It is nearly essential in the current day and age for NCAA institutions to have full-time compliance officers on staff, especially at the NCAA Division I and II levels where athletic scholarships are allowed. Compliance has become such an important issue that many of the larger NCAA Division I schools have hired lawyers to serve as compliance directors to help intercollegiate athletic programs stay within the rules and regulations of the NCAA.
In the article, Compliance Officers’ Guide to Navigating NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Cases Involving Amateurism Violations, authors David Pierce, Anastasios Kaburakis and Lawrence Felding explore a three-year period (2004-06) by studying every student-athlete reinstatement case submitted to the NCAA to search for trends, leniencies and damning circumstances for athletes who have forfeited their amateur statuses.
This article is an excellent resource for compliance officers, athletic directors, coaches and athletes alike to be informed on how to respond when these types of violations occur. The NCAA has a student-athlete reinstatement (SAR) staff and determined that the staff reviewed 430 cases in the three-year period. During that time 42.3 percent of the student-athletes were re-instated, 51.9 percent of the students were re-instated with conditions (meaning accompanied with fines and contest suspensions) and only 5.8 percent of the students were declared ineligible.
The study showed six different bylaws that all 430 cases fell under including receipt of payment, professional teams, agents, employment, promotional activities and financial donations. The two most common bylaws violated were promotional activities (180) and receipt of payment (143).
From there, the article describes each of the six bylaws that were violated and gives specific examples of each violation. Then the authors explain how mitigating factors helped ruled in decisions for reinstatement, determined the penalties and sometimes reduced those penalties on appeal.
The section on mitigating factors is especially helpful because it spells out every mitigating factor in the 43 cases where they were considered to reduced penalties. Mitigating factors included actions of the athlete, athlete knowledge, unique personal circumstances, actions of the institution, nature of the benefit received, related NCAA legislation, and confusion within sporting community. Once again the article goes on to spell out several of the individual cases and explains why penalties were reduced or upheld.
Before concluding, the article explores the cases where student athletes were permanently ruled ineligible. Out of the 23 cases resulting in permanent ineligibility they “typically stemmed from violations involving agents, signing a professional contract, competing with or against professionals, or a combination thereof.” (p. 102)
Once again, the concluding remarks are incredibly helpful to anyone involved with compliance. The article gives recommendations for compliance personnel and athletes to act upon when put in these situations. These suggestions are perfect for compliance coordinators who need to educate athletic directors, coaching staffs, boosters and athletes. The directions for compliance personnel include: documentation, due diligence, legislative services database for the Internet (LSDBi) research, education programs and trust the student-athlete first philosophy. For the athletes guidelines include: seek advice, act immediately and pursue retaining amateur status.
This article is highly recommended for athletics administrative staffs who want to be in compliance with the NCAA, and for those who know that infractions (both intentional and unintentional) will occur and want to know how to act in order to receive more favorable sanctions from the NCAA.
-- by Kyle Robarts
--------------
Pierce, D., Kaburakis, A., & Fielding, L. (2008). Compliance Officers' Guide to Navigating NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Cases Involving Amateurism Violations. Journal of Issues In Intercollegiate Athletics, 1(1), 87-106.
Link to full article
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Title IX Concerns from the mid 1990's
Although the presentation was made 15 years ago in 1994, Sharlene A. Peter’s transcribed article, Emerging Issues and Opportunities, explored obstacles for females in intercollegiate athletics that are still applicable today. Peter wanted to address what the impact of Title IX on collegiate sports would hold for the near future. In the piece, Peter looks towards the year 2000 as the year she thought the effects of Title IX would be in full force.
Her purpose was to educate athletics administrators on the upcoming concerns and emerging issues as a result of Title IX. These included, the dilemma of cost, equal pay, gender coaching, peer harassment, rising participation, advancement of minority women, women in the media, women in athletic administration, women official, and women athletic trainers.
In 2009, many of the issues listed above have progressed tremendously, but many institutions still struggle with gender equity in all facets of intercollegiate athletics. Whether it be number of sports, number of participants, number of scholarships, proportionate funding or equal salaries, higher education institutions still struggle with equality in men’s and women’s sports.
