Two attorneys have accused Pitt of a breach of contract between the University and men’s… Two attorneys have accused Pitt of a breach of contract between the University and men’s basketball season ticket holders.

Attorneys John Stember and Stephen Pincus, of Stember Feinstein Krakoff law firm, filed the complaint.

In a 2002-03 basketball season-ticket brochure, Pitt said season-ticket holders would retain their exact seats year to year in the Pete, as long as they maintained or increased their level of support, according to the complaint.

But the new 2005-2006 brochure says differently, the complaint continues. The new brochure states that, as of June 30, seats will be reassigned based on each ticket holder’s Panther Club status, annual giving level and priority point ranking.

According to the law firm, this constitutes a breach of contract.

After multiple requests, Pitt Assistant Athletics Director for Media Relations E.J. Borghetti declined comment in an e-mail.

Pincus said he has tried to persuade Pitt to reconsider its new policy.

“We approached [Senior Associate] Athletic Director [Mike] Pratapas. We asked them to reconsider and not let this new policy apply to the people that have maintained or increased their membership to Team Pittsburgh,” Pincus said.

“They were totally not open to any discussion,” he said.

According to the complaint, the new policy takes away season-ticket holders’ certainty of getting the seats they chose.

“As a result of Pitt’s new policy, Plaintiffs and members of the class who renew their season tickets to Pitt Basketball and maintain or even increase their annual donations to the Panther Club will not or may not receive the seats that they selected in 2002,” the complaint reads.

The Panther Club, the fund-raising organization of Pitt athletics, gives active membership to those who contribute to the Athletic Scholarship Fund.

Plaintiffs Stephen Schultz and Albert R. Nalli — a former Pitt football player — said they have both kept up their agreements with Pitt by maintaining or increasing their annual levels of support given to Pitt athletics. They have held season tickets since 1983 and 1984, respectively.

Schultz has created what he calls a “crusade,” spoofing the Under Armour insulating sportswear slogan of “Protect this house,” a rallying cry frequently played before men’s basketball team games in the Petersen Events Center.

“Will you protect this seat?” Schultz asked, emphasizing each word.

“We’re not in agreement with it. They can raise money without disrupting seating. Positively, they can do it,” he said.

“They’re being pigs about it,” Schultz added.

The complaint invokes what it describes as a guarantee made by Pitt to season-ticket holders.

“While Plaintiffs recognize the need to raise funds to run quality athletic programs and provide scholarships, since Plaintiffs have discharged their obligations under the contract, Pitt must honor its ‘guarantee.’ A deal is a deal,” the complaint states.

Pincus likewise spoke of a promise from the University to ticket holders.

“These are the most loyal [fans], and they financially support the athletics department,” Pincus said. “They are asking, ‘Why are you going back on your word?'”

Stember Feinstein Krakoff represents more than 20 season-ticket holders in the case, but Pincus said the firm estimates that between 500 and 1,000 season-ticket holders would be affected by the new priority point system.