This will probably be the last post on Marist vs. Brady, James Madision, Commonwealth of Virginia until we hear any more news about the case. For that, we bring in SI.com Legal Expert Michael McCann whose most recent article discusses the gamble Plaxico Burress is doing by testifying for a grand jury. He is one of the top experts in Sports and the Law, writes on the Sports Law Blog (one of the top law blogs on the web) and is a professor at Vermont Law School and a distinguished Hall of Fame Professor of Law at the Mississippi College of Law.

So we summoned his expertise to answer questions for us about this Marist vs. Brady, etc. issue. We thank the distinguished Professor for taking time out of his day to answer these questions for us at Siena Saints Blog.

Siena Saints Blog: Let’s get your take on the issues at hand in this lawsuit. Can Marist legally bind students to not follow the coach between a contract with Coach (Matt) Brady and Marist?

Michael McCann: In terms of your last question, Marist cannot legally prevent students from following a coach to another school, nor can they require them (or any Marist student, for that matter) to remain enrolled at Marist for any reason. The players, as student-athletes, can attend whichever college has provided them an opportunity to matriculate.

SSB: So what claims can Marist bring against Brady?

Prof. McCann: At this point, the only legal claim Marist would have is the potential breach of contract claim against Matt Brady over the clause which allegedly prevented him from recruiting players. If litigated, the claim would be examined under New York contract law. Depending on how the clause is worded, however, it may be very difficult to enforce. For instance, how does the contract define “recruiting” — does that mean
any communication or does that mean certain kinds of communication? Does it mean a formal offer to play at another school? Does it mean putting a potential recruit in touch with an admissions office? If the
phrase is too vague, a court would be unlikely to enforce it, particularly if the court is unable to find any other case on-point (and I’m unaware of such a coaching clause being litigated before).

A court might also void the clause on grounds of public policy, particularly since it would seem to interfere with educational opportunities for student-athletes who, because of the clause, might not be recruited by Brady’s new employer, JMU.