ACC must share ESPN contracts with Florida State, Clemson files appeal

As Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark declared his league “one of the top three conferences in America” earlier this week, the ACC is entrenched in legal battles with two of its most prominent members.

First reported by the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday, a protective order signed Thursday in Leon County (Florida) ordered the ACC has seven days to give Florida State copies of its ESPN contracts and related documents. The move comes after Leon County Judge John C. Cooper denied the ACC’s motion to dismiss Florida State’s lawsuit over jurisdictional grounds last month.

According to the protective order, the ESPN documents will be “treated as confidential in their entirety” until a court can fully determine whether they deserve protection as trade secrets. The order, according to the Tampa Bay Times, prohibits the Seminoles from sharing or disclosing details of the documents for any reasons unrelated to litigation.

The order calls for the ACC’s 2010 multimedia rights agreement, a 2012 amendment and extension, a second amendment from 2014, a 2016 restated and amended deal, the ACC Network contract from 2016 and an August 2021 letter amendment to the current (2016) deal.

On the same day Florida State scored a critical win in the courtroom against the ACC, Clemson submitted a notice of appeal in North Carolina Business Court. On Wednesday, North Carolina Business Court Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III denied Clemson’s motions to stay and dismiss a suit filed by the ACC in Charlotte in March.

In Bledsoe’s decision Wednesday, he also dismissed multiple ACC claims that Clemson breached its duties regarding league contracts. The judge ruled that Clemson’s actions in North Carolina were commercial, meaning the Tigers made hundreds of millions through the ACC’s grant of rights. 

The ruling and appeal comes as the ACC and Clemson meet for a similar hearing in South Carolina on Friday. The ACC has filed the same motions as Clemson in the suit in Pickens County.

Clemson, Florida State not backing down

Clemson’s decision to appeal is the latest signal that the Tigers and Florida State are invested in winning their respective suits. At the root of both courtroom battles is the ACC’s Grant of Rights. Clemson and Florida State believe that it should be allowed to leave the ACC without penalty, despite agreeing to the grant of rights in 2013.

A grant of rights agreement gives conferences the right to broadcast all member schools’ home games for the duration of the media rights deal. In the ACC’s case, the GOR binds the league, schools and broadcast partners until the rights deal with ESPN expires in 2036. The ACC’s current TV contract with ESPN reportedly contains a unilateral option for the TV network in 2027 that must be exercised by February 2025 to extend the deal to 2036.

“It’s not a matter of if we leave [the ACC], in my opinion. It’s a matter of who and when we leave,” Board of Trustees member and former FSU quarterback Drew Weatherford said in August.

Yormark and the Big 12 are circling. “I will not stop until we are the No. 1 conference in America,” the commissioner said earlier this week. With ongoing discussions with Allstate, the Big 12 is at the forefront of selling naming rights. Plus, the conference continues to evaluate private equity options. Yormark even spoke about possibly selling football and basketball TV packages separately in the future.

Meanwhile, the ACC and Commissioner Jim Phillips meet in Charlotte later this month for media days. The disparity in TV revenue between the SEC and Big Ten is only growing. The six-year, $7.8 billion College Football Playoff contract signed this spring gives 29% annually to the Big Ten and SEC, more than $21 million per school.

The ACC will receive 17%, roughly $13 million per institution.

“As we enter this new chapter, I can assure you Big 12 schools will compete at the highest levels and they will continue to invest,” Yormark said. “From a conference perspective, we are exploring all options. Two years later, I guess you could stay, we’re still open for business. Naming rights is one. Private equity is another.”