In an effort to comply with Title IX many institutions have made moves by adding female team sports, however, some institutions have chosen to cut men’s sports to level out the participation of men and women rather than pay to add more female sports. This leads us to one of the most intriguing portions of the article where Peter discusses the victims of male cut sports claiming reverse discrimination.
This so-called discrimination is particularly a perceived reality to non-revenue generating sports such as wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. However, institutions were protected, even in the courts by student-athletes or coaches filing these claims. Eight male members of the University of Illinois’ s swim team filed suit when the men’s swim program was cut, however, the court ruled in favor of the university saying “the cuts in Illinois sports program were intended to protect the University’s female athletes, not discriminate against men.” (p. 5)
From there the article tackles equal pay where several instances occur where a female coach is not paid as much as her male counterpart. In court cases where disputes like this occurred, courts made statements to universities to institute policies that justify such a discrepancy. “Athletic administrators should pay special attention to wording used in job descriptions of various sport coaches. If the job descriptions are the same, the institution should pay the coaches comparably, or have a seniority, merit or other system in place to show that discrepancy in salary is not based on gender.” (p. 7)
Another interesting finding by Peter’s study was the increase in opportunities for women in coaching, and in some cases administration. While the numbers were up across the board on opportunities to coach and coaching jobs for women, when many higher education institutions elected to combine the men’s and women’s athletic departments as a result of the implementation of Title IX, the number of female administrators and coaches were not as high.
Among other concerns listed from findings by the Women’s Sports Foundation included: non-proportional funding and attention for female sports in the realms of media coverage, operating budgets and scholarships to name a few. (p. 10) Other voiced concerns included the lack of female minorities in coaching and administrative positions, lack of numbers and proper respect among females in the sports media, lack of women officials and athletic trainers.
The end of the article tackles other issues that the author admits are not related to gender equity or Title IX. The article would have been best suited to stick to the gender equity and Title IX subjects, instead the issues of lawsuits, regulation on player agents, physically disabled issues, and medical issues seem to be out of place and not given proper time.
This article should be read by those who want to compare the issues of gender equity as it stood in the mid 1990’s or as a comparison to see how many of the concerns in the article are still prevalent in the present day.
-- by Kyle Robarts
--------------
Peter, S. A. (Director) (1994, November 17). Emerging Issues and Opportunities Prospective Analysis. the 40th NOLPE Annual Convention, Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.), Hyatt Islandia, San Diego, CA.
Link to article via ERIC
Her purpose was to educate athletics administrators on the upcoming concerns and emerging issues as a result of Title IX. These included, the dilemma of cost, equal pay, gender coaching, peer harassment, rising participation, advancement of minority women, women in the media, women in athletic administration, women official, and women athletic trainers.
In 2009, many of the issues listed above have progressed tremendously, but many institutions still struggle with gender equity in all facets of intercollegiate athletics. Whether it be number of sports, number of participants, number of scholarships, proportionate funding or equal salaries, higher education institutions still struggle with equality in men’s and women’s sports.
In an effort to comply with Title IX many institutions have made moves by adding female team sports, however, some institutions have chosen to cut men’s sports to level out the participation of men and women rather than pay to add more female sports. This leads us to one of the most intriguing portions of the article where Peter discusses the victims of male cut sports claiming reverse discrimination.
This so-called discrimination is particularly a perceived reality to non-revenue generating sports such as wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. However, institutions were protected, even in the courts by student-athletes or coaches filing these claims. Eight male members of the University of Illinois’ s swim team filed suit when the men’s swim program was cut, however, the court ruled in favor of the university saying “the cuts in Illinois sports program were intended to protect the University’s female athletes, not discriminate against men.” (p. 5)
From there the article tackles equal pay where several instances occur where a female coach is not paid as much as her male counterpart. In court cases where disputes like this occurred, courts made statements to universities to institute policies that justify such a discrepancy. “Athletic administrators should pay special attention to wording used in job descriptions of various sport coaches. If the job descriptions are the same, the institution should pay the coaches comparably, or have a seniority, merit or other system in place to show that discrepancy in salary is not based on gender.” (p. 7)
Another interesting finding by Peter’s study was the increase in opportunities for women in coaching, and in some cases administration. While the numbers were up across the board on opportunities to coach and coaching jobs for women, when many higher education institutions elected to combine the men’s and women’s athletic departments as a result of the implementation of Title IX, the number of female administrators and coaches were not as high.
