Former Tennessee head football coach Jeremy Pruitt, who was fired by the university in January 2021, has sued the NCAA, accusing the association of conspiring with UT to make him “the sacrificial lamb” for rule violation controversies “that long preceded” his time with the Vols.
Pruitt was accused of multiple recruiting violations linked to the football program and failure to supervise, with allegations of recruits receiving extra benefits in violation of NCAA rules. The Volunteers struggled under Pruitt, whose record was 16-19 from 2018 to 2020.
UT fired Pruitt “for cause,” a designation signifying he was engaged in specific types of wrongdoing outlined in his employment contract, thus relieving the school from having to pay him wages, compensation and other benefits. When he was fired, Pruitt was owed around $12.6 million over the following five years.
The case—which was filed in DeKalb County (Ala.) Circuit Court and claims more than $100 million in lost wages and lost future wages—will face high hurdles. Courts have long recognized the NCAA’s substantial authority—and discretion—to govern the conduct of member schools and to hold them and their staff accountable for violation of NCAA rules. Also, while Pruitt objects to UT using its own attorneys to investigate wrongdoing, the practice of universities conducting internal investigations is well-established and generally lawful.
In 2023, the NCAA D-I Committee on Infractions punished UT football and Pruitt for numerous rule violations. The NCAA found more than 200 infractions, with Pruitt and his wife accused of making cash payments to players and their family members. Those alleged cash payments were to help with car, rental, gas and medical expenses. UT cooperated in the investigation, which mitigated the school’s penalty, but ultimately it was fined more than $8 million and experienced a reduction of 28 scholarships.
Pruitt, 50, was given a six-year show-cause order, which deters a school from hiring a coach by placing a burden on an NCAA member school to obtain the NCAA’s permission in order to hire Pruitt and places heightened scrutiny on the school if it employed Pruitt. Pruitt hasn’t coached in college since his firing, instead serving as a defensive assistant for the New York Giants in 2021 and more recently teaching and coaching in the DeKalb County School System.
As told by the complaint, which is authored by David W. Holt and other attorneys, Pruitt was unfairly railroaded by a process rigged to make him out to be the bad guy.
The complaint argues that the NCAA’s investigatory process “was not a search for the truth in any form” but instead “horribly flawed” and “biased,” pinning the blame on him. Among the alleged defects are reliance on witness statements that are not taken under oath and an absence of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including those whose self-interest may have been to point the finger at Pruitt so they are not blamed.
Along those lines, Pruitt objects to UT “using its own attorneys to investigate its own misconduct” since that created a “clear conflict of interest.” The alleged “conflict” was detectable, Pruitt maintains, in how sources of payments were identified and in how only some types of misconduct were acknowledged. Pruitt also suggests the investigation beginning at the time he took over was a flawed design aimed at portraying misconduct as starting when he started. This allowed staff members from before his time to evade the risk of being identified as responsible parties. Pruitt said less than a week after he was hired in December 2017, he “discovered payments were being made to some players.”
Pruitt also takes aim at the veracity of the evidence presented against him. For instance, he challenged evidence of a $3,000 payment on grounds that it was based on the second interview of a player’s mother; Pruitt says that in the first interview, she denied that Pruitt paid her. Pruitt argues inconsistent testimony should have not been used to build a case against him since the witness was not reliable. Pruitt also asserts that the NCAA relied on accusations from mothers of players who wanted to transfer, suggesting the NCAA would have denied them the chance to relocate unless they provided what investigators wanted to hear.
Further, Pruitt finds it problematic that he was punished for, he claims, “something that is no longer illegal.” He mentions that players can now sign NIL deals, and he references the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021), where the Court found that NCAA member schools in violation of antitrust law over restrictions on compensation for education-related expenses.
The complaint contains claims for negligence, bad faith, conspiracy and related grievances. Pruitt argues the NCAA launched an investigative process that was designed to “wrongfully” place the blame on him. He says he was punished “for allegations for which no reasonable person could find him guilty.”
In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson underscored that the disciplinary process followed detailed and extensive procedures that were known to, and accepted by, all involved.
“NCAA rules are proposed and adopted by member schools and penalties for violations are imposed by a committee of representatives from NCAA member schools and conferences as well as individuals from the public who have legal training,” the spokesperson said. “In this case, the Committee on Infractions found violations and assigned penalties, both of which were affirmed by the Infractions Appeals Committee.”
Attorneys for the NCAA will answer Pruitt’s complaint and seek its dismissal. Expect the NCAA to note that while amateurism rules related to athlete compensation have come under antitrust fire, rules related to enforcement of rules have been regarded more favorably in the legal system. Much of that reflects the membership association status of the NCAA. Courts generally allow member organizations to self-police so long as they are not arbitrary or capricious in how they apply rules.
Last year, in a case (NCAA v. Farrar) involving a former Ole Miss assistant athletic director who challenged the legality of the NCAA’s disciplinary process, the Supreme Court of Mississippi emphasized that the NCAA is a private membership organization of colleges and conferences that develop rules and policies for applying them. Reliance on unsworn testimony and other procedures that wouldn’t be allowed in court proceedings is acceptable in proceedings before a private, membership dispute resolution board. It may sound obvious, but the NCAA is not the government. In NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held the NCAA is not a state actor, meaning it need not adhere to Constitutional safeguards.
The NCAA could also argue that Pruitt was judged based on the rules at the time of the alleged wrongdoing; there have been rule changes in recent years that allow for NIL and will, if the House settlement is approved, permit direct pay by colleges. Like other college football coaches, Pruitt had a duty to follow those former rules.
It’s also not clear that what Pruitt is accused of doing would be allowed under current or future NCAA rules. A coach who (allegedly) paid a player with cash to help him or his mother with personal expenses would not be considered an NIL payment. NIL reflects use of an athlete’s identity for commercial purposes; a cash infusion to help with bills is more in line with a gift or pay-for-play, neither of which is permitted under NCAA rules. That type of payment would also not be allowed under the House settlement, which contemplates payment for a share of media, ticket and sponsorship revenue.
