When NCAA Athletes forfeit their amateur status

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