Among other concerns listed from findings by the Women’s Sports Foundation included: non-proportional funding and attention for female sports in the realms of media coverage, operating budgets and scholarships to name a few. (p. 10) Other voiced concerns included the lack of female minorities in coaching and administrative positions, lack of numbers and proper respect among females in the sports media, lack of women officials and athletic trainers.
The end of the article tackles other issues that the author admits are not related to gender equity or Title IX. The article would have been best suited to stick to the gender equity and Title IX subjects, instead the issues of lawsuits, regulation on player agents, physically disabled issues, and medical issues seem to be out of place and not given proper time.
This article should be read by those who want to compare the issues of gender equity as it stood in the mid 1990’s or as a comparison to see how many of the concerns in the article are still prevalent in the present day.
-- by Kyle Robarts
--------------
Peter, S. A. (Director) (1994, November 17). Emerging Issues and Opportunities Prospective Analysis. the 40th NOLPE Annual Convention, Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.), Hyatt Islandia, San Diego, CA.
Link to article via ERIC
An outisder's perspective on Title IX and collegiate athletics
In the article Canadian Athletic Directors’ Perceptions of the Potential for U.S. Title IX Gender Equity Policy, the authors explored through a survey of the athletic directors of the Canadian Interuniversity Sport the implications of adopting a similar policy as the United States’ Title IX for gender equity. The CIS is Canada’s governing board for its intercollegiate athletics program and 50 institutions are members.
Much like the U.S., Canada is struggling with gender equity in collegiate athletics. The difference is, as stated in the article, the Title IX portion of the Education Amendments implemented into U.S. legislation in 1972 has been in effect for decades while Canadians have not implemented an official policy on gender equity.
The article explores the history and background of Title IX in the U.S. and explores the effects of a similar policy on the CIS. A referenced study in the article by S.W. Gray in 2004 searched the changes from 2001 to 2003 in U.S. NCAA Division I schools through a survey of Senior Woman’s Administrators. The survey reflected that the change or perceived need for change was dependant upon the respective athletic director’s views and ambitions for gender equity.
As a result of this finding, the authors of this article and study, Dean M Beaubier, Shannon A. Gadbois and Sheldon L. Stick, lobbied the 50 athletic directors of the CIS. The survey had 37 participants out of 50, and the team pieced together a 26-question survey to answer three research questions. Would the A.D.’s from CIS would welcome a similar regulations implicated in the U.S.’ Title IX? Would Canadian A.D.’s think they would experience the same difficulties that U.S. athletic departments had with Title IX? And, would A.D.’s with extensive experience in their jobs be open to such changes for gender equity?
There were many variables to the findings of the survey, however in the end it appeared that the athletic directors from the CIS were in favor of moving towards gender equity, however, many felt that the implications of Title IX from the U.S. would present difficulties in Canada that don’t exist in the U.S. The article also said that because of the perceived discrepancies among the Canadian A.D.’s that a lethargic implementation of a Title IX-like policy “would become further complicated if flawed gender equity strategies were implemented.”
Due to the findings and the apparent reluctance of the CIS athletic directors, particularly those with extensive experience in the field, the authors suggest that further research and qualitative interviews with A.D.’s should be conducted in order that a proper gender equity policy is set for Canada.
Without knowing the culture of Canada it would be hard to evaluate the athletic administrators' reluctance to Title IX. However, this study is a step in the right direction to determine the best policy for their country. Even though the Title IX policy has been in affect for 37 years in the United States, institutions in the country still struggle with gender equity on a regular basis.
Maybe with further study on this matter, our Canadian counterparts may achieve a policy that we all could learn from. Those interested in gender equity should read this article and U.S. collegiate athletic administrators should read this article to get a sense of what outsiders think are the strengths and weaknesses of Title IX policies as they pertain to intercollegiate athletics.
