Recruiting Lawsuit

[Buckets]

With all the lawyers on this board I was surprised this wasn't posted yet. www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=39417&CHID=3

At the heart of Marist's lawsuit against James Madison basketball coach Matt Brady appears to be an unusual clause in his contract with the Poughkeepsie, N.Y., school. According to Marist - where Brady coached from 2004 to 2008 - his contract included a provision preventing him from continuing to recruit players he had tried to lure to the Red Foxes if he ever left for another job.

Not long after being hired by JMU in March 2008, Brady signed four players he had been recruiting at Marist, in breach of his contract, Marist alleges.

While it doesn't sound like there will be any immediate ramifications since the student-athletes were obviously not a party to the contract, I would imagine that the NCAA would have something to say about this at some point.

[theexorcist]

I think that the NCAA wants to stay as far away as possible from this one. The NCAA has been blasted in a few lawsuits in the past - the last thing that they want to do is contribute to restraint of trade.

[hoyarooter]

A non-solicitation agreement; LMAO. A prospective client came to us with some questions about one of these just this morning. Not quite the same context, however.

[atlasfrysmith]

1. What constitutes "continuing to recruit?" To what extent is action on the part of the new school and the remainder of its coaching staff applicable? Does a scholarship offer subsequent to a request from the player constitute "recruitment" even though the persuasive element is nil?

2. What level of involvement with a player at the previous school makes continuing recruitment unacceptable? Signed LOI? Verbal committment? Scholarship offer? Official visit? Unofficial visit? Coaching visit? Phone call? Scouting visit? Identification as prospect? Named by overzealous message board posters?

3. What remedy for breach? Direct losses (such as the cost of recruiting new players, perhaps discounted by the probability of needing to do so anyway)? Restitution (the value, defined in some very questionable way, of the players at the new school above their replacement value)?

4. If the contract were fulfilled, would affected players have any claim against some party? (I'm actually kinda curious about this one, if anyone has any idea)

These are the issues as seen by someone whose only knowledge of law is that required to make sketchy land deals when playing Monopoly (my advice: when trading properties, only convey life estates. If you survive the recipient, you'll get the property back instead of it going to whoever the "deceased" owes.)