Caulton Tudor

Maryland v. ACC could have far-reaching precedent

Posted January 15, 2014

The case may take months or years to be completely decided, but Maryland’s lawsuit against the ACC will be closely monitored by colleges and their lawyers throughout the nation. At stake, potentially, is the perceived stability conferences thought they had achieved through the relatively recent arrival of grants of television rights covenants.

The ACC formed such an union in April of 2013, roughly six months after Maryland announced it would leave the league after 2013-14 to join the Big Ten, which also has a grant of rights treaty among its members. So does the Big 12 Conference. The ACC pact runs through the length of its television contract with ESPN in 2027.

In theory, grant of rights agreements bind each conference member to its partners through what roughly works like a communal banking account.

The $156.8 million lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Maryland attorney general’s office is not related to any sort of grant of rights agreement. It originated with Maryland's resistance to a $52.2 million ACC exit penalty – an agreement Maryland ratified as an ACC member in September of 2012. 

The state and the school allege that the exit penalty should not apply as a result of procedural incidents and that the ACC has no right to withhold revenue shares from the school as the case plays out. But since the crux of the suit goes to the subject of conference/school agreements, it’s not out of the question that grant of rights pacts could be tangentially affected by the eventual court ruling or even an out-of-court settlement. 

Here’s why, through a completely hypothetical example:

Let’s say UNC, just to pick an ACC school, leaves the league and is accepted as a member of the Big Ten two or three years from now.

The ACC obviously would sue, claiming its authority via the grant of rights television covenant. But in joining the Big Ten, UNC would have entered a second grant of rights union and there are few, if any, legal precedents in such matters involving television networks, colleges, conferences and chain of command. At some point, given that scenario, the NCAA would be drawn into the fray since members of both the ACC and Big Ten are also bound to NCAA agreements regarding sports eligibility.

It’s entirely possible that after a long court fight, judges could rule any number of ways:

  • UNC’s media income could be ruled to be jointly owned by the ACC and Big Ten.
  • UNC could be ruled a sovereign sports entity and the sole owner of its product rights.
  • The entire matter could be shipped directly to arbitration, thereby assuring that both conferences would suffer some degree of disappointment.
  • Both conference covenants could be ruled illegally restrictive on free trade and completely voided.

There’s an old saying that no contract is ironclad. Whether that statement is accurate or not, it’s certain that there’s no way to stop any school or any conference from suing for its freedom (in the case of a school) or antimony (conference).

If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that there is no predicting where and when the conference realignment process will go, much less where and when it will end.

The outcome of Maryland’s suit over the exit-fee issue will serve as an important indicator of how the courts will view what has become a collegiate sports wild west show, complete with border raids, shot-gun weddings and financial range wars.

Collectively, college sports has become a billion-dollar-a-year industry that shows no sign of tapering. In fact, given the current growth rate of sports marketing and likelihood that more sports-oriented media outlets will emerge as technology advances, current TV contracts could be seen as pocket change in the future.

With so much money on the table, more lawsuits are likely to flare up. That much is inevitable, which is why Maryland v. the ACC will be must-see action in the boardrooms. And, of course, for law students from the Ivies to the Pac-12.


Please with your account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Steven Jan 16, 2014

    Maryland was sold a bill of goods thinking they were going to make more money and save them in the Big Ten. All their old rivals are going to be gone and they are going to have less folks show up for their games. They are crazy if they think the Big Ten Network is going to make them as much money as they think it will. Hope they crash and burn for abandoning the ACC and have serious regrets about it down the road. Outside of forced matchups, their old ACC rivals will never play them.

  • StunGunn Jan 15, 2014

    I think the ACC will do everything in its power to ensure Maryland does pay the $52 Mill, as the decision in this case will set a precedent. The penalty was set high deliberately, to discourage schools from bolting. I do remember Maryland (and I believe Florida State) voted against the exit fee, but the majority of schools voted in favor of it, so it was ratified.

    I have no bad feelings toward Maryland; they are in a terrible financial bind and leaving the ACC seemed like a viable solution to their financial woes.

    This situation has the potential to get quite ugly before it's over, and that's a shame, because there will be no winners, only bitter feelings and more financial issues.

  • 903 Hail Providence Jan 15, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Would you rather have had the Big East raid the ACC and survive and then have the ACC deteriorate to the American conference or whatever it is? (Gtown, Butler, Nova and a bunch of other mid-majors)?

  • Ken D. Jan 15, 2014

    It originated with Maryland's resistance to a $52.2 million ACC exit penalty – an agreement Maryland ratified as an ACC member in September of 2012. Maryland did not "ratify" this provision. It opposed it, and did not vote for it. Maryland has claimed in its countersuit that league rules do not allow the conference to impose this penalty immediately upon achieving a favorable vote. I don't know if this claim is, in fact, true. Maryland gave official notice of its intent to leave the conference four days before the date the Terps claim the rule could first be effective.

    I expect the outcome of this case to be determined on such contractual issues, unless it is first settled out of court. Frankly, I think it's in everybody's interest (except maybe fans) that there be a negotiated settlement. Nobody should want any precedents established.

  • Ken D. Jan 15, 2014

    Antimony? Where did you get that word, Mr. Tudor? Are you sure you don't mean something like hegemony instead?

