Legal experts weigh in on Kansas State’s attempt to fire Jerome Tang ‘for cause’
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- K-State fired Jerome Tang “for cause,” which could avoid an $18.7M buyout.
- Tang retained prominent attorneys; experts say settlement is likely, litigation possible.
- Contract gives AD 'sole reasonable judgment' to deem behavior 'objectionable.'
A legal battle for $18.7 million appears to be on the horizon for Kansas State and Jerome Tang.
Under normal circumstances, the Wildcats would have owed that hefty buyout sum to Tang after they fired him from his job as men’s basketball coach over the weekend. But these aren’t normal times in Manhattan. K-State chose to dismiss Tang “for cause” instead of “without cause,” which opens the door for the university to avoid paying him an exit fee of any kind.
The reasoning with the “for cause” designation, as explained by K-State athletic director Gene Taylor: The viral comments that Tang made after a 91-62 loss to Cincinnati, in which he said his players didn’t deserve to wear purple uniforms, were hurtful to student-athletes and brought embarrassment to the school.
Is that enough for his termination to hold up in court?
We may soon find out.
Tang, who was fired midway through his fourth season with the Wildcats, has retained a pair of prominent attorneys to challenge the “for cause” designation in his dismissal. He will fight for his $18.7 million buyout.
The looming case has attracted national attention. Sports pundits across the country have been sharing their opinions on the matter via social media. ESPN college basketball commentator Fran Fraschilla has said “Jerome Tang will get every dime.” Former K-State basketball star Markquis Nowell has urged the Wildcats to “pay my guy his money and move on.”
On the surface, it seems like it could be difficult for a school to justify terminating its basketball coach for bold comments made during a postgame news conference. Coaches make bold comments all the time in college sports.
But this situation could be different.
What do legal experts think about this particular case?
Here’s what a pair of experts in sports law had to say about the situation:
The start of a negotiation
Joshua Frieser is a nationally recognized sports lawyer who practices in Milwaukee. He has experience with all sorts of different cases involving college sports, the NFL and the NBA.
His first reaction to Tang’s “for cause” firing was simple. He viewed it as a negotiating tactic that will likely lead to a settlement out of court.
“What Kansas State is trying to do is say, ‘We’re firing you for cause, and you’re going to get nothing,’” Frieser said. “Now they can go to the negotiating table with a little bit more leverage to try and negotiate a much lower buyout than the number would be. I think that is really what’s probably happening here, just so they get a little bit more leverage in terms of how they can approach that conversation. Any reasonable person would think if you’ve got the chance of ending up with nothing, you’re probably willing to take a guaranteed number, even if it’s something less than what you would be owed otherwise.”
David Weber, who works as an associate professor of sports law at Oregon, agreed that a settlement tends to be the most likely end point.
“It’s fairly common for a scenario like this to be resolved with a settlement between the parties at some point in time,” Weber said. “What that settlement is will depend on how the parties feel about their negotiation leverage. And that’s going to depend on how strong they feel about their case.”
But some cases do make it all the way to court.
K-State spent months trying to avoid paying former football coach Ron Prince a $3.2 million buyout 15 years ago. That case lasted long enough for a judge to hear arguments in a Manhattan courtroom. The sides eventually settled on a $1.65 million lump-sum payment.
Kansas attempted to avoid paying former football coach David Beaty his $3 million buyout when he was fired. The two sides settled for $2.55 million, but not before the Jayhawks received unwanted publicity from depositions in the case and spent hundreds of thousands on legal fees.
Interpreting contract language
If the case involving Tang moves forward, which side might be considered the favorite in court?
That would depend on a few factors.
Both Frieser and Weber said broad language is intentionally used in coaching contracts so when it comes time for a university to fire a coach “for cause,” it can find one of many reasons to do so.
In this case, it appears that K-State will argue that Tang violated his contract by acting in a way that brought “public disrepute, embarrassment, ridicule, or scandal” to the university with his comments after the Cincinnati loss.
“His comments about the student-athletes,” Taylor said, “and the negative reaction to those comments from a lot of sources, both nationally and locally, is where I thought we needed to make this decision. ... What he said about the student athletes really concerned me.”
Tang was criticized nationally after he blasted his players.
“These dudes do not deserve to wear this uniform,” Tang said then. “There will be very few of them in it next year. I’m embarrassed for the university. I’m embarrassed for our fans and our student section. It is just ridiculous.”
If that is the basis for K-State’s ouster of Tang, then it may be up to a judge to decide whether the coach really did embarrass the university with his public tirade.
It would be a subjective process.
“One argument that Kansas State could try to make somewhere down the line is that it becomes difficult for you to recruit student-athletes when you have a coach that has made comments similar to what Coach Tang made,” Frieser said. “Is that a valid argument? Good question. But it’s something where they have the ability to say they were embarrassed by that.”
Several other college basketball coaches have made similar statements this season. Colorado coach Tad Boyle said his team didn’t deserve to fly home on a private jet after a recent road loss to Texas Tech.
It likely will help Tang’s cause that K-State basketball player Abdi Bashir is on record as saying, “I thought it was the right message. I don’t think Coach Tang said anything wrong.”
“The fight you’re going to see on that one is whether or not this is typical coach-speak,” Weber said. “Is this something typical for coaches to do when they call athletes out for not maybe performing up to the expectations of the coach?”
Sole reasonable judgment of the AD
What Tang said after a defeat may not necessarily be the best argument that K-State could make in this case.
It’s possible that the Wildcats had other reasons for firing Tang, and they haven’t been revealed publicly. There is also language in Tang’s contract that could be difficult for the coach’s legal team to navigate.
Tang’s contract states that “objectionable behavior” is grounds for termination for cause. And the determination of whether Tang engaged in “objectionable behavior” is “in the sole reasonable judgment of the athletic director.”
“That is a very strong wording for the university,” Weber said, “because it gives the athletic director a lot of discretion to decide what exactly is objectionable behavior.”
Added Frieser: “The question a fact-finder would have to answer— if this ever reaches that stage of litigation — is if the K-State athletic director reasonably determined that the actions of Coach Tang were objectionable, as defined by the contract.”
While it could be difficult for different people to agree on a definition for “embarrassing coach behavior,” there won’t be a debate if Taylor alone is allowed to make that call.
Tang’s legal game plan
It makes sense that Tang will try to recoup as much of his $18.7 million buyout as possible.
He was fired with an overall record of 71-57. He led K-State 26 victories and the Elite Eight in his first year on the job, but the Wildcats have failed to record a 20-win season or return to the NCAA Tournament since. He was dismissed with five years remaining on his contract.
Weber expects Tang will argue that “the university is just trying to avoid paying me.”
Frieser pointed out that Tang will be in the awkward position of arguing that K-State dismissed him for losing too many games instead of saying something inappropriate in a press conference.
It seems likely that time will not be on Tang’s side. K-State will be in no rush to resolve this situation. At some point, Tang could grow tired of spending money on legal fees, perhaps incentivizing him to settle.
If his case gets all the way to court, and then goes through an appeals process, it could be years before anything gets resolved.
“That process is going to take a very long time,” Frieser said. “Coach Tang will have to spend a whole heck of a lot of money on litigation, and he won’t see a penny of that money for probably years.”
There is no guarantee that a case like this will end up in court. But anything feels possible at the moment.
This legal battle is just beginning.
This story was originally published February 19, 2026 at 5:30 AM with the headline "Legal experts weigh in on Kansas State’s attempt to fire Jerome Tang ‘for cause’."