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.