  • baldchip Jan 15, 2014

    University of Maryland-you signed the contract with the other Universities in the ACC !! I guess that does not matter any more. Humm-I wonder what folks at your Law School would say to that. Is the integrity of the University of Maryland that poor???

    That being said-I'm glad you're leaving. Aamen-Aamen!!! Just pay up before you leave-or all the ACC will haunt you forever!!

  • cjw6105 Jan 15, 2014

    The ACC was at the forefront of "conference raiding". Thanks to them, the Big East Conference exists primarily on the basketball court. And ACC football, never much to begin with, is now even weaker than before, with more rivalries being destroyed in order to make sure everybody gets "equal" treatment.

    I've never been much of a Maryland fan, but this is one time I'm pulling for the Terps. The ACC started all this mess, so let them reap what they've sewn.

Listen & Watch
  • HighSchoolOT Live

    Friday at 7:00 pm on WRAL-2

  • NFL: Oakland @ Washington

    Friday at 8:30 pm on WRAL-TV

  • Football Friday

    Friday at 11:35 pm on WRAL-TV

  • Golf: President’s Cup

    Saturday at 8:00 am on WRAL-TV

  • Logan Zone

    Sunday at 11:00 am on WRAL-TV

  • Golf: President’s Cup

    Sunday at 12:00 pm on WRAL-TV

  • NFL: Indianapolis @ Seattle

    Sunday at 8:20 pm on WRAL-TV

  • ACC Football: Duke @ Virginia

    Saturday, Oct. 7 at 12:00 pm on WRAL-TV

  • The Dave Doeren Show

    Wednesday at 7:00 pm on 99.9 The Fan

NHL Preseason
New Jersey810:40
New Jersey08:20
NY Islanders2
NY Rangers1
Montreal01st Int
Pittsburgh01st Int
Colorado 5:30 PT6:30 MT7:30 CT8:30 ET0:30 GMT8:30 5:30 MST7:30 EST4:30 UAE (+1)20:30 ETNaN:� BRT
Carolina 6:00 PT7:00 MT8:00 CT9:00 ET1:00 GMT9:00 6:00 MST8:00 EST5:00 UAE (+1)21:00 ETNaN:� BRT
Anaheim 7:00 PT8:00 MT9:00 CT10:00 ET2:00 GMT10:00 7:00 MST9:00 EST6:00 UAE (+1)22:00 ETNaN:� BRT
Minor League Baseball
International League
Memphis 4:07 PT5:07 MT6:07 CT7:07 ET12:07 GMT
Evian Champ (LPGA)
1A. Nordqvist - z-9F
2B. Altomare - y-9F
3tM. Jutanugarn-8F
3tK. Kirk-8F
3tL. Ko-8F
6tS. Feng-7F
6tS. Kim-7F
8J. Song-6F
9M. Lee-5F
10tG. Hall-4F
View Full Leaderboard
z = Won in Playoff   y = Lost in Playoff
ATP Scoreboard
Monday, Sep. 25
Chengdu Open (ATP)
First Round
J. Donaldson62 7 7   
S. Tsitsipas77 5 5   
(5) Y. Sugita6 0    
M. Pavic1 0    
D. Wu5 1    
T. Fritz7 6    
T. Monteiro1 78 6   
Y. Wu6 66 2   
Shenzhen Open (ATP)
First Round
A. Giannessi66 4    
J. Chardy78 6    
D. Sela6 710    
M. Ebden0 68    
S. Darcis7 77    
Z. Zhang5 63    
WTA Scoreboard
Monday, Sep. 25
Wuhan Open (WTA)
First Round
(10) M. Keys2 64    
V. Lepchenko6 77    
E. Mertens6 1 6   
N. Osaka4 6 4   
D. Kasatkina6 2 6   
A. Riske1 6 3   
(9) A. Radwanska6 7    
M. Rybarikova4 5    
(14) S. Stephens2 2    
Q. Wang6 6    
A. Petkovic3 2    
L. Davis6 6    
D. Gavrilova4 6 4   
J. Goerges6 1 6   
O. Jabeur1 3    
B. Strycova6 6    
(12) A. Kerber6 3 1   
C. Garcia3 6 6   
A. Pavlyuchen3 2    
A. Cornet6 6    
S. Stosur4 6 3   
J. Teichmann6 3 6   
S. Zhang7 5 6   
D. Vekic5 7 1   
K. Bertens6 6    
M. Niculescu2 1    
(11) P. Kvitova67 77 63   
S. Peng79 65 77   
Second Round
(5) J. Konta0 6 63   
A. Barty6 4 77   
Tashkent Open (WTA)
First Round
(5) M. Vondrousov6 6    
M. Eguchi1 1    
P. Parmentier6 6    
R. Ozaki2 4    
S. Sharipova1 3    
S. Voegele6 6    
(8) E. Alexandrov77 6    
L. Cabrera62 2    
K. Kozlova6 6    
A. Amanmurado1 0    
A. Blinkova3 2    
K. Bondarenko6 6    
D. Allertova6 3 6   
J. Fett2 6 3   
(4) I. Begu6 2 4   
V. Zvonareva2 6 6