About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


13 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/tsamlw13 and id is 1 raw text is: Volume 13 Texas A&M Law Review Arguendo 2025 WADING IN ALLIGATOR INFESTED WATERS: AN ANALYSIS OF INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC COACHING EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS by: Mark T Wilhelm* & Danielle A. Clfford** ABSTRACT College athletic coaches have always been under pressure from countless sources, whether that is recruiting new student-athletes, managing booster relations, or simply trying to win games. But recent rule changes that permit student-athletes to profit on their name, image, and likeness rights have brought to the forefront additional pressures on coaches as there are now questions about whether, and to what extent, coaches have personal liability for their acts or omissions in their roles as coaches and in capacities adjacent to their coaching roles. This Article uses as a case study a lawsuit brought against college football coach Billy Napier to explore the extent of thatpersonal liability as well as the ability of coaches to be made whole by their employing schools for any losses suffered by the coaches. In addition to the case study, this Article presents the results ofprimary research conducted by the Authors on the terms of college coaching employment agreements. In particular, this Article compares the presence (or, really, lack of presence) of contractual indemnification provisions in college coaching employment agreements to the prevalence of such provisions in the employment agreements of chief executive officers of public companies. Drawing upon both the Napier case study and the results of the Authors' research on the prevalence of indemnity terms, this Article then makes recommendations to college coaches with respect to their employment agreements, including suggestions around their negotiation for and written documentation of contractual indemnity protections. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN TR O D U C TIO N ................................................................................................................... 2 II. BACKGROUND OF NAME, IMAGE, AND LIKENESS ........................................................... 3 III. CASE STUDY: RASHADA V. HATHCOCK ............................................................................. 4 A . F actual B ackground ........................................................................................ . 5 IV COACH'S LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION................................................ 6 V. PURPOSE AND SOURCES OF INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS ............................................. 7 A . B ackground L aw ............................................................................................. . 7 B . G overning D ocum ents ................................................................................... . 8 C . C om p any P olicy ............................................................................................. . 9 D . C o n tra c t ................................................................................................................. 9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V13.Arg.1 * Partner, Corporate & Securities, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The views expressed in this Article are only those of the Authors and do not reflect the views of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP or its clients. ** Associate, Private Equity, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Berwyn, Pennsylvania. The views expressed in this Article are only those of the Authors and do not reflect the views of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP or its clients. The authors would like to thank Christian Pirri and Michael Matthews for their research assistance. 1