Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Fenenbock's avatar

Joe, I love you but this is not a serious conversation. Not going to happen. Period. The Chipster would sue, the program would be in ESPN headlines, no kids would come - even in the current environment where the top PAC 12 players are going to scoot anyway. The PAC 12 is a fire sale. Gov Gav isn't even thinking about letting football in stadiums start again and you're projecting Meyer to Westwood? Joe it's a train wreck. Brutal. The new guy is facing a truly ugly situation. But, hey they gave him a lot of dough didn't they? Now that is interesting. Running a huge freaking debt but money is no object . . . wtf? But this is how they've been running the ship isn't it? And now Joe you're asking for logic? Well hey good luck with that. Question, how does paying the new guy a small fortune fix UCLA football (and other revenue sports in general)? He must be some super hire . . . or was this just what it took to get somebody to take this job? MAXBRUIN

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

This is just not what force majeure is. There is no legal basis supporting the theory that COVID-19 excuses UCLA's contractual obligation to pay Chip Kelly. A force majeure is only triggered if performance under the contract is so impractical or impossible that it is excused. Really, the end of the inquiry is that COVID-19 does not render UCLA's performance under the contract impractical or impossible. The season has not been cancelled. Sure, spring practice ended early. Recruiting has been affected. Does that legally terminate the contract of every college coach in every sport in the country (not to mention many other professions)? No. Even if the season is cancelled, college football will eventually restart. Under that scenario, UCLA would have an argument to not pay their coaches for the cancelled season.

Consider this hypothetical: UCLA terminates Kelly's contract by reason of force majeure. Kelly sues. Losing party appeals. Court of Appeal sides with UCLA. There is now legal precedent many, if not most, if not the vast majority of employment contracts in this state (not just football coaches) are terminated. It's important to note that force majeure is not just a legal theory that may or may not be in an employment contract. It's codified in the civil code. But performance under the contract has to be impossible or impracticable. Is that the current situation for college football coaches. No.

It would really take me pages and pages and pages and pages to fully explain why force majeure does not come close to applying here, but the above sums it up pretty nicely. If anyone is actually interested in the full legal reason, it's all over google. Virtually every business lawyer in the state has had to brief themselves on this issue the last few weeks so there are a lot of articles on it.

More importantly: what a pathetic move this would be for the new AD. What a cowardly signal it would send. If he thinks the football coach should be terminated, he should TERMINATE THE FOOTBALL COACH. Not dance around the issue. Call a press conference. Fire him. And say he is being fired because he failed.

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts