Amateur Sports Law Outline – Spring 2004
I. Legal Relationships in Sports
; NCAA Structure
o Within the NCAA, there are separate divisions for members
; Three Divisions: Division I, Division II, and Division III o Division I is composed of the major athletic powers in the country, as well
as many other institutions that choose to compete at the major college
level
; Division I is divided into Division I-A and Division I-AA for
purposes of regulating football
o The members govern the organization through the establishment of rules
designed to further its purposes and goals
o The operating structure is that of three federations:
; Day to day operation of the organization is overseen by the 20
member Executive Committee
; Composed of institutional CEOs charged with ensuring that
each division operates with the purpose, policies and
principles of the association
; NCAA also has a permanent professional staff, with individual
departments for administration, business, championships,
communications, communications, compliance service programs,
legislative services and publishing
; Jurisdiction and Responsibilities of the NCAA
o Duties include athlete eligibility, recruiting, championships, rules of
competition, and enforcement
o The professional staff administers the rules and regulations of the
association
o Membership Services oversees the bulk of the administration o The enforcement department handles the investigation and prosecution of
violation of the rules
o Two concepts of the NCAA:
; (1) Those relating to amateurism
; All NCAA student athletes are to be amateurs and the
association’s regulations set out explicit definitions of
amateurism and specific prohibitions on the acceptance of
extra benefits
; Getting ―paid‖ involves more than just the obvious salary
or stipend
o It is a violation of the rules for benefits to be
provided to parents or close relatives of student
athletes
; Amateur status is forfeited when an athlete retains an agent
or declares himself eligible for a professional sports draft
(Note: NBA Draft)
1
; There are also restrictions on promotional activities that
benefit athletes because of their athletic abilities
; There are restrictions on employment for athletes on full
scholarship
; (2) The importance of education
; The associations establishes standards for initial eligibility
of athletes entering the institutions, including specific
thresholds for standardized tests and satisfactory
completion of a minimum number of core courses in high
school
; NCAA also sets forth specific requirements for
―satisfactory progress towards a degree‖ that athletes must
maintain
o Student athletes typically have four years of
eligibility, and must complete them in five years o NCAA Rules limit recruiting
; Number of visits by coaches, the number of visits to campuses by
athletes, number and types of contacts made by coaches, the times
of year that contacts may be made
; Restrict the participation of alumni in recruiting o NCAA restrictions once athlete enrolled at institution
; Number of hours for practice, times of year for competition,
number of contests
; NCAA bylaws require that each members control its program in a manner
consistent with the rules and regulations of the association (The CEO of the
institution has this ultimate responsibility)
o The most serious violation the university can commit is ―failure to
maintain institutional control‖
; Athletes Rights
o Rights Arising from the Athletic Scholarship
; NCAA regulates the number of scholarships available and the
terms of the scholarship
; Taylor v. Wake Forest University
; Facts: Taylor went to play football at Wake. He received
terrible grades, and told his coach he would miss practice
so he could study. His scholarship was terminated. Taylor
sued for recovery of education expenses after his
scholarship was terminated.
; Rules/App:
o Taylor knew his scholarship was awarded for
academic and athletic achievement
o In consideration of this scholarship, Taylor agreed
to maintain his athletic eligibility, and this meant
both physically and scholastically
2
o As long as his grades equaled or exceeded the
requirements, he was maintaining his scholastic
eligibility
o Participation in and attendance at practice were
required to maintain his physical eligibility
o When Taylor refused to practice in the absence of
any injury or excuse other than to devote more time
to studies, he was not complying with his
contractual obligations
; Held: For Wake Forest
; Ross v. Creighton University
; Facts: Ross, a poor high school student took a basketball scholarship to Creighton. The school promised he would receive a ―meaningful education.‖ Ross had a D average at the school, while taking many meaningless courses. He alleges the Athletic department advised him to take these courses, and his work was done for him. Ross asserts that the school failed to provide him with sufficient and competent tutoring, as it had promised. When he graduated he had skills equivalent to a child. He is suing the school for negligence and breach of contract in failing to educate him.
