Sports Law Outline

 
AMATEUR SPORTS LAW OUTLINE—BLACK
 
FALL 2014
 
I.                   Overarching Themes
a.       Judicial Deference to Association—exception is antitrust law
b.      Political slants of the courts
c.       Financial Impacts balance against the positives of athletic competition in sports—
d.      Collegiate relationship between student athlete and university is based on contract law
e.       Trend—not to afford employee status to student athletes—Work comp area and agency areas—
f.       Student athletes to no possess a constitutional property issue to in participating in intercollegiate athletics
g.      Trend—religious liberty accommodation cases—courts are reluctant to recognize the rights of religious consciousness to make the institution accommodate religious views—coaches and schools seem to accommodate
h.      NCAA role as traditional guardian of amateurism vs. fiscal reality
i.        NCAA eligibility are entitled to a presumption of correctness particularly when they stem from conceded violations of NCAA regulations
j.        NCAA exercise unlimited plenary power over its members intercollegiate programs and enacts extensive and detailed rules thus opening itself up to antitrust liability—
II.                Regulating Interscholastic (High School) Athletics
a.       State Action—14th amendment of US constitution has a dichotomy between state action which is subject to due process scrutiny and private conduct which is not
                                                              i.      Brentwood Academy v. TN Secondary School Athletic Assn.
1.      Holding
a.       Reasoning: pervasive entwinement of state school officials in the structure of the assoc. and no offsetting reason to see the assoc act in another way—thus hold the assoc is a state actor
b.      Test: this is a necessary fact bound inquiry
                                                                                                                                      i.      Dissent: strong ad decision rendered after Tarkanian
                                                            ii.      NCAA vs Tarkanian current state of the law
1.      Held: NCAA not a state actor
a.       Test: did the state hold a “mantle of authority” that enhanced the power of the 
b.      UNLV did not delegate power to NCAA to take action against UNLV employee
c.       NCAA not an agent of UNLV
d.      NCAA had no governmental power
e.       NCAA cannot directly discipline Tarkanian
                                                                                                                                      i.      Dissent argues: state action is found if private parties were “jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action”
b.      Eligibility Issues
                                                              i.      Transfer Rules
1.      Indiana HS Athletic Assn. v. Avant
a.       HS athlete wants to transfer but a rule designed by athletic assoc to prevent school jumping—rule was a student who transfers for primarily athletic reasons will be ineligible for 1 year
b.      Rule: student cannot arbitrarily or capriciously denied the opportunity to qualify to participate in interscholastic athletic competitions
c.       Equal protection rule Is the classification based on distinctive characteristics—if so is the unequal treatment
d.      Distinctions must be reasonably related to achieve the assoc purpose to deter school jumping
2.      Walsh v. LA HS Athletic Assn.
a.       HS athlete wants to transfer—rule is designed to prevent recruiting—rule is the student will only be eligible to participate immediately in scholastic competition only in the home district from middle school to high school—here there was a Lutheran HS not in the geographic district of each elementary school
b.      Mootness: Claim not moot b/c a full and complete litigation of the case exceeds the challenged action and there is a reasonable expectation that the same issue will come up again
c.       Challenged under free exercise of religion rule: a neutral  regulation motivated by legitimate secular concerns may be unconstitutional if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion
                                                                                                                                      i.      This case was under strict scrutiny—NOT PRESENT LAW—instead now we have the Rational basis test
d.      Court balanced burdens vs. interest in assoc. of preventing recruiting—
e.       Due process rule: student interest in a single year of participation in interscholastic athletics is a mere expectation rather than constitutionally entitled
f.       Equal protection rule: classification must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest
                                                            ii.      Outside Competition Rules
1.      Letendre v. MO State HS Act. Assn.
2.      HS outside competition case—swimmer wants to compete on club team outside of her school team—rule was students could not compete on school and non-school team in same sport during school season—MSHSAA—says wants to avoid interference with education, prevent exploitation, control over HS tournaments and contests
3.      Equal protection rule: court will analyze under rational basis test if there is a suspect classification or impingement on constitution
4.      Holding: rational basis existed for the rule
5.      Free association claim: court will analyze only those cases that involve intimate human relationships fundamental to private activity or 1st amendment issues
                                                          iii.      Good Conduct Rules
1.      Brands v. Sheldon Community School
2.      Use this case for the elements of a TRO—will be granted if
a.       Threat or irreparable harm to movant
b.      Balance of threat or irreparable harm to the injury from injunction
c.       Likelihood of success on merits
d.      Public interest
3.      Procedural due process rule: whether plaintiff has be deprived of a liberty or property interest—court looks to nature of the interest at stake not the weight or seriousness of the loss to plaintiff
4.      BIG HOLDING: Interscholastic and Intercollegiate athletes have no legitimate to participate but have a mere expectation—
a.       Boyd in AK—Ct finds property interest in π continued status as a member of football team for rea