College Sports Law Blog

The much anticipated report commissioned by the Paterno family has been released.  It takes aim at the Freeh Report and claims many of the assertions in the Freeh Report were “factually wrong,” “speculative,” and “fundamentally flawed.”  The Paternos employed former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and a team of investigators to review the Freeh Report in detail.  One of the Paternos’ lawyers said “The Freeh report is a profound failure.”  Some of the issues addressed and findings made in the report are as follows:

Dominic Hardie has filed suit against the NCAA in the Southern District of California, San Diego division.  The suit claims that the NCAA’s policy against allowing coaches with felony convictions from coaching in NCAA certified tournaments violates the U.S. Civil Rights Act.  According to the suit, Hardie, an African American, believes the NCAA policy has a discriminatory impact on African Americans because they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and, thus, the policy violates his civil rights and has a chilling effect on minority coaches. Previously, coaches were allowed to coach in NCAA certified events if the conviction was non-violent and over seven years prior to the tournament. In 2001, Hardie pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute less than a gram of cocaine and he received five years of probation.  As a result, Hardie, a coach of a traveling girl’s basketball team, is barred from coaching at NCAA certified events.  He seeks a preliminary injunction to allow him to coach in an upcoming tournament in San Diego, California.

Maryland’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”) claiming the approximately $53 million exit fee Maryland is required to pay is invalid and unenforceable.  The lawsuit, filed in Prince George’s County Circuit Court, claims the ACC’s decision to increase the exit fee in September 2012 “is lacking any legitimate economic justification” and “failed to comply with the notice and procedural requirements of the ACC Constitution is therefore null and void.”  Maryland pursues damages in accordance with theories of 1) violations of state antitrust laws; 2) breach of contract; 3) interference with prospective economic advantages; and 4) declaratory relief seeking a finding that the exit fee is unlawful.  If Maryland is successful on antitrust grounds, damages would be trebled in accordance with state laws (similar to federal laws) making the potential claim $156,799,026.00.  Additionally, Maryland’s attorney general has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by the ACC in North Carolina against Maryland in November 2012.

In recent months, the O’Bannon Plaintiffs have sought to certify a class that would include currently enrolled student-athletes and would seek payment for television (and other media) revenue, which brings a new layer to the litigation and additional damages.  In October 2012, the NCAA filed a motion to strike the O’Bannon Plaintiffs’ desire to certify a class with the inclusion of currently enrolled student-athletes.  The NCAA’s argument primarily focused on the mass expansion of the lawsuit and the changing of claims after years of litigation.  U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied the NCAA’s request for relief by stating “these contentions are more properly considered as arguments supporting denial of the motion for class certification on its merits.”  Judge Wilken, however, invited the NCAA to file another brief in support of their position (while not arguing the same points again) to be heard on June 20, 2013 at the class certification hearing.  To be clear, this ruling did not grant the O’Bannon Plaintiffs class certification.  It simply holds that the case can continue and the NCAA can make additional arguments against class certification at the upcoming hearing in June.

Following Texas A&M University’s (“A&M”) departure to the SEC, sports fans all across Texas missed out on the annual University of Texas (“Texas”) v. A&M football game.  There is no certainty whether the game will be played again, at least in the near future.  As a result, State Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City introduced a bill seeking to require the two universities to compete against one another. House Bill 778 does not indicate when the game would be played, but does offer penalties levied against the institution refusing to play in the annual game.  The restriction recommended is the loss of athletic scholarships. 

Following in California’s footsteps, Connecticut has passed the Student-Athletes’ Bill of Rights (“Act”).  Like California’s legislation, the Act requires colleges and universities that receive more than $10 million in sports-related media revenue to provide academic scholarships to injured student-athletes.  Dan Fitzgerald of the Connecticut Sports Law Blog has more information on the Act and its intended purpose.

The Duke University Sports and Entertainment Law Society will be hosting a sports and entertainment law symposium entitled The Changing Economics of the Sports and Entertainment Industries on January 25, 2013 at Duke Law School.  I will be speaking on O'Bannon v. NCAA.  If you are in the area, please stop by for a good discussion on sports and entertainment law.  More information on the symposium can be found here.

Being a Heisman Trophy winner certainly has its perks, but NCAA legislation does not allow student-athletes to benefit from their likeness or their standing as an athlete.  Johnny Football learned that NCAA Bylaw 16 does not allow for others to pay for him to take part in a Pro-Am at a major golf tournament.  Apparently, Johnny Manziel had plans to play in the upcoming AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am.  However, the $20,000.00 entry fee caused a problem.  If Manziel wants to play in the event, he will be required to pay the fee, which is a hefty sum for even the world’s most visible college quarterback.  Chalk it up to a lesson learned.

Over the course of the last several months, there has certainly been a public outcry regarding the acts and omissions that allegedly occurred at Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”).  First, the public hurt for the victims associated with the heinous acts attributed to Jerry Sandusky.  Then, the public bemoaned the purported acts of administrators that allegedly covered up the heinous acts.  Penn State administrators are awaiting their day in court and have publicly indicated they were unaware of the acts of Jerry Sandusky.

Former University of Louisville (“Louisville”) defensive lineman Patrick Grant filed suit against Louisville and head football coach Charlie Strong and stated he was coerced to cover up a beating he received in the team locker room by two teammates.  Grant’s lawsuit alleges he was beaten “so badly that he required immediate, urgent care and nearly lost his left eye.”  Grant claims Louisville’s athletic trainer instructed him to “lie and cover up the fact that his injuries were at the hands of his teammates."  Grant claims he agreed to do so “[o]ut of fear and desire to play….[and told] the doctor he was horsing around in the locker room and hit his eye on a locker door.”  Ultimately, Grant was forced to have surgery to repair his damaged left eye and he alleges his scholarship was canceled during a telephone conversation with Coach Strong.  The suit alleges Louisville violated NCAA rules when cancelling his financial aid without a hearing and, thus, seeks reinstatement of his scholarship.  He also seeks compensatory damages.