; Ross’ Theories:
o (1) Educational Malpractice
; Courts defer to the schools’ decisions
regarding academic qualifications of the
students
; The court bars any attempt to repackage an
educational malpractice claim as a contract
claim
o (2) Creighton negligently inflicted emotional
distress on him for employment after college
o (3) Negligent Admission
; Rejected by court because there are no
adequate standards against which to measure
such a claim
o (4) Breach of Contract in failing to educate him
; The basic relation between a student and a
university is contractual in nature
; To assert this claim, he must point to an
identifiable contractual promise that the
school failed to honor
; The appeals court disagreed with the trial court, and held the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to warrant further proceedings
3
o The court recognized that courts should not take on
the job of supervising the relationships between
colleges and student athletes
o Further, the court noted that a formal university
contract is rarely employed, and the terms of the
agreement are usually implied from university
publications, custom and usage
o But the court believed Ross’ specific and narrow
claims that he was barred from any participation in
and benefit from the University’s academic program
could be decided by the district court without
second-guessing the professional judgment of the
school
; Jackson v. Drake University
; Facts: Drake hired Tom Abatemarco as their head basketball coach, without being aware of an SI article alleging his reputation as a recruiter. Abatemarco recruited Jackson, and emphasized he would receive an education, including a tutor provided to Jackson. The coach scheduled practices during Jackson’s study time and tutoring successions. The coach made Jackson go to practice, with threats his scholarship would be taken away. The coach offered people to do Jackson’s work and for him to take easy classes, which he declined. During practices the coach singled out Jackson, and Jackson quit the team. His scholarship was then taken away
; Breach of Contract
o The court concluded that the financial agreement do
not implicitly contain a right to ―play‖ basketball
; Negligence (Educational Malpractice)
o Reasons for not recognizing this claim (from Moore
case):
; 1. A lack of a satisfactory standard of care
by which to measure the defendant’s
conduct
; 2. To recognize this claim would result in
enormous litigation
; 3. To recognize this claim would force the
courts blatantly to interfere with the internal
working of a school
; 4. It has been recognized that academic
freedom thrives on the autonomous
decision-making of the academy itself
o Jackson’s claim asks the court to pass judgment on
the manner in which Drake runs its basketball
4
program, which does have an academic
compartment.
o The court does not recognize this Jackson’s
negligence claim
; Notes:
; NCAA defines an amateur student athlete as one who
engages in a particular sport for the education, physical,
mental and social benefits derived therefrom and to whom
participation in that sport is an avocation.
o Workers’ Compensation
; Injured employees give up their rights to pursue common law tort
claims in exchange for a more certain, recovery under the workers’
compensation act
; A WC claim makes the employer strictly liable for an injury to an
employee that occurs in the course of employment ; An employee is defined as a person in the service of another under
a contract of hire, written or implied
; Test: Whether particular worker is an employee or an independent
contractor
; Two Categories:
o 1. Nature of the work test – Court focuses on
whether the worker’s efforts are inextricably linked
to a significant aspect of the employer’s business
o 2. Right to control test – The focus is upon the
employer’s ability to manipulate the efforts of the
worker
; Whether personal injury arose out of or was in the court of
employment
o Courts look for a causal connection between the
injury and the employment
o The test is met if it is the employment which brings
the worker into the orbit of the risk that in fact
resulted in injury
; Recovery: Medical expenses and lost earnings
; Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance Association
; Facts: Waldrep played football for TCU where he severed
an injury that paralyzed him. He filed a WC claim for his
injury.
; Discussion:
o Is a student athlete on scholarship and employee of
the school?
; The letter of intent and financial aid
agreements are contracts, but they only
partially set forth the relationship between
the student and the school
5
; One may receive a benefit from another in
return for services and not be an employee
; An employee is a person in the service of
another under a contract of hire, express or
implied, oral or written, whereby the
employer has the right to direct the means or
details of the work and not merely the result
to be accomplished
o Was there a contract for hire?
