Why can't athletic departments put non-compete clauses in contracts?

[JeffCuse]

Not trying to be naive, just curious the mechanics of it? I've worked for companies that have made me sign a non compete indicating if I leave willingly I cannot work for a competing company in the same industry for a period of time (usually a year or two). And there isn't even a contract in place there, its all at will employment. Why can't athletic departments do this?

Doesn't prevent people from leaving but it forces them to sit out a year unpaid and decide if that is worth it.

 

[Knicks411]

probably because no one would sign with you? Plus there's some question about the legality of them

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

A lot of (most?) non-competes are basically unenforceable anyway if push comes to shove.

 

[JeffCuse]

probably because no one would sign with you? Plus there's some question about the legality of them

Is that true though? I get if I am a Billy Donovan type I wont sign that. Is a mid major coach looking for his first chance really going to let thst be a factor? Im dubious.

Regarding legality, I still see them all the time so I dont know.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not trying to be naive, just curious the mechanics of it? I've worked for companies that have made me sign a non compete indicating if I leave willingly I cannot work for a competing company in the same industry for a period of time (usually a year or two). And there isn't even a contract in place there, its all at will employment. Why can't athletic departments do this?

Doesn't prevent people from leaving but it forces them to sit out a year unpaid and decide if that is worth it.

Pretty unenforceable in the courts in NY. Especially as a coach they are not taking any intellectual property.

 

[JeffCuse]

Pretty unenforceable in the courts in NY. Especially as a coach they are not taking any intellectual property.

Is that really true? Id argue the knowledge transfer could be quite significant.

 

[AZOrange]

To me the buyout provisions act as a liq damages type of clause which are more enforceable

 

[Knicks411]

Is that true though? I get if I am a Billy Donovan type I wont sign that. Is a mid major coach looking for his first chance really going to let thst be a factor? Im dubious.

Regarding legality, I still see them all the time so I dont know.

Setting aside the legality (lets instead throw a ridiculous buyout figure instead of a non-compete) I just think most of the time, coaches are hired because there are multiple people that want to hire them so you need to make an attractive offer.

 

[JeffCuse]

To me the buyout provisions act as a liq damages type of clause which are more enforceable

But they aren't proving effective imo. There's always someone able to pay

 

[miamicuse]

Non competes are complicated.

I had personal experiences with non competes in the tech industry.

One position I held I was asked to sign a non-compete. I declined and countered with a non-disclosure of company IPs I developed while employed there and they accepted.

There are states where non competes are not enforceable. They was someone I tried to hire from a competitor, and he signed a non-compete with current employer in another state, we consulted a lawyer in that field and said he can freely move because it's not enforceable due to his work. I think the way it was explained to me was lets say you are a car salesman and you signed a non-compete with a Honda dealer, you can't go and sell cars for Toyota or Audi, but you can easily go sell tractors or yachts. But if your work is a research scientist working on COVID vaccines for 20 years, they cannot prevent you from jumping ship from say Pfizer to Moderna because your work is so highly specialized for so long if you don't do this kind of work you might have to work as a high school chemistry teacher instead, so in that case this may not be enforceable because it affects that person's livelihood.

Finally, every non compete I have seen comes with pay. In other words, if I leave and I can't work for a competitor say 2 years, fine, the company will have to pay me salary for that two years to sit on my couch to eat cheetos.

In addition, it's useless, just look at our last season, I think half the team or more was already non-competing.

 

[JOC44]

If you're talking about trying to have players sign non-competes, even if the NCAA would allow it (which I doubt), this likely would not be a workable strategy. As some have said, players would be reluctant to sign with a school that makes them sign a non-compete. And some states bar non-competes entirely. Most states that allow them will strike them down if they are broader than absolutely necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests, both in terms of geographic scope and time period. This isn't a situation where a player has customer lists and relationships that the employer needs to protect, so it would be hard (or impossible) to argue that a non-compete clause is consistent with public policy.

If you are talking about non-competes for coaches, schools already have that in the form of a multi-year contract. If there's no buyout clause, they can hold the coach to the terms of his contract and theoretically could sue a school that tries to hire him away for tortious interference. If there's a buyout clause, then the school has agreed up front that the coach can leave without breaching the contract so long as he (or the next school) pays the buyout.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Prolly because people have rights.

 

[Knicks411]

But they aren't proving effective imo. There's always someone able to pay

Doesnt this indicate that maybe the schools dont have the leverage you think they do to impose terms on the people they hire?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Doesnt this indicate that maybe the schools dont have the leverage you think they do to impose terms on the people they hire?

Or possibly that the schools are fine with it.

 

[AZOrange]

But they aren't proving effective imo. There's always someone able to pay

But they use those in lieu of non competes