LSU has claimed in newly released legal documents that it never “formally terminated” former head coach Brian Kelly, according to ESPN. Instead, the university is now pursuing a “for cause” dismissal, a move that could potentially allow it to avoid paying the full $54 million buyout owed under Kelly’s contract.
The development marks the latest twist in the growing dispute between Kelly and LSU following his abrupt removal as head football coach. The school’s decision to frame the firing as “for cause” suggests that officials believe they have sufficient grounds to void or reduce the financial obligations outlined in his agreement.
ESPN reports that Kelly’s legal team was notified of LSU’s position on Monday, indicating that the situation has escalated beyond a routine coaching change. The disagreement centers on whether the university followed proper contractual procedures and whether its reasons for dismissal meet the threshold for a “for cause” termination.
Kelly was officially removed from his position on Sunday, October 26, ending his four-season tenure in Baton Rouge. His lawyers are now expected to challenge LSU’s claims, setting the stage for a potential legal battle that could determine whether the former coach receives any portion of his multimillion-dollar buyout.
Kelly and his representatives are now pursuing a declaratory judgment to establish that LSU’s decision to terminate him was “without cause.” Through this legal action, they aim to demonstrate that the university failed to meet the contractual standards required for a “for cause” dismissal.
By securing such a ruling, Kelly’s legal team hopes to confirm his right to receive the full amount of liquidated damages outlined in his contract. This sum, estimated at $54 million, represents the remaining financial compensation he would be owed if LSU is found to have violated the terms of his agreement.
Essentially, the lawsuit seeks to hold LSU accountable for what Kelly’s attorneys describe as an improper termination process. They argue that the school’s attempt to categorize his firing as “for cause” is an effort to avoid paying the full buyout owed to their client.
The case now hinges on the court’s interpretation of the contract language and whether LSU’s stated reasons for the dismissal meet the strict criteria for a “for cause” firing an outcome that could have major financial and reputational implications for both parties.
According to ESPN, the 48-page lawsuit filed by Brian Kelly and his legal team was submitted to the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge on the same day Kelly was informed of LSU’s decision. The court filing details the sequence of events surrounding his dismissal and LSU’s subsequent claim of having “cause” to terminate him.
The lawsuit includes a passage stating that LSU officials held a call with Kelly’s representatives, during which the university maintained that Kelly “had not been formally terminated.” During that same conversation, LSU allegedly informed Kelly’s team “for the very first time” that it believed there were grounds to justify a “for cause” termination under the terms of his contract.
If a court ultimately determines that LSU did have sufficient cause to fire Kelly, the university would be legally exempt from paying the full $54 million buyout stipulated in his agreement. This would mark a significant financial victory for the school, which has been under scrutiny for its handling of recent coaching contracts and buyouts.
At this stage, it remains unclear what specific incident or conduct prompted LSU to adopt its “for cause” position. The lawsuit does not identify any particular event, nor does it specify which university representatives communicated the decision to Kelly’s legal team, leaving many details surrounding the dispute still undisclosed.
The lawsuit also details three main arguments that Brian Kelly’s legal team is contesting in response to LSU’s recent claims. First, they dispute the university’s assertion that Kelly has not yet been formally terminated. Second, they challenge the notion that then–athletic director Scott Woodward lacked the authority to act on behalf of LSU during a meeting that included multiple university officials. And third, they reject LSU’s claim that there are valid grounds to classify Kelly’s dismissal as a “for cause” termination.
According to the lawsuit, Kelly’s attorneys maintain that all three of LSU’s points are inconsistent with both the facts of the situation and the contractual procedures outlined in his employment agreement. They argue that LSU’s stance is an attempt to retroactively justify a decision already made, rather than one based on legitimate cause.
The filing further references the explicit conditions laid out in Kelly’s contract that define what constitutes a “for cause” firing. These include committing material or significant NCAA rule violations, being convicted of a felony or any crime related to gambling, drugs, or alcohol, and engaging in acts of serious misconduct that show substantial disrespect or “constitute moral turpitude.”
By emphasizing these specific criteria, Kelly’s side contends that none of LSU’s claims meet the contractual standard required to terminate him “for cause.” As a result, his attorneys insist that he remains entitled to the full financial compensation outlined in his deal setting the stage for an intense legal battle over one of college football’s largest coaching buyouts.
According to the lawsuit obtained by ESPN, Kelly’s legal team argues that LSU’s current claim of a “for cause” termination is inconsistent with the university’s earlier statements and actions. The filing asserts that “LSU has never claimed that Coach Kelly was terminated for cause and, prior to November 10, 2025, never asserted that he engaged in any conduct that would warrant such a termination.” Instead, it notes that LSU had “repeatedly confirmed, both publicly and to Coach Kelly,” that his firing was based solely on team performance rather than any form of misconduct.
The lawsuit further emphasizes that LSU’s shifting position appears to be a post hoc effort to avoid fulfilling the financial obligations of Kelly’s contract. Kelly’s attorneys argue that the university’s original reasoning for dismissal poor on-field results clearly falls under a “without cause” termination, which would require full payment of the $54 million buyout.
In addition to disputing the university’s claims, Kelly’s legal team contends that LSU failed to follow the proper procedural steps required under his contract for a “for cause” firing. According to the agreement, the school was obligated to notify Kelly of any “for cause” termination within seven days of his dismissal and provide him an additional seven days to formally respond.
The lawsuit states that LSU failed to meet both deadlines, thereby violating the contractual process and undermining any legal justification for its actions. Kelly’s attorneys argue that this procedural failure alone invalidates LSU’s “for cause” claim, reinforcing their case that the termination was improper and that Kelly remains entitled to his full buyout compensation.
The lawsuit also references failed negotiations between Brian Kelly and LSU regarding a potential buyout settlement before legal action was taken. According to the filing, the two sides engaged in discussions to reach a financial agreement, during which LSU reportedly offered to settle for $25 million and later increased that offer to $30 million. However, Kelly’s representatives declined both proposals, maintaining that he was entitled to the full amount specified in his contract.
These unsuccessful settlement talks underscore the widening divide between the two parties over how the terms of Kelly’s dismissal should be interpreted and compensated. LSU’s willingness to negotiate a partial payout suggests the school was initially pursuing a resolution without invoking “for cause” termination a position that later shifted dramatically once the negotiations fell apart.
Kelly’s dismissal came just one night after LSU suffered a 49–25 loss to Texas A&M, a defeat that dropped the Tigers to 5–3 on the season and effectively ended their hopes of competing for an SEC title. The timing of the firing added to the controversy, as many observers questioned the abrupt nature of the decision and whether it was driven by more than just on-field performance.
Over his four seasons in Baton Rouge, Kelly compiled a 34–14 record, including an SEC West title and multiple bowl appearances. Despite a respectable overall résumé, LSU’s recent struggles and unmet championship expectations appeared to have strained the relationship between Kelly and the athletic department setting the stage for what has now become one of the most closely watched contract disputes in college football.
Leave a Reply