; The NCAA does not consider the acceptance
of financial aid from the school to be ―taking
pay‖
; Waldrep was not on the payroll, he was
intended to participate at TCU as a student,
not an employee
; He could not be fired as an employee o Right to Direct the means of Waldrep’s work
; To determine whether there is a right to
control the court looks to the terms of the
employment contract
; Where there is no express contract, the
exercise of control may be the best evidence
available to show the actual terms of the
contract
; TCU did not have the right to direct or
control all of Waldrep’s activities during his
tenure at the school
o Held: Waldrep was not an employee of TCU, and
cannot get WC
; Note: Schools are typically insured for claims against the
university, which covers players who are injured during play
o Coaching and Institutional Contracts
; Coaching Contracts
; Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Association
o Facts: Rogers was head football coach at Georgia
Tech. His contract provided him with certain
prerequisites, which are incidental profits attaching
to the position beyond a salary. Rogers was
relieved of his head coaching position, but remained
an employee of the school. He sues to recover these
prerequisites.
o Issue: Whether Rogers is entitled to recover the
value of certain prerequisites or fringe benefits of
his position as head football coach under the terms
of his contract.
o Discussion:
6
; First, look to the intention of the parties as to
the scope of the prerequisites to which
Rogers was entitled under the contract.
; Court held the parties’ intentions
were that Rogers would receive the
perquisites as head football coach,
not merely as an employee.
; Rogers was not entitled after his removal to
the services of a secretary, administrative
assistant, and the cost of trips for football
ventures – these were specifically granted to
him as the head coach
; As a rule, a party is entitled to recover
profits that would have resulted from a
beach of contract into which he has entered,
where the breach is the result of the other
parties’ fault
; Monson v. Oregon
o Facts: Monson was the head basketball coach at Idaho. He earned additional income as coach from outside activities from sponsors and radio and television shows. The school wanted to remove Monson and told him he could remain as golf coach, which Monson declined. Monson sued for breach of contract.
o Discussion:
; The court held that with respect to
nontenured faculty members (as Monson),
the school has the authority to reassign
individuals based on its assessments of its
overall staffing needs.
; The school may determine that a
staff member is no longer the most
effective and someone would be
better served in that position.
; Monson failed to identify any evidence that
his reassignment from his head basketball
coach position was not in accordance with
the applicable administrative rules.
; Campanelli v. Bockrath
o Campanelli was fired as basketball coach at Cal. A newspaper reported the reason for his termination was the use of profane and abusive language to his players in a postgame speech which was released by school administrators. Campanelli sued, alleging a due process violation whereby a state may not
7
deprive a person of his liberty interest ―to engage in
any of the common occupations of life‖ without due
process of law.
o Discussion:
; Campanelli must first prove the statements
rose to the level of stigmatizing him
; There was a question of fact on this
point
; Campanelli must also allege defendants
made their statements in the course of his
termination
; May be met when defamatory
statements are so closely related to
the discharge from employment that
the discharge itself may be
stigmatizing in the eyes of the public
; There must be a temporal nexus
between the employer’s statements
and the termination
o This was satisfied by
Campanelli
; Campanelli must also allege that the
defendants’ statements were false
; The issue of whether his statements
arose to the level of abuse and
psychological damage to his players
is a question of fact that should not
be determined during the pleadings
stage, but on the basis of evidence
; NOTE: Rick Neuheisal contract talked about in class
II. Amateur Sports Associations
- From Nutshell
o Amateur sports can be divided into 2 basic forms:
; Restricted competition – includes high school and college. It means
competition is restricted to essentially the same groups at different levels.
