The ACC this week claimed that FSU and Clemson missed their chance to push back against the league’s contracts after approving them and accepting millions of dollars from them over the years in legal response to the school’s respective lawsuits.
In its first clearly laid out defense of FSU’s and Clemson’s lawsuits against the conference, the ACC asserted that both schools missed their statute of limitations by three or four years, depending on the state.
“The Plaintiff has accepted the benefits created by the ACC Constitution and Bylaws and the Grant of Rights Agreements for many years and has neither challenged those benefits or the validity of the Constitution and Bylaws or the Grant of Rights Agreements that created those benefits. ,” the ACC said in both responses to the complaints from FSU and Clemson.
FSU first filed a lawsuit against the ACC in December 2023, while Clemson filed in March 2024. After various amendments, motions and hearings delayed the process, the deadline for the ACC’s responses came this week. In its filings, the ACC responded line by line to each claim made in both filings, denying most of the claims made against it in various forms and defending the validity of the grant of rights that locks the television rights of the schools to the ACC. 2036, which is the crux of the matter.
While FSU’s claim (in Florida) and Clemson’s claim (in South Carolina) differ slightly, the ACC’s response to each count is largely the same and focuses on two key points: timing and Maryland’s previous withdrawal.
The responses cited several media articles over the years detailing the ACC contracts through 2036 and noted that the concerns FSU and Clemson now have with the granting of rights were not raised at the time.
Free daily sports updates straight to your inbox.
Free daily sports updates straight to your inbox.
Register
The second key point was the withdrawal of Maryland in 2013. There was a 10-2 vote in the conference to increase the withdrawal penalty in 2012 to three times the operating budget of the ACC, opposed by Maryland and Florida State but supported by Clemson. However, all members except Maryland voted to approve a lawsuit against Maryland for the withdrawal fee and accepted payment of it. Therefore, the ACC claims, FSU and Clemson cannot have a problem with the same withdrawal penalty and process now. The withdrawal penalty is now around $140 million. The grant of rights was created after the departure of Maryland.
“The Plaintiff voted to enforce the withdrawal provision of the ACC Constitution against the University of Maryland in a lawsuit filed in North Carolina, and accepted its distribution of the withdrawal payment from the University of Maryland,” the ACC said in both responses to the complaints by FSU and Clemson.
“These actions, and others as stated below and as will be proven by discovery, led the ACC to reasonably believe that the Plaintiff did not object to the Grant of Rights or its amendment, or the execution of the withdrawal payment by the ACC. Constitution, and prevent the plaintiff of a claim that those agreements are invalid and unenforceable, or violate public policy, or are unenforceable.”
In both formal responses filed this week, the ACC requested a jury trial rather than a declaratory judgment.
Background on the FSU and Clemson lawsuits
FSU and Clemson did not notify the ACC of their intent to withdraw from the conference before the Aug. 15 deadline passed because the legal battle moved slowly.
There are four ongoing lawsuits between the sides: The ACC and FSU against each other in North Carolina and Florida, and the ACC and Clemson against each other in North Carolina and South Carolina.
A North Carolina court ruled separately that the cases of the ACC against FSU and Clemson could advance in North Carolina, denying the motion of each school to reject. Both appealed. The ACC earlier this week asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to align the schedules of both cases together, with the possibility of oral arguments beginning in January 2025.
A Florida court ruled that FSU’s case against the ACC could move forward in Florida. The ACC has appealed this, with a hearing set for September 11. A South Carolina court last month ruled that Clemson’s case could move forward in South Carolina. The ACC was expected to appeal.
FSU and the ACC went through court-ordered mediation last month and did not come to a settlement. The odds of a compromise remain low, given what is at stake for the ACC.
Another deadline coming up is the ACC’s television deal with ESPN, which runs through 2027 and has a network option through 2036 that ESPN must exercise by February 2025. Those details were only released through FSU’s legal filings, as it was previously assumed the deal ran. uninterrupted until 2036. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips described the conversations with ESPN as positive and productive, but it’s unclear what could happen if we get closer to February without the option being taken up.
Required reading
Photo: David Yeazell / Imagn Images
