Inside Texas A&M’s $78M Buyout of Axed Head Coach Jimbo Fisher
Published by: AK98
“Everything is bigger in Texas!” they say.
It appears that they only reaffirmed that motto with the recent contract buyout of one of their red-headed stepchildren, Texas A&M HC Jimbo Fisher. Although Jimbo was fired a few weeks back, the rumblings of his buyout are still stirring up emotions in fans & human beings alike.
According to the terms of the contract, Texas A&M will owe Fisher $19.2 million within 60 days and then pay him $7.2 annually through 2031. There is no offset or mitigation on those payments, and the annual payments start 120 days after termination.
There appears to be a threshold for the extent of investment in sports, even for the average Texan. Many have questioned whether a prominent Texas university should pay almost $78 million to a football coach for not coaching.
Now look, I’m all for people spending their money as they wish; you earned it, spend it how you’d like. But it seems crazy to me that A&M’s wealthiest donors could come together to raise that kind of money while others inside Texas suffer so greatly (don’t even get me started on that political hustler Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston). Wealthy donors, prioritizing their impatience over the decisions of A&M’s athletic officials, shines a glaring light on the priorities of the wealthy.
I also recognize what a money-maker football in Texas is (it’s damn near an economy itself), but to think these fatcats love football so much that they would willingly pay $78 million for someone not to work is effing absurd. I’m sure these “businessmen” make more money when A&M is good, so maybe somebody should investigate exactly what ties/benefits they receive from the university, other than “distinguished alumni.”
Still, some are indifferent, arguing that the funds don’t come out of the university coffers or public resources. They even believe the final payout will be reduced. However, A&M’s decision to pay a coach not to work sets a new precedent in college football’s competitive landscape. To think, someone could be that financially compensated for doing such a shit job (according to the standards or “goals” laid out in his contract) would be the equivalent of gifting a salesman a massive bonus (worth 8 years of his salary) for egregiously missing his quota each week, month, and year.
These justifications are insufficient. The payout is excessive, demonstrates poor judgment, and is not reflective of the values of such a significant state institution.
Do I think the state Legislature needs to get involved, who oversees state universities? No. Maybe? They should at least inquire into this matter to make a list of the players involved in this high-stakes coaching carousel, because if they can raise this kind of money for something as insignificant as sports, what other practices are they following.
Legally, all parties should be protected, specifically Jimbo. And I am not calling anybody a criminal. Do I have my assumptions? Certainly. These seem like ill practices, and where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But it’s not Jimbo’s fault he got such an ironclad contract protecting his assets. Rather, it’s the opposite.
Why those dummies decided to pay Jimbo that much guaranteed money is beyond me. It’s actually kind of impressive Jimbo is able to rake in this kind of pot on his day’s off. Is it gross? Sure, it is. But it’s not illegal. Still, there are many questions regarding this buyout.
Despite private funding covering these expenses, this approach raises concerns. The funds allocated to Fisher could have supported other athletic needs or, surprisingly, academic pursuits. Think how many students could be helped with $78M to share. This situation highlights the influence of major donors in university decisions. Not surprisingly, their politics often lead to recurring issues when newly appointed ‘savior’ coaches fail to meet expectations.
Recently, A&M and its supporters awarded Fisher a 10-year, $95 million contract extension. Key decision-makers, including Chancellor John Sharp and athletics officials, should reassess their decision-making, considering whether a lower buyout clause or other safeguards should have been implemented. By my oversight, this buyout indicates flawed judgment. Simply throwing money at the problem is rarely the solution.
On a positive note, changes in the sport now allow players recruited by Fisher to transfer schools more easily and benefit financially through name, image, and likeness deals.
While college football is financially lucrative, cases like Fisher’s buyout cast a negative light on the sport, raising questions about its relevance to higher education and research at essential state institutions.
The situation also influences high school sports in Texas, particularly in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, known for its lavish spending on sports facilities. For example, Arlington ISD’s $34 million investment in a multi-sport facility, while not extravagant, is significant for a district with stable enrollment and existing stadiums.
Local school districts could benefit from coordinated efforts and sharing or renting stadiums, although this might mean shifting some games away from traditional Friday nights. Scratch that last one. That would be sacrilegious to the Texas congregation.
Still, there are signs of change. In Prosper, Collin County, voters recently rejected a bond for a new $94 million stadium. Instead, they approved other educational and technological investments. This suggests that voters are willing to exercise prudent judgment in areas where their leaders may not.
Who gets rich off those “educational and technological investments” is a story for another time.