-- Kyle Robarts
--------
Beaubier, D. M., Gadbois, S. A., & Stick, S. L. (2008). Canadian Athletic Directors' Perceptions of the Potential for U.S. Title IX Gender Equity Policy. Journal of Issues In Intercollegiate Athletics, 2(1), 46-73.
Link to full-text article
Much like the U.S., Canada is struggling with gender equity in collegiate athletics. The difference is, as stated in the article, the Title IX portion of the Education Amendments implemented into U.S. legislation in 1972 has been in effect for decades while Canadians have not implemented an official policy on gender equity.
The article explores the history and background of Title IX in the U.S. and explores the effects of a similar policy on the CIS. A referenced study in the article by S.W. Gray in 2004 searched the changes from 2001 to 2003 in U.S. NCAA Division I schools through a survey of Senior Woman’s Administrators. The survey reflected that the change or perceived need for change was dependant upon the respective athletic director’s views and ambitions for gender equity.
As a result of this finding, the authors of this article and study, Dean M Beaubier, Shannon A. Gadbois and Sheldon L. Stick, lobbied the 50 athletic directors of the CIS. The survey had 37 participants out of 50, and the team pieced together a 26-question survey to answer three research questions. Would the A.D.’s from CIS would welcome a similar regulations implicated in the U.S.’ Title IX? Would Canadian A.D.’s think they would experience the same difficulties that U.S. athletic departments had with Title IX? And, would A.D.’s with extensive experience in their jobs be open to such changes for gender equity?
There were many variables to the findings of the survey, however in the end it appeared that the athletic directors from the CIS were in favor of moving towards gender equity, however, many felt that the implications of Title IX from the U.S. would present difficulties in Canada that don’t exist in the U.S. The article also said that because of the perceived discrepancies among the Canadian A.D.’s that a lethargic implementation of a Title IX-like policy “would become further complicated if flawed gender equity strategies were implemented.”
Due to the findings and the apparent reluctance of the CIS athletic directors, particularly those with extensive experience in the field, the authors suggest that further research and qualitative interviews with A.D.’s should be conducted in order that a proper gender equity policy is set for Canada.
Without knowing the culture of Canada it would be hard to evaluate the athletic administrators' reluctance to Title IX. However, this study is a step in the right direction to determine the best policy for their country. Even though the Title IX policy has been in affect for 37 years in the United States, institutions in the country still struggle with gender equity on a regular basis.
Maybe with further study on this matter, our Canadian counterparts may achieve a policy that we all could learn from. Those interested in gender equity should read this article and U.S. collegiate athletic administrators should read this article to get a sense of what outsiders think are the strengths and weaknesses of Title IX policies as they pertain to intercollegiate athletics.
-- Kyle Robarts
--------
Beaubier, D. M., Gadbois, S. A., & Stick, S. L. (2008). Canadian Athletic Directors' Perceptions of the Potential for U.S. Title IX Gender Equity Policy. Journal of Issues In Intercollegiate Athletics, 2(1), 46-73.
Link to full-text article
Influences of independent entities on Associations Rules: A response to "Reform and Renewal in College Sports"
Reform and Renewal in College Sports is not necessarily your typical article on sports and legal issues where a decision is decided in a court or a university has to follow a certain standard passed down by legal authorities. However, this article by Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C. and Dr. Judith Albino, is a good example of Association Rules. In the case of this article, the association in which many universities seek recognition and approval from for intercollegiate athletics in the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA).
The article, however, is actually a transcribed speech between the two contributors who represent independent entities that suggest standards and rules that are adopted to the NCAA’s bylaws and regulations for member institutions. The topics at hand is the reform of intercollegiate athletics and returning athletic programs back within the umbrella of the overall goals of higher education institutions.
