With changes to the regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athlete model looming overhead, the role of athlete representation is significant in the conversation relating to name, image, and likeness (NIL) of the student athlete. The NCAA has a long-standing “no-agent” rule that forbids student-athletes from being represented by an agent or organization in the marketing of his or her athletic ability until after the completion of their last intercollegiate contest. The NCAA determines a student-athlete’s eligibility based partly on their amateurism status, a term which is not expressly defined by the NCAA, although guided by several factors. Among those factors that would remove an athlete’s eligibility from NCAA competition, is a binding agreement to be represented by an agent at any time before or during a student-athletes collegiate career, however, there are a few exceptions to this factor.The underlying purpose of the “no-agent” rule is to protect student athletes from exploitation in the open market. To further regulate potential issues, the NCAA adopted the Uniform Athlete Agents Act, which effectively criminalizes contact between agents and athletes before the athletes completion of their last intercollegiate contest.
On May 6, 2020, Secretary Betsy Devos, through the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued the new Title IX regulations (the Final Rule) scheduled to take effect August 14, 2020. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The statute states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”, yet it does not define sexual harassment. The Final Rule is heavily contested due to its demanding provisions and implementation period during the pandemic.
Sarah Suddarth Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2021 The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruption to everyone’s lives, and student athletes are no exception. The unprecedented situation has presented many questions and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) has attempted to answer many of those questions coming directly from the displaced …
In a previous article, I discussed the mental health crisis facing student athletes across the country. I called on the NCAA, individual universities, and all coaches to increase efforts to improve the overall health and wellness of their athletes. The stigma is slowly being tackled, making it more commonplace for athletes to speak out when they need help. But how can athletic departments make these services readily available and accessible for student athletes? The NCAA recommends a well-trained psychologist to be a part of athletic departments’ staff. There are, however, other models being utilized.
In the past 12 years, Manchester City has seen a dramatic rise to the European Elite. In 2008, Sheikh Mansour, who has ties to the United Arab Emirates’ royal family, took over ownership of the club. Following the take-over, Manchester City has gone on to win 10 major trophies. On February 14, 2020, Manchester City was handed a two year ban on European competitions, as well as a $32.5 million fine. This is the largest fine ever by Union of European Football Associations (“UEFA”), the governing body of European Football. The UEFA found that Manchester City overstated its sponsorship revenue in its accounts. This, according to the Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body, is a “serious breach” of Licensing and Financial Fair Play. If the ban is upheld, Manchester City would be fined approximately $232.5 million, a sum of the initial fine plus potential winnings in European Football competitions. According to Simon Chadwick, director at the Centre for the Eurasian Sport Industry, “UEFA must win this ban, if it doesn’t then its position on Financial Fair Play beings to unravel.” This is a pivotal moment in UEFA’s history as a governing body.
Sarah Suddarth Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2021 Student athletes across the nation are praised, admired, and in some cases, made famous for their athletic performances. Although, behind those athletes are young people dealing with the typical struggles of college and early adulthood. Student athletes face the pressure of recognition, high …
On October 25, 2019, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) unanimously voted to begin changing the rule to allow colleges athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness. This progressive move is a big deal for the organization, which has previously kept an extremely firm line between amateurism and professionalism for their athletes. Despite opposition by some to change the current model, public opinion is strongly in favor of these types of changes.
On September 30, 2019, California signed into law the biggest change to college athletics in the modern era of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). Senate Bill 206 will allow college athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness, as well as protect the athletes from sanctions by the NCAA for violations stemming from the profits. One of college athletics’ core tenants has been the amateurism of their athletes and the emphasis on scholarship. This monumental change will have far reaching and lasting impact on college athletics and may disrupt the whole system as we know it.
In February, California State Senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford presented SB-206, titled the Fair Pay to Play Act, to the California State Senate. Founded on the principle of amateurism, which prohibits paying participants, the NCAA has never allowed intercollegiate student-athletes to earn any form of compensation. This bill seeks to end that prohibition in California and provide student-athletes the rights to their names, images, or likenesses (NIL). In May, the State Senate voted in favor of the bill, 31-5. After the necessary committees reviewed and amended the bill, the State Assembly unanimously passed the Fair Pay to Play Act in a 72-0 vote. Due to the changes, the amended bill went back to the State Senate, where it was unanimously approved, 39-0, on September 11. Governor Gavin Newsom has 30 days to sign, veto, or take no action and allow the bill to become law.
In March 2019, charges were brought against a number of National College Athletic Association (“NCAA”) athletic department personnel. These officials were found partaking in a fraudulent scheme which allowed affluent young adults to gain admission to elite universities under false pretenses, like fake test scores and phony athletic prowess. The actions of these athletic directors and coaches call into question the effectiveness of the NCAA monitoring and reporting methods to combat misuse and abuse of the athletic system. The NCAA and their institutions must learn from this most recent scandal to identify the problems in athletic compliance that allowed this fraud.