College Sports Law Blog

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.

Senator Jake Corman will introduce legislation that will mandate that the NCAA’s $60 million fine be used to fund child sex abuse prevention programs in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Senator Corman has filed suit against the NCAA.  The lawsuit claims "[e]ven though the NCAA intends to wrest such a large sum of Pennsylvania public funds, it has refused to submit to any control by Pennsylvania elected officials and refused to commit more than 25 percent of those public funds to Pennsylvania causes."  On both accounts, Senator Corman seeks some control over the use of funds used to pay the sanctions mandated by the NCAA.  Look for the NCAA to defend the lawsuit and legislation on grounds similar to those explained in Miller v. NCAA in which the NCAA argued that it was a commerce clause violation to implement and enforce such legislation.

In August 2012, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, NCAA, National Football League, and National Hockey League (“Major Leagues”) filed suit against New Jersey relating to a law signed by Governor Christie allowing for betting on sporting events.  A more thorough description can be found here.  The Major Leagues recently filed a brief with the Court calling the New Jersey legislation a “blatant violation of federal law.”   The Major Leagues also chastise Governor Christie, a former United States attorney, for attempting to contradict federal law.  The majority of the Major Leagues’ argument states the Act adopted by New Jersey blatantly violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, a federal law.  The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act bars sports wagering in all states other than Nevada, Oregon, Delaware, and Montana, which all had legalized the activity prior to the adoption of the federal act.  New Jersey challenges the federal law by arguing that it is unconstitutional.

The Texas Bar Journal recently published Christian Dennie's article entitled Post-Penn State: Protecting Against Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Athletics.  A copy of the article can be found here.

In late November 2012, Rutgers announced that it would join the Big Ten Conference and at the same time filed a lawsuit in Middlesex County Court in New Jersey seeking to leave the Big East Conference (“Big East”) without abiding by the waiting period or paying the withdrawal fee.  According to Big East bylaws, withdrawing institutions must pay a $10 million buyout fee and abide by a twenty-seven month waiting period prior to exiting the conference.  Rutgers argues that the exit fee and waiting period is arbitrarily applied to some, but not all, Big East institutions competing in football.  Rutgers points to litigation and settlements involving Syracuse, Pittsburgh, TCU and West Virginia that allowed each institution to exit the conference prior to the required exit period.  Additionally, Rutgers argues that the Big East failed to collect $39.5 million in withdrawal fees from withdrawing institutions.  Accordingly, Rutgers requests the Court to declare that Big East bylaws are “void and of no effect as between the parties, permitting Rutgers to withdraw from The Big East prior to July 1, 2015, or in alternative, declaring that The Big East has waived Rutgers’ obligation to abide by the 27 months notice provision and the requirement of a withdrawal fee.”

As reported previously, Todd McNair, former USC assistant football coach, sued the NCAA for defamation relating to matters addressed in USC’s major infractions case.  In an effort to dismiss the case, the NCAA filed an anti-SLAPP motion claiming the investigation of McNair was thorough and fair and McNair could not win his case for defamation.  Judge Fredrick Shaller denied the requested relief and allowed McNair’s suit to continue.  The NCAA will likely appeal the anti-SLAPP decision, which gives an immediate right to appeal under California law.

On November 26, 2012, the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”) filed suit against the University of Maryland (“Maryland”) in Guilford County, North Carolina.    The suit relates to Section IV-5 of the ACC Bylaws, which pertains to the exit fee required to be paid by a withdrawing member of the ACC.  According to Section IV-5, a withdrawing member shall be subject to a withdrawal payment in an amount “equal to three (3) times the total operating budget of the Conference (including any contingency included therein), approved in accordance with Section V-1 of the Conference Bylaws, which is in effect as of the date of the official notice of withdrawal.”  On September 11-12, 2012, the Council of Presidents of the ACC met and discussed an increased withdrawal fee.  During such meeting, the Council of Presidents voted to increase the fee from 1.25 times the ACC’s operating budget to three times the ACC’s operating budget; however, Maryland did not vote in favor of such change.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that Eastern Michigan University (“EMU”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation.  A majority of the violations in this case concern the staff of the women’s basketball program 1) requiring women’s basketball student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities that exceeded practice hour limitations over a three year period and 2) arranging for prospective student-athletes to participate in open gym sessions in violation of NCAA tryout legislation.  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.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Tennessee (“UT”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation.  The Committee heard this case at an expedited hearing following UT’s objection to additional penalties proposed by the Committee at the written summary disposition stage.  The violations at issue overlap in time and are imbedded in the context of football violations found in a previous case decided by the Committee.

On October 30, 2012, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced changes to the NCAA enforcement structure.  The changes will become effective on August 1, 2013.  The core changes to the enforcement system are: 1) the introduction of a four-tier violation hierarchy that ranges from severe breaches of conduct to incidental infractions (replacing major and secondary infractions)  focusing on conduct breaches that undermine the integrity of the NCAA; 2) enhanced responsibility and accountability for coaches who fail to direct their staffs and student-athletes to uphold NCAA bylaws and includes suspensions from 10% of the season to the entire season; 3) the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions increases from 10 to as many as 24 voting members; 4) the program offers “harsh consequences” that align more predictably with the severity of the violations and places a premium on aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and 5) emphasizes that NCAA compliance is a shared responsibility among coaches, compliance professionals, institutional leadership and conferences.