Amateur Sports Law Outline – Spring 2004
I. Legal
Relationships in Sports
II. Amateur Sports
Associations
- From Nutshell
o Amateur sports can be divided into 2 basic forms:
§ Restricted competition – includes high school and college. It means competition is restricted to essentially the same groups at different levels. Competition is controlled and organized by athletic conferences or associations or leagues, which establish rules and organize schedules.
§ Unrestricted competition – open to all athletes. EX: Olympic competition – allows competition among all types of people and groups and is not restricted by age or college or other restrictive criterion
o Definition of an amateur athlete may change from one organization to another
o Voluntary associations may adopt reasonable laws, rules and regulations which will be valid and binding on their members unless their rules violate law or public policy
THRESHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
- If state action is not involved, the law says the private association can make it’s own rules as long as they are not arbitrary or unreasonable
- A person who alleges a denial of constitutionally protected rights must at the outset demonstrate that it is indeed the action of the government that is being challenged
o The merits of the claim will Not be reached unless it can be shown that, somehow, the government has acted
o These are easily shown where an individual challenges the constitutionality of a state statute
- Purely private disputes ordinarily do not raise constitutional issues no matter how egregious the private act
- The difficulty arises in cases where state action is not apparent but where the state is nonetheless somehow involved
- Although many amateur athletic organizations are private in the sense that they are not formal creatures of the state,
o they arguable perform state like functions and the state itself is inevitably somehow involved with their operations (directly or indirectly)
§ by providing money, services, facilities, permission or encouragement
- if the putatively private actor is really performing a public function, then perhaps it ought to be treated as though it were the state
o or if the level of state involvement is significant, then perhaps the action of the organization ought to be treated as state action
DeFrantz v.
- Facts:
o Dealing with the 1980 boycott of the Olympics
o Moving for an injunction against the Olympic Committee in doing resolution
§
That they were not going to send a
o Denied 25 people the right to compete in the Olympics
§
B/c that was when
o The Committee:
§ Are the sole authorities responsible for the representation of the respective countries at the Olympic Games
o Plaintiff claims:
§ Alleges that defendant’s action constituted “governmental action” which abridged plaintiff’s rights of liberty, self expression, etc..
- Holding:
o
Under International Olympic Committee rules and the Amateur
Sports Act of 1978, the Committee not only had authority to decide not to send
an American team to the summer Olympics but also could do so for a reason not
directly related to sports considerations
o
Amateur Sports Act of 1978 did not confer an enforceable
right on amateur athletes to compete in Olympic competition, where the United
States Olympic Committee House of Delegates had decided not to accept an
invitation to enter an American team in the competition
§ Even if amateur athletes had a right to compete in Olympic games under Amateur Sports Act of 1978, despite United States Olympic Committee's determination not to enter a team, they did not have an implied private cause of action to enforce such right.
o Since this is a private industry
§ They must show that this was a regulated state or government action
o Must show that the government had some control of the decision making of the private industry
o This was no such control here:
§ b/c they could not establish a nexis b/w the two
§ the committee is an independent body, and nothing in its chartering statute gives the federal government the right to control that body or its officers
§ and the facts here do not indicate that the federal governments was able to exercise any type of control over the Committee
o The federal government may have had the power to prevent the athletes from participating in the Olympics even if the USOC had voted to allow them to participate,
§ But it did not have the power to make them vote in a certain way
§ All it had was the power of persuasion
o They accordingly found that the decision of the Committee not to send an American team to the summer Olympics was not a state action,
§ and therefore, does not give rise to an actionable claim for the infringements of the constitutional rights alleged
NCAA
v. Tarkanian –
- Facts:
o NCAA put UNLV under investigation for violating recruiting rules.
o
U After a lengthy investigation of allegedly improper recruiting
practices by the
§
The Committee imposed a number of sanctions upon UNLV, and
requested it to show cause why additional penalties should not be imposed if it
failed to suspend Tarkanian from its athletic program
during a probation period.
o UNLV had 3 choices put before them: (1) Reject the sanctions and keep Tark, and run the risk of heavier sanctions; (2) Recognize the NCAA’s authority and reassign Tark; or (3) Pull out of the NCAA.
§ They chose (2).
o He sued NCAA and school, and got an injunction against school.
o In suit against NCAA, he claims that NCAA is a state actor and deprived him of due process.
o Won at trial ct., but Ct. of App. reversed (NCAA is private org., has no govt. powers, and UNLV made the ultimate decision).
o Tark claims UNLV had no choice.
- Holding:
o As general matter, protections of Fourteenth Amendment do not extend to private conduct abridging individual rights.
o S.Ct. said if a can show NCAA was calling the shots for a state org. as Tark claims,
§ then it will be deemed a state actor.
o Court said it would be more appropriate to conclude that UNLV conducted its athletic program under the color of the policies adopted by the NCAA,
§
rather than that those policies were developed
and enforced under color of
o
Held that university's imposition of disciplinary sanctions
against basketball coach in compliance with National Collegiate Athletic
Association rules and recommendations did not turn the Association's otherwise
private conduct into state action,
§ and thus Association could not be held liable for violation of coach's civil rights.