Hesburgh, the former president of the University of Notre Dame, co-chaired the Knight Commission at the time of publication. The Commission was an extension of the Knight Foundation and was comprised of university presidents, university administrators, athletics administrators, members of the sports media and senior businessmen and women. The goal of the Knight Commission was and is to implement reformation in intercollegiate athletics and to help prevent the commercialization and corruption of big-time college sports that keeps programs from adhering to the original academic missions of postsecondary institutions.
Hesburgh spells out many of the issues in collegiate sports that the Knight Commission has tackled and boasts the commission’s efforts that have been adopted by the NCAA. Those efforts included formal adoption policies by the NCAA for requirements for satisfactory progress toward the degree, new academic requirements for entering student-athletes including SAT results of 700 and high school GPA’s of 2.0 ore more, and reduction of athletic grants-in-aid among other
In the Knight Commission’s original publications calling for reform, the commission laid much of the responsibility for reform in college athletics on the university presidents. As a result, under the umbrella of the NCAA, the NCAA Presidents’ Commission though formed before the Knight Commission, began to take more serious action.
Albino, the chair of the presidents’ commission at the time of publication, reported that the commission tackled issues of time-demands on student-athletes, academic requirements for initial and continuing athletics eligibility, presidential authority and control, and gender equity. All of the commission’s efforts were documented at the end of the article with policies adapted by the NCAA thanks to the commission’s recommendations for reform.
Legally, the Knight Commission and the NCAA Presidents’ Commission have no direct authority over institutions and its respective governance over athletic programs. However, the NCAA with its listening ear to these two commissions and with direct authority over membership institutions, were able to implement policies and standards to establish reform.
The contributors, Hesburgh and Albino, do a solid job of explaining the successes as well as explaining that the fight is not over in collegiate athletics and reform. The Knight Commission followed up with reports for their proposed reformations and documented them in publications released in 1991 and 2001 documenting the improvements and laying out the challenges for the future. This article pertains to any institution, public or private, and is recommended for any university administrator and athletics administrators concerned about intercollegiate athletics’ place in the overall missions of higher education.
- Kyle Robarts
----------
Hesburgh, T., & Albino, J. (1995). Reform and Renewal in College Sports. Journal of College and University Law, 22(1), 63-76.
Link to article via ERIC
The article, however, is actually a transcribed speech between the two contributors who represent independent entities that suggest standards and rules that are adopted to the NCAA’s bylaws and regulations for member institutions. The topics at hand is the reform of intercollegiate athletics and returning athletic programs back within the umbrella of the overall goals of higher education institutions.
Hesburgh, the former president of the University of Notre Dame, co-chaired the Knight Commission at the time of publication. The Commission was an extension of the Knight Foundation and was comprised of university presidents, university administrators, athletics administrators, members of the sports media and senior businessmen and women. The goal of the Knight Commission was and is to implement reformation in intercollegiate athletics and to help prevent the commercialization and corruption of big-time college sports that keeps programs from adhering to the original academic missions of postsecondary institutions.
Hesburgh spells out many of the issues in collegiate sports that the Knight Commission has tackled and boasts the commission’s efforts that have been adopted by the NCAA. Those efforts included formal adoption policies by the NCAA for requirements for satisfactory progress toward the degree, new academic requirements for entering student-athletes including SAT results of 700 and high school GPA’s of 2.0 ore more, and reduction of athletic grants-in-aid among other
In the Knight Commission’s original publications calling for reform, the commission laid much of the responsibility for reform in college athletics on the university presidents. As a result, under the umbrella of the NCAA, the NCAA Presidents’ Commission though formed before the Knight Commission, began to take more serious action.
Albino, the chair of the presidents’ commission at the time of publication, reported that the commission tackled issues of time-demands on student-athletes, academic requirements for initial and continuing athletics eligibility, presidential authority and control, and gender equity. All of the commission’s efforts were documented at the end of the article with policies adapted by the NCAA thanks to the commission’s recommendations for reform.
Legally, the Knight Commission and the NCAA Presidents’ Commission have no direct authority over institutions and its respective governance over athletic programs. However, the NCAA with its listening ear to these two commissions and with direct authority over membership institutions, were able to implement policies and standards to establish reform.
