College Sports Law Blog

On December 18, 2003, Arezou Mansourian, Lauren Mancuso, and Christine Wing-Si Ng (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the University of California, Davis (“UCD”) and four (4) university officials (collectively “Defendants”) complaining that Defendants deprived them of their opportunity to participate in varsity athletics at UCD and setting forth a civil rights claim under Section 1983. Plaintiffs claim they were wrestlers in high school and were attracted to UCD by the opportunity to participate on the varsity wrestling team.  In 2000, all female wrestlers were removed from the varsity wrestling team after UCD employed roster caps,.  The wrestling coach removed all female wrestlers from the competitive roster, but allowed them to participate in practice.  Ultimately, in 2001, Plaintiffs were returned to the competitive roster and allowed to participate in practice and compete in open meets.

Following the 2009 football season, University of South Florida’s (“USF”) head football coach, Jim Leavitt (“Leavitt”) was terminated for allegedly grabbing a student-athlete by the throat and striking him twice at halftime of a football competition held on November 21, 2009.  Leavitt vehemently denied the allegations, but was, nonetheless, terminated for cause in accordance with his contract by USF on January 8, 2010.  Subsequently, in March 2010, Leavitt (now a coach on the San Francisco 49ers’ staff) filed suit in Hillsborough County, Florida alleging claims for breach of contract, complaint for mandamus for access to requested public records, and declaratory and injunctive relief. 

As reported on September 30, 2010, the University of California, Berkley (“Cal”) intends to eliminate four (4) sports, baseball, men’s and women’s gymnastics, and women’s lacrosse, and demote men’s rugby to a varsity club sport.  Since the original announcement was made, Cal alums have banded together and raised substantial sums under the name “Save Cal Sports.”  It has been reported that “Save Cal Sports” has raised between $12 million and $15 million.  Cal has indicated that it is looking long-term to determine whether such amounts will translate into sustainability.  Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has indicated that he is reviewing two main criteria to determine whether the sports can be saved: 1) whether the funds raised will operate the sports for the next five (5) to ten (10) years; and 2) whether there is a viable plan to build an endowment to fund the sports long-term.  A decision will be made as to the sustainability of the sports in the following weeks.

As previously reported on October 20, 2010, Coach Mike Leach (“Leach”) and Texas Tech University (“Tech”) argued on appeal before the Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Texas relating to his discharge as head football coach at Tech.  Leach appealed the dismissal of his claims including his whistleblower claim, constitutional claims, and dismissal of individual defendants and Tech appealed the trial court’s denial of its defense of sovereign immunity for Leach’s breach of contract claim.  On January 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and found that Leach’s claims should be in all things dismissed (other than equitable relief) and Tech is immune from Leach’s breach of contract claim.

Former University of Southern California (“USC”) running back Stafon Johnson filed suit against USC  and a former strength and conditioning coach (Jamie Yanchar) relating to the injury he suffered while performing bench presses in September 2009.   As many may recall, Johnson was working out in the USC weight room with the football team and bench pressing 275 lbs when the bar slipped from his hands and crushed his neck.  It was initially explained that the bar simply rolled out of Johnson’s hands, but Johnson has a different story and explains the same in his lawsuit.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions ("Committee") recently issued its findings and found that the Texas Tech University ("Tech") committed major violations of NCAA legislation. The case primarily pertains to 926 impermissible text messages sent to 62 prospective student-athletes ("prospect") and 25 impermissible text messages sent to the parent of a prospect. After the investigation concluded the case was submitted to the Committee through the summary disposition process, which is an alternative to a formal hearing before the Committee that may be utilized when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution, and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation.

In recent years, the NCAA has been hit with a rash of lawsuits relating to findings and information gathered during the enforcement process. The NCAA has defended against claims for antitrust (Gaines v. NCAA), tortious interference with a contract (Harrick v. NCAA), and defamation (Keller v. NCAA).  Most recently, the NCAA fought off University of Alabama boosters following the 2002 infractions case in which Logan Young, Wendell Smith, and Ray Keller (not named specifically) were labeled “rouge boosters.”    In the same vein, Rodney Guillory has filed suit against the NCAA seeking $25 million in damages.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions ("Committee") recently issued its findings and found that Arizona State University ("ASU") committed major violations of NCAA legislation. The case involved ASU's baseball program and primarily dealt with violations pertaining to impermissible telephone calls consisting of at least five hundred (500) impermissible telephone calls, improper reductions to financial aid during the term of the award, violations of coaching staff limits including the improper categorization of coaches as managers, the improper use of an outside consultant, and payment to student-athletes for work not performed. The NCAA enforcement staff and ASU were in agreement as it relates to many of the violations committed, but disagreed as it pertains to charges for lack of institutional control, failure to monitor and promote an atmosphere of compliance (in some respects), and that many of the violations had elements of secondary violations rather than major violations.

The media and fans all across the country have not been shy in their disgust for the NCAA’s decision to levy penalties on violating institutions.  The common response is something to the effect of why me? or everyone is doing it.  Although everyone may be doing it, the NCAA enforcement staff is charged with eliminating the membership of rampant violations of NCAA rules, which leads to an abundance questions and concerns.  Simply put, the question is do the NCAA’s enforcement policies work?  These questions are not uncommon in the legal field and often revolve around jail time and capital punishment.  Is jail really a deterrent?  Is the death penalty really a deterrent? These questions are debated at length in about every forum imaginable, as are those related to NCAA enforcement and penalties.  Some would argue the fear of facing the NCAA Committee on Infractions is a deterrent that keeps bad actors at bay.  However, Illinois State University professor Chad McEvoy's research data indicates institutions that have been sanctioned by the NCAA are actually more successful than the institutions that have not been sanctioned.