Andrew Langer – On Saturday, October 18, at approximately 7:30 PM, the Florida Gators beat fellow SEC member Mississippi State Bulldogs in a lackluster, yet unnecessarily stressful, game that came down to an interception with less than thirty seconds left on the clock. Fans everywhere breathed a sigh of relief that the Gators had finally squeaked out another win, a common trend under Head Coach Billy Napier. However, less than twenty-four hours after this win, Napier was relieved of his duties as head coach and replaced by Interim Head Coach Billy Gonzalez. The most significant news story to emerge was not who would take over play-calling duties for the rest of the season, or who might become the next head coach. Instead, the real headline was the staggering $20 million buyout (reportedly $19.3 million, with over half guaranteed in the next two weeks) that the University of Florida now owes Napier after his termination.
Although Napier’s termination led to financial turmoil, this is not the first time a dissatisfied program willingly undertook a massive financial burden to move on from an underperforming head coach; the normalization of this practice is becoming an increasingly worrisome issue. The ease with which these universities rush into large contracts, the imprudence with which they pay them out, and the effect on the sport are topics of growing concern among fans and university leaders. The business of buyouts has exposed a major flaw in college football: universities are overspending on mediocrity. This drawback in college football stems from the absence of clear performance standards and legal accountability. Through a more accountability-driven structure in college football coaching contracts, this overspending issue would disappear.
For the past decade, big-name college football programs have been investing enormous amounts of money in both high-potential and experienced coaches alike, hoping these new hires will finally lead their teams to a National Championship. However, oftentimes the coaches fail to meet the organization’s expectations and face no consequences. While universities are left scrambling after a coaching termination, the former coach leaves with an open schedule and a large sum of cash. In 2023, for example, Texas A&M fired National Champion head coach Jimbo Fisher after a winning 45–25 record over six seasons, owing him approximately $77 million through 2031, including an immediate payment of about $19.2 million. Similarly, Louisiana State University (LSU) terminated Ed Orgeron just two years after winning a national title for the steep price of $17 million. To a casual watcher, these terminations may seem disjointed and incongruent, but in reality they are more similar than one may think.
Beyond the noticeable drop in offensive production, there is one commonality between all three of these coaches: the organizations fired them without cause. While Napier’s below-average record could have justified a reasonable termination, his contract lacked a performance clause. Consequently, Napier’s termination was deemed without cause. Instead of performance clauses focused on limiting, or even punishing, poor performances coaches are rewarded with bonuses when they achieve a certain number of wins or bowl games. Currently, only an NCAA violation or ethical breach are accepted causes for termination.
Nevertheless, the question thus persists: what constitutes “cause” or “without cause”? If a coach’s poor performance leads to a downturn in stadium attendance, concessions revenue, and apparel sales, does that constitute cause? The questions are endless because there currently seems to be no answers. Fans, institutions, and legal minds alike have played a role in cultivating this reality; allowing the definition of cause in contracts to go unattended to and ultimately unresolved. Without a definitive solution in place, organizations must resort to other alternatives and creative contract drafting.
One way to prevent these massive buyouts is to embed unconventional terms in coaching contracts. Instead of guaranteeing millions at the onset of the contract, universities could structure coaching deals with performance-based continuation clauses, including a term for progress checkpoints. Coaches would remain at-will employees for the first three years, earning only their yearly salary until they meet specific competitive benchmarks.
Progress checkpoints would act as conditions precedent, meaning certain results must be achieved before the next phase of the contract can begin. For example, a hypothetical performance clause can demand the coach to accomplish at least five wins in year one, seven wins and a bowl appearance in year two, and ten wins with a New Year’s Six bowl game in year three. If the delineated marks are not met, the organization has the legal right to terminate the contract without triggering a buyout, or it can choose to keep the coach for another year at its discretion.
This proposed system would balance accountability and opportunity. It would reward genuine progress while protecting universities from high-priced financial exposure. Schools would avoid millions of dollars in debt for inactivity or decline, and coaches would have to earn their job security through actual performance rather than empty promises and overinflated expectations.
Coaches and advocates for these large contracts with lump-sum guarantees will say it is “part of the game,” and an effective way to ensure a program gets their preferred candidate over their rival. In that respect, paying massive amounts of money for a highly sought after and seemingly qualified employee is a norm throughout all industries. The only difference is when a coach doesn’t perform to the institution’s standards he walks out of the building with a lofty severance package, not a cardboard box filled with his belongings.
In this era of constant change in college football, it is time to put progress back in the hands of the fans, the players, and the universities. The business of buyouts is one that must be addressed, especially in the case of the Florida Gators, sooner rather than later.