The contributors, Hesburgh and Albino, do a solid job of explaining the successes as well as explaining that the fight is not over in collegiate athletics and reform. The Knight Commission followed up with reports for their proposed reformations and documented them in publications released in 1991 and 2001 documenting the improvements and laying out the challenges for the future. This article pertains to any institution, public or private, and is recommended for any university administrator and athletics administrators concerned about intercollegiate athletics’ place in the overall missions of higher education.
- Kyle Robarts
----------
Hesburgh, T., & Albino, J. (1995). Reform and Renewal in College Sports. Journal of College and University Law, 22(1), 63-76.
Link to article via ERIC
Special legal relationships between a coach and a student-athlete
In an extremely difficult article with an extremely difficult matter to wrap one’s head around, Sara Young, in her article, Does a Coach Owe Players a Fiduciary Duty? Examining the Relationship Between Coach and Team, tries to answer the question in her title. The article is best read if the reader has passed a bar exam, however, for the rest of us it may be a little confusing.
The article begins by asking whether or not the coach to student-athlete relationship is a fiduciary one, which if true would “impress duties upon college and university coaches, as well as the employing colleges and universities.” (p. 475) Then to begin answering the questions, Young provides three hypothetical situations where a determination is needed between a coach and a student athlete as to whether or not the relationship is fiduciary.
In short, the first scenario tells of a coach who promoted an underclassmen football player to sports agent before the SA was eligible for the NFL draft. In doing so, the agent misrepresents the player, the player is declared ineligible by the NCAA and when drafted he falls to the second round. The player believed he was headed for first-round draft pick cash and believes the coach may have cost him millions.
In the second scenario, a coach advised a junior college recruit to enroll in his respective school but later found that the athlete didn’t meet the academic qualifications and was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. In that case, the player could hold that he transferred in good faith and lost his future in collegiate athletics based upon enrollment to the school.
In the third scenario, a coach was forced into resignation because of five NCAA recruiting violations, which resulted in the loss of postseason eligibility and loss of scholarships. Does that coach owe a duty to the current athletes he affected as well as future incoming athletes that have to deal with his sanctions?
All three of the scenarios were left unanswered as Young attempts to define a fiduciary. Though the author admits it is hard to define in one hard sentence, the article states, “Fiduciary duty is rooted in concepts such as good faith, trust, and confidence …” (p. 478) From there, the article describes three different ways to determine a fiduciary relationship: the doctrinal approach, the Scharffs-Welch Framework, and the Smith Critical Resource Theory.
Then, Young attempts to answer the question of what defines a coach and his/her duties. She also tries to determine whether or not coaches are fiduciaries and explains that a coach to student-athlete relationship is much different than a regular teacher-student relationship. “Unlike a classroom teacher, who works to guide students through discussion and debate, the execution of the coach’s will is paramount and what he says is seldom up for debate. Coaches posses vast control over the lives of athletes on the field, in class and away from school.” (p. 488)
Thus confirms that a relationship between a student-athlete and a coach is special, but is it fiduciary? Much like the rest of the article, a fiduciary relationship is very dependant on the variables and specific case-by-case findings to determine that special relationship.
The article then returns to try and answer the three hypothetical scenarios. In scenario one where the coach’s violation of referring an athlete to an agent backfired, Young determines “a court should find a fiduciary relationship and find that the coach, in pursuing his own financial interests, breached a duty to the student athlete.” (p. 495)
In scenario two where the coach advised a student to enroll who did not meet the NCAA qualifications for eligibility, Young found “the coach did hold a critical resource belonging to the student, eligibility. But, given the inability of the court to require the NCAA to reinstate eligibility and the student-athlete’s own duty to remain informed of the rules, it is unlikely a court would find a fiduciary duty in this situation.” (p. 495)
In scenario three where the coach’s recruiting violations affected not only current members of a team but future ones as well, Young concluded that a “student-athlete, who can no longer attend a particular college or university because of a coach’s violation, may then have a stronger fiduciary duty claim with regard to this critical resource.” (p. 496)
In the end, Young admits that case law is limited in the area of fiduciary relationships between coaches and student athletes. She also concludes that student-athletes can use self-help methods to avoid court situations.