-
Facts:
o Private high school sued state
interscholastic athletic association under § 1983, seeking to prevent
enforcement of rule prohibiting use of undue influence in recruitment of
student-athletes.
o
The
Association’s board of control found that
§
When he
wrote to incoming students and their parents about spring football practice
o
The
association put
§
And
would not allow them to play in the playoffs
o
When
these penalties were imposed, all the voting members of the board of control
and legislative council were public school administrators
-
Issue:
o
Whether
a statewide association incorporated to regulate interscholastic athletic
competition among public and private secondary schools may be regarded as
engaging in state action when it enforces a rule against a member school
§
Determining
whether athletes are eligible to play
-
Rule
of Law:
o
That a
state action may be found if, though only if,
§
there is
such a “close nexus b/w the State and the challenged action” that seemingly
private behavior “may be fairly treated as that of the State itself”
-
Holding:
o
The
nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive
entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and
workings,
§
And
there is NO substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional
standards to it
o Regulatory enforcement action by state
interscholastic athletic association was "state action" for purposes
of Fourteenth Amendment, despite association's nominally private character, in
light of pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in
its composition and workings;
§
public schools constituted 84% of its membership, half of
council and board meetings were held during official school hours, public
schools provided for association's financial support by giving up sources of
their own income, state board of education members served as members of
association's governing boards, and association's ministerial employees were
eligible for membership in state retirement system.
o Entwinement with government will support
conclusion that ostensibly private organization ought to be charged with public
character and judged by constitutional standards
o When relevant facts show pervasive
entwinement between government and ostensibly private organization to point of
largely overlapping identity,
§
implication
of state action is not affected by pointing out that facts might not loom large
under different test
o
There
was just to much intertwinement b/w the association and the public school and
its officials
§
Therefore
it was considered a state action
- Prof. Said: The above cases give good idea of state action
NCAA ENFORCEMENT AND ELIGIBILITY ISSUES:
- From Nutshell:
o The question is whether the actions of the governing body are state action or fall under the color of state action
§ This question is extremely important as regards the actions of the NCAA
o The supreme court suggests that NCAA eligibility regulations may no longer be viewed as state action
§ This is however a narrowly drawn opinion that established that the NCAA did not assume the role of the state when it directed a state university to initiate certain particular actions against one of its employees
§ This case however, does not definitively settle the question of whether the NCAA can ever be a state actor
o The court observed that the action of removing a coach from a state institution is a state action
§ But the NCAA did NOT take part in that particular action
o The state action nonetheless might lie if a university by embracing the NCAA’s rules transforms them into state rules
§ And thereby arguably transforms the NCAA into a state actor
o Some state have passed legislation that provides for liability for violation of an NCAA rule
§ With legislation of this type the NCAA’s regulations will arguably be deemed to represent state action
Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Association:
- Facts:
o Eligibility case under proposition 16
o College students sued collegiate athletic association, challenging rule under which they were denied opportunity to participate in athletic competition as freshmen.
o Plaintiff’s alleged intentional race discrimination
§ b/c the purpose behind proposition 16 was to increase the graduation stats ( by using both the SAT scores and GPA)
· so they claim that they are being excluded from the university b/c of the impact of the proposition
- Holding:
o They pass summary judgment, but that does not mean that they have won
o
Held that the allegations that rule was adopted to reduce number of black
athletes who would become eligible for athletic scholarships and compete in
intercollegiate athletics as freshman stated claim for purposes race
discrimination in violation of Title VI
§
And the allegations that challenged rule was adopted with
deliberate indifference to rule's purported disparate impact on black student
athletes failed to state Title VI claim
o
Both Title VI, which bars discrimination with respect to
participation in, and benefits of, programs receiving federal financial
assistance, and civil rights statute guaranteeing equal rights under the law
§
provide a private cause of action for intentional
discrimination only
o
To prove intentional race discrimination by a facially
neutral policy,
§
plaintiff must show that the relevant decisionmaker
adopted the policy at issue "because of," not merely "in spite
of," its adverse effects upon an identifiable group;
·
mere awareness of the consequences of an otherwise neutral
policy will not suffice.
o
College students stated claim for purposeful race discrimination
in violation of Title VI, which barred discrimination with respect to
participation in, or benefits of, program receiving federal financial
assistance,
§
when they alleged that collegiate athletic association
adopted facially neutral rule establishing scholarship and athletic eligibility
criteria for incoming student athletes because it wanted to reduce number of
black athletes who would become eligible for athletic scholarships and compete
in intercollegiate athletics as freshmen,
§ that association knew rule would adversely affect black student athletes as a result of pre-rule studies indicating rule would have such effect, and that association's stated goal of wanting to improve graduation rates via rule was "pretext" for actual goal
o Parities suing the NCAA for such claims must be prepared to present evidence at the summary judgment stage that would substantiate their allegations
o So, they reverse the dismissal of summary judgment,
§ With the instructions that they must present the substantial evidence
- Notes:
o Won’t likely stand here, b/c it is just a lot to say that the motivation and impact will have racial discrimination
Bell Case (handout):
- Facts:
o School requirements stated:
§ That if someone was “married” they could not participate in athletics and other school functions
o School said that they created the rule to keep people from dropping out
§ That if the student couldn’t participate in athletics if they got married, then it would prevent them from getting married and dropping out of school
- Holding:
o Participation in athletics is not a constitutional right
o But, a school should not implement an action that would discriminate against a particular group