By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
On March 26, 2025, former University of Tennessee head football coach Jeremy Pruitt filed a civil lawsuit seeking upwards of $100 million in the Circuit Court of Dekalb County, Alabama against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Per the six-count complaint, it is alleged that the NCAA both negligently and wantonly breached its duty of reasonable care with regards to an investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings concerning Coach Pruitt, that it wrongfully and intentionally interfered with his prospective business relationships, conspired with third parties to deprive him coaching opportunities, and acted in bad faith which resulted in the University of Tennessee terminating him as head coach of its football team.[1]
By way of background, on January 18, 2021, just four months after signing a contract extension with the university that resulted in him being paid $4.2 million per year through the 2025 season, Coach Pruitt was relieved from his head coaching responsibilities. Since the University of Tennessee’s Chancellor determined that Pruitt violated the terms of the employment agreement that he had with the school, the termination was deemed “for cause” and as such, Pruitt would not receive the remaining balance due to him per the terms of the contract that totaled approximately $12.6 million.[2]
To make matters worse, two and a half years later, on July 14, 2023, the NCAA levied a six-year show cause penalty against Pruitt for his alleged involvement in offering cash payments to student-athletes.[3] A show cause penalty, which in Pruitt’s case also included a yearlong suspension and being barred from recruiting off campus during his first year back should he return to coaching at the college level, is a severe penalty imposed by the NCAA that requires an employer of a disciplined coach to appear before the NCAA every six months to prove that the coach is staying in line with the rules and regulations as promulgated by the NCAA. Most, however, view NCAA show cause orders as being designed to deter member institutions from hiring such a coach since that college or university would, in doing so, be subjecting itself to additional NCAA oversight and scrutiny – something most schools would choose to avoid.
What is interesting, and somewhat befuddling, about Pruitt’s lawsuit is that in his complaint he alleges that UT had a vested interest in the predetermined outcome of what he describes as a “one-sided investigation” and that the NCAA conspired to establish a “co-tribunal” with the university that would result in Pruitt being primarily responsible for any and all of the school’s NCAA violations. Such allegations are befuddling since the NCAA fined the university almost $9 million, placed the school’s athletic program on probation for five years, and mandated that twenty-eight athletic scholarships be forfeited after finding that its football program, during the time that Pruitt was the team’s head coach, committed 18 Level 1 violations and an additional 200 individual violations.[4] According to the NCAA, most of these violations involved recruiting rules and monetary payments to both prospective and current student-athletes and their families.[5]
On the other hand, what is interesting, and not so befuddling about Pruitt’s lawsuit, is that in addition to asserting that the NCAA failed to provide him with due process during its investigation and subsequent disciplinary hearings, it also highlights the fact that he was terminated by Tennessee at a time when the NCAA was modifying it rules so that student-athletes could “legally” monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) without the fear of punishment or losing their athletic eligibility. In other words, the NCAA reprimanded Pruitt and punished him with a suspension and show cause order for doing something that was, or was soon to be, no longer a violation of NCAA rules. In addition, Pruitt points out in his complaint that the authority of the NCAA to enforce the very rules at issue in his disciplinary action had been deemed null and void after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in O’Bannon v. NCAA and the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston held that the NCAA is subject to antitrust scrutiny and that its restrictions on the ability of student-athletes to earn money from their NIL violates federal antitrust laws. Therefore, Pruitt’s argument for having the NCAA pay him over $100 million is monetary damages in based on the fact that the NCAA punished him in 2023 for violating rules that were not legally enforceable as of July 2021.[6]
For the record, Coach Pruitt was paid approximately $11.8 million by the university for his 16-19 record during his three seasons at the helm of the Volunteers – which equates to about $737,500 per win.
[1] Pruitt v NCAA, 28-CV-2025-900060.00.
[2] Id at page 7.
[3] https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/what-show-cause-penalty-is-jeremy-pruitt-s-future-jeopardy-tennessee-lands-8-million-fine.
[4] https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/44434567/ex-vols-coach-pruitt-sues-ncaa-seeking-100-million
[5] Id.
[6] Pruitt v NCAA, 28-CV-2025-900060.00 at p. 12.
