage. Dobes had a win over the Capitals on Jan. 10, stopping 15 shots in a 3-2 overtime win.

Thompson was helped from the ice by a trainer and teammates after Strome collided with him with 6:37 left in regulation right after Canadiens forward Juraj Slafkovsky made it a 5-3 Montreal lead. Thompson attempted to skate off on his own but couldn’t put weight down on his left leg.

Backup goalie Charlie Lindgren replaced Thompson, who had been outstanding for the Capitals in the first two games of the series, winning both with a .951 save percentage and a 1.47 goals-against average. He made 30 saves on 35 shots in Game 3.

Continue Reading

Trending