https://www.wralsportsfan.com/what-does-.../20361234/

If this is a true copy, it should answer a lot of questions about the ACC GoR. However, I would question it's accuracy based on Paragraph 5: Term.

This says that the GoR expires on June 30, 2027. I believe that was the date the previous GoR expired. If this is true (and if so, it's a colossal legal blunder) it would expire 8 years before the ESPN Multi-Media Agreement.

Has anybody seen a copy that has a different expiration date?

That was the original GOR agreement. It would have been extended through an amendment when the ACC signed its 20-year contract with ESPN a couple of years after that original GOR agreement was signed.

(07-06-2022 09:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  https://www.wralsportsfan.com/what-does-.../20361234/

If this is a true copy, it should answer a lot of questions about the ACC GoR. However, I would question it's accuracy based on Paragraph 5: Term.

This says that the GoR expires on June 30, 2027. I believe that was the date the previous GoR expired. If this is true (and if so, it's a colossal legal blunder) it would expire 8 years before the ESPN Multi-Media Agreement.

Has anybody seen a copy that has a different expiration date?

That's because it *IS* the previous GOR. Page one has a quote "is executed on _____________, 2013" with the date to be filled in , and page 12 is dated April 19, 2013.

I dont think anyone has any reason to believe that anything in the GOR would have changed except the expiration dates though, and the language about the Valuable Consideration being the 2017 or so update to the ACC-ESPN contract rather than the 2013 update.

Yes, now I see in the article that the GoR was extended but that WRAL doesn't have a copy of that amendment. I posted this article as soon as I saw it and hadn't parsed it all before I posted. The article also says this:

"In other words, the schools not only would lose the money they receive for media rights from the ACC, but they'd forfeit any media rights money from their new conference."

Not being a lawyer, I can't see wording that says this. But maybe it's true. Frank, what do you think?

(07-06-2022 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  Yes, now I see in the article that the GoR was extended but that WRAL doesn't have a copy of that amendment. I posted this article as soon as I saw it and hadn't parsed it all before I posted. The article also says this:

"In other words, the schools not only would lose the money they receive for media rights from the ACC, but they'd forfeit any media rights money from their new conference."

Not being a lawyer, I can't see wording that says this. But maybe it's true. Frank, what do you think?

The agreement doesn't explicitly state that, but the GOR has the ultimate effect.

What the GOR does is that the ACC owns all of the home games of its members until 2036.

If UNC and Duke decided tomorrow to go to the Big Ten, for instance, UNC/Duke *can't* grant the rights to their home games to the Big Ten because they're owned by the ACC as opposed to the schools themselves. As a result, any revenue from those UNC/Duke home games would go to the owner of the rights, which in this case would be the ACC.

Now, technically, UNC/Duke could still earn media revenue from the Big Ten (or SEC or any new conference) based on the value of their road games versus other conference members outside of the ones where they play each other. However, in practicality, no conference is going to want that setup because they're only getting 50% of the value of those schools or less and they're having to pay the old conference the bulk of the additional revenue from expansion.

(07-06-2022 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  Yes, now I see in the article that the GoR was extended but that WRAL doesn't have a copy of that amendment. I posted this article as soon as I saw it and hadn't parsed it all before I posted. The article also says this:

"In other words, the schools not only would lose the money they receive for media rights from the ACC, but they'd forfeit any media rights money from their new conference."

Not being a lawyer, I can't see wording that says this. But maybe it's true. Frank, what do you think?

Like Frank said in his post, the contract doesn't say that, but it's how it would work out.

LEt's use Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC for 2024 and 2025 as an example. They're still under the Big 12 grant of rights, but let's say they go full YOLO and join the SEC anyway on July 1 2024.

They play SEC schedules--I'm going to give Oklahoma Arkansas'*1* Ole Miss's 2021 slate and Texas Missouri's 2021 slate, because that's easy to look up on wikipedia and gives us concretes to work with.

Oklahoma's (Ole Miss's) home games: FCS, Tulane, Liberty, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, VAnderbilt
Road games: Louisville (in Atlanta), Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn, Mississippi State

I think the vs Louisville Chick-Fil-A Kickoff game is an ACC contract game, but IDK.

The home games would be under the Big 12 contract, split between ESPN and Fox. Big 12 keeps the money. No added value for the SEC media package at all.

The away games MIGHT be a different story. You could argue that Oklahoma @ Alabama, @ Tennessee, @ Auburn are worth more than Ole Miss @ those schools. But how much more? HArd to say, without ESPN renegotiating the media contract and giving you a number.

So I don't think the SEC would be cutting Oklahoma a slice of the SEC-ESPN TV contract for that year. They're freeloading at the potluck. (Oklahoma would be NCAA tournament-eligible, CFP-eligible, bowl-eligible, so logically they'd get a slice of those pies.)

I think I've sketched out the argument well enough, I don;t think running Texas through Mizzou's SEC slate would serve any purpose


*1* Arkansas played Texas OOC, and that's too much mental pretzeling for this post.

This contract seems very one sided. I doubt it holds in court. I would expect a settlement in court outside of any usual conference exit fees. What that magic number is, who knows. However, I do not think there is a way this would be enforced as written.

(07-06-2022 10:54 AM)otown Wrote:  This contract seems very one sided. I doubt it holds in court. I would expect a settlement in court outside of any usual conference exit fees. What that magic number is, who knows. However, I do not think there is a way this would be enforced as written.

On the contrary. The terms of a contract are not the only thing to consider. A judge would also take into account the compensation for those terms. That's Contract Law 101.

The ACC contract offers substantial compensation for giving up those rights. That makes it very fair.

(07-06-2022 10:54 AM)otown Wrote:  This contract seems very one sided. I doubt it holds in court. I would expect a settlement in court outside of any usual conference exit fees. What that magic number is, who knows. However, I do not think there is a way this would be enforced as written.

These contracts have been enforced though, just not in sports. Usually (at least the ones I hear about) are in the music industry--the singer signs a deal for a suitcase full of cash, and now Big Evil Record Company owns his entire catalog for as long as US copyright terms run.

The cases go to court.

Did the singer sign the deal? Yes.

Did the singer understand the deal? This is where the record companies might sweat, but these big universities with whole-ass law schools not 19 year old high school dropouts with starter-kid substance abuse issues.

Did Big Evil Record Company deliver the suitcase with $50,000 and the duffel bag full of cocaine? Yes.

Case dismissed with prejudice, Big Evil Record Company owns the rights.

EDIT: I was a skeptic on the Big 12 Grant of Rights from the beginning. But the fancy-schmancy folks at UT and OU are definitely ACTING like the GOR is a very real thing.

And the ACC GOR is a little stronger than that, because in the GOR contract it names the Valuable Consideration--the "Additionally Amended" ESPN contract, for more money. Clemson or UNC or whoever has been cashing those ESPN checks for 5+ years now, they can't really say they didnt' get "Valuable Consideration."

The big 12, by contrast, signed their first one between renegotiations while Missouri was defecting to the SEC.

FWIW, the Big Ten GOR has obvious Valuable Consideration--an equity share in the BTN. On the other hand, that opens an obvious avenue to untangle the Big Ten grant-of-rights, by surrendering the equity share in BTN. Would work for Pac-12 schools too, but they're just going to wait out the GOR just like Texas and OU.