Competition is controlled and organized by athletic conferences or
associations or leagues, which establish rules and organize schedules. ; Unrestricted competition – open to all athletes. EX: Olympic
competition – allows competition among all types of people and groups
and is not restricted by age or college or other restrictive criterion
o Definition of an amateur athlete may change from one organization to another
o Voluntary associations may adopt reasonable laws, rules and regulations which will be valid and binding on their members unless their rules violate law or public policy
THRESHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
8
- If state action is not involved, the law says the private association can make it’s own
rules as long as they are not arbitrary or unreasonable
- A person who alleges a denial of constitutionally protected rights must at the outset
demonstrate that it is indeed the action of the government that is being challenged
o The merits of the claim will Not be reached unless it can be shown that,
somehow, the government has acted
o These are easily shown where an individual challenges the constitutionality of
a state statute
- Purely private disputes ordinarily do not raise constitutional issues no matter how
egregious the private act
- The difficulty arises in cases where state action is not apparent but where the state is
nonetheless somehow involved
- Although many amateur athletic organizations are private in the sense that they are
not formal creatures of the state,
o they arguable perform state like functions and the state itself is inevitably
somehow involved with their operations (directly or indirectly)
; by providing money, services, facilities, permission or encouragement - if the putatively private actor is really performing a public function, then perhaps it
ought to be treated as though it were the state
o or if the level of state involvement is significant, then perhaps the action of
the organization ought to be treated as state action
DeFrantz v. United States Olympic Committee:
- Facts:
o Dealing with the 1980 boycott of the Olympics
o Moving for an injunction against the Olympic Committee in doing resolution
; That they were not going to send a U.S. team to the summer Olympics
in Moscow
o Denied 25 people the right to compete in the Olympics
; B/c that was when Russia invaded Afghanistan
o The Committee:
; Are the sole authorities responsible for the representation of the
respective countries at the Olympic Games
o Plaintiff claims:
; Alleges that defendant’s action constituted ―governmental action‖ which
abridged plaintiff’s rights of liberty, self expression, etc..
- Holding:
o Under International Olympic Committee rules and the Amateur Sports Act of
1978, the Committee not only had authority to decide not to send an
American team to the summer Olympics but also could do so for a reason not
directly related to sports considerations
o Amateur Sports Act of 1978 did not confer an enforceable right on amateur
athletes to compete in Olympic competition, where the United States Olympic
Committee House of Delegates had decided not to accept an invitation to
enter an American team in the competition
9
; Even if amateur athletes had a right to compete in Olympic games under
Amateur Sports Act of 1978, despite United States Olympic Committee's
determination not to enter a team, they did not have an implied private
cause of action to enforce such right.
o Since this is a private industry
; They must show that this was a regulated state or government action o Must show that the government had some control of the decision making of
the private industry
o This was no such control here:
; b/c they could not establish a nexis b/w the two
; the committee is an independent body, and nothing in its chartering
statute gives the federal government the right to control that body or its
officers
; and the facts here do not indicate that the federal governments was able
to exercise any type of control over the Committee
o The federal government may have had the power to prevent the athletes from
participating in the Olympics even if the USOC had voted to allow them to
participate,
; But it did not have the power to make them vote in a certain way
; All it had was the power of persuasion
o They accordingly found that the decision of the Committee not to send an
American team to the summer Olympics was not a state action,
; and therefore, does not give rise to an actionable claim for the
infringements of the constitutional rights alleged
NCAA v. Tarkanian –
- Facts:
o NCAA put UNLV under investigation for violating recruiting rules. o U After a lengthy investigation of allegedly improper recruiting practices by
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), a state university, the
Committee found 38 violations, including 10 by respondent Tarkanian,
UNLV's basketball coach.
; The Committee imposed a number of sanctions upon UNLV, and
requested it to show cause why additional penalties should not be
imposed if it failed to suspend Tarkanian from its athletic program
during a probation period.
o UNLV had 3 choices put before them: (1) Reject the sanctions and keep Tark,
and run the risk of heavier sanctions; (2) Recognize the NCAA’s authority
and reassign Tark; or (3) Pull out of the NCAA.
; They chose (2).
o He sued NCAA and school, and got an injunction against school. o In suit against NCAA, he claims that NCAA is a state actor and deprived him
of due process.
o Won at trial ct., but Ct. of App. reversed (NCAA is private org., has no govt.
powers, and UNLV made the ultimate decision).
o Tark claims UNLV had no choice.
10