Clemson sued the meeting on Thursday in response to an earlier complaint brought by Florida State, which is the ACC facing. The most recent lawsuit alleges that the meeting fabricated information about Clemson’s media freedom and its obligation to pay the ACC in the event that it leaves the 15-member event.
Members are considering exiting or reconfiguring the conference in ways that wo n’t result in severe penalties and the associated litigation, according to the lawsuits.
The problem, filed in a South Carolina courtroom of common pleas, calls for a three-part court declaration, saying the court may rule that Clemson is not required to pay the ACAA a withdrawal penalty, which is thought to be$ 140 million, because it violates public policy, and that the school neither owes duties to the ACC nor has violated any responsibility by suing.

Similar issues involving press rights and the consequences of a college leaving the meeting are at the forefront of legal battles between Florida State and the ACC. FSU sued the meeting in late December, claiming that its exit regulations were unlawful and infringed upon competitive laws. At the time, FSU’s doctors claimed the full cost for FSU to get out of the meeting had get$ 572 million. The ACC after responded, accusing FSU’s committee of disobeying responsibility.
Like Florida State, Clemson acknowledges it has “granted specific internet privileges” to the meeting as part of its account. Members must consent to certain controls in order to advance the conference’s and the participant schools ‘ shared goals.
However, Clemson alleges that the ACC has misrepresented internet rights. According to Clemson, the only press rights the organization provided to the conference were those that were “necessary” for the ACC to fulfill its legal obligations. According to Clemson, this view includes agreements between the ACC, its affiliated colleges, and ESPN but not those for schools that leave the seminar.
Clemson also contends that if it leaves, it should n’t have to pay a withdrawal fee. The university says the price is more than$ 140 million. FSU, meanwhile, described the exit fee as more along the lines of$ 130 million, though it also insisted a total “penalty package” balloons to$ 572 million when including forfeited media rights and unreimbursed broadcast fees.
For its part, Clemson says the price is “unconscionable”, since the large number is” not connected to any financial harm” the ACC may suffer. The cost is even described as” considerably larger” than other similar events. The ACC says the Big Ten has no cost, the Big 12 requires an amount equal to two years of income distribution payment, and the SEC requires, at most,$ 45 million in the event no see is provided.
Clemson adds that members of the ACC have exaggerated fiduciary obligations to the conference. Clemson argues none of the conference’s operating agreements, including the constitution and bylaws, contemplate the kinds of duties of good faith and fair dealing the ACC envisions. According to Clemson, the ACC is using its false fiduciary duties to deter schools from leaving.

In a joint statement, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and board chairman Jim Ryan said they were” confident” that the league’s agreements would be upheld in court. ” Clemson, along with all ACC members, voluntarily signed and re- signed the 2013 and 2016 Grant of Rights, which is binding through 2036″.
In addition,” Clemson agreed to the process and procedures for withdrawal”, they said. The conference’s legal counsel will vigorously uphold the convention and bylaws in the best interests of the ACC’s incoming and current members.
In the coming weeks, the ACC will answer the complaint and raise several defenses. Expect the conference to demand that Clemson, like FSU and other members, voluntarily enter contractual agreements that included a give-and-take. The school gained access to conference membership, as well as the chance of gaining exposure and revenue from conference-wide television and marketing agreements, and in exchange, the conference received certain rights from those members. Clemson will be portrayed by the ACC as trying to break its promises.
The ACC will continue to assert that it has legitimately interpreted and applied contractual agreements with its members. As long as the interpretations of rules are not arbitrary or capricious, courts generally defer to membership organizations—a very deferential standard.
The ACC might also assert that the case is not yet complete. The ACC could argue that the legal controversy is more hypothetical than actual until and until Clemson moves to leave the conference. By asserting that its ability to make decisions on behalf of its community members, Clemson would attempt to refute that defense because of uncertainty over its contractual rights and obligations in light of the ACC.
When combined, the Clemson and FSU lawsuits give a hint of a troubled future for the ACC. The ACC is now at risk of falling behind after once being firmly established among the elite of college sports. Two of its most well-known members are FSU and Clemson, particularly on the football side, where the bulk of revenue is made in college sports. The ACC is expanding, adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU, but those new members would not make up for the departure of its more valuable members, especially if FSU or Clemson joined the SEC or Big Ten, the two sports that appear to be separating themselves from the rest of college sports.
Clemson’s ACC victories and FSU’s ACC victories also highlight a growing consensus in college sports that as the power and wealth shift, the next few years will determine who will stay in the upper class and who will fall behind. That was the main motivation behind the exodus of schools quickly from the Pac-12, which left that league with just two members starting in July. It’s also manifested in state legislature lobbying for permissive NIL statutes that effectively serve as play-for-pay.
( This article has been updated with a statement from ACC officials in the 10th and 11th paragraphs. )