Though a intercollegiate athletics administrator could learn from this article and study further special legal relationships that a coach might hold with a student-athlete, this article should be recommended for universities’ legal counsel, who might be called on to determine such a difficult and inconsistent relationship.
- By Kyle Robarts
---------------
Young, S. (2008). Does a Coach owe Players a Fiduciary Duty? Examining the Relationship Between Coach and Team. Journal of College and University Law, 35(2), 475-498.
The article begins by asking whether or not the coach to student-athlete relationship is a fiduciary one, which if true would “impress duties upon college and university coaches, as well as the employing colleges and universities.” (p. 475) Then to begin answering the questions, Young provides three hypothetical situations where a determination is needed between a coach and a student athlete as to whether or not the relationship is fiduciary.
In short, the first scenario tells of a coach who promoted an underclassmen football player to sports agent before the SA was eligible for the NFL draft. In doing so, the agent misrepresents the player, the player is declared ineligible by the NCAA and when drafted he falls to the second round. The player believed he was headed for first-round draft pick cash and believes the coach may have cost him millions.
In the second scenario, a coach advised a junior college recruit to enroll in his respective school but later found that the athlete didn’t meet the academic qualifications and was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. In that case, the player could hold that he transferred in good faith and lost his future in collegiate athletics based upon enrollment to the school.
In the third scenario, a coach was forced into resignation because of five NCAA recruiting violations, which resulted in the loss of postseason eligibility and loss of scholarships. Does that coach owe a duty to the current athletes he affected as well as future incoming athletes that have to deal with his sanctions?
All three of the scenarios were left unanswered as Young attempts to define a fiduciary. Though the author admits it is hard to define in one hard sentence, the article states, “Fiduciary duty is rooted in concepts such as good faith, trust, and confidence …” (p. 478) From there, the article describes three different ways to determine a fiduciary relationship: the doctrinal approach, the Scharffs-Welch Framework, and the Smith Critical Resource Theory.
Then, Young attempts to answer the question of what defines a coach and his/her duties. She also tries to determine whether or not coaches are fiduciaries and explains that a coach to student-athlete relationship is much different than a regular teacher-student relationship. “Unlike a classroom teacher, who works to guide students through discussion and debate, the execution of the coach’s will is paramount and what he says is seldom up for debate. Coaches posses vast control over the lives of athletes on the field, in class and away from school.” (p. 488)
Thus confirms that a relationship between a student-athlete and a coach is special, but is it fiduciary? Much like the rest of the article, a fiduciary relationship is very dependant on the variables and specific case-by-case findings to determine that special relationship.
The article then returns to try and answer the three hypothetical scenarios. In scenario one where the coach’s violation of referring an athlete to an agent backfired, Young determines “a court should find a fiduciary relationship and find that the coach, in pursuing his own financial interests, breached a duty to the student athlete.” (p. 495)
In scenario two where the coach advised a student to enroll who did not meet the NCAA qualifications for eligibility, Young found “the coach did hold a critical resource belonging to the student, eligibility. But, given the inability of the court to require the NCAA to reinstate eligibility and the student-athlete’s own duty to remain informed of the rules, it is unlikely a court would find a fiduciary duty in this situation.” (p. 495)
In scenario three where the coach’s recruiting violations affected not only current members of a team but future ones as well, Young concluded that a “student-athlete, who can no longer attend a particular college or university because of a coach’s violation, may then have a stronger fiduciary duty claim with regard to this critical resource.” (p. 496)
In the end, Young admits that case law is limited in the area of fiduciary relationships between coaches and student athletes. She also concludes that student-athletes can use self-help methods to avoid court situations.
Though a intercollegiate athletics administrator could learn from this article and study further special legal relationships that a coach might hold with a student-athlete, this article should be recommended for universities’ legal counsel, who might be called on to determine such a difficult and inconsistent relationship.
- By Kyle Robarts
---------------
Young, S. (2008). Does a Coach owe Players a Fiduciary Duty? Examining the Relationship Between Coach and Team. Journal of College and University Law, 35(2), 475-498.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)