Divisions I, II and III Column:
University of Miami-NCAA Enforcement Case: Compliance Strategies for Booster and Third-Party Issues
Author: Michael L. Buckner (Shareholder)
The following article is derived from a post published on the Michael L. Buckner Law Firm blog.
The August 16, 2011, Yahoo! Sports article concerning alleged NCAA rules-violations at the University of Miami (UM) provides important lessons to other colleges and universities. Yahoo! Sports and other media outlets reported Nevin Shapiro, a former UM booster who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for operating a $930 million Ponzi scheme, allegedly provided impermissible benefits to approximately 72 UM football student-athletes and other student-athletes between 2002 and 2010. Specifically, Shapiro purportedly provided cash, vehicles, yacht trips, jewelry, televisions, as well as paid for nightclub outings, meals, sex parties and other illicit benefits, to the student-athletes.
The NCAA investigation at UM involving the high-profile student-athletes and a booster underscore the hidden dangers of colleges and universities failing to adhere to the standards imposed by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions on June 10, 2010, in the University of Southern California (USC) case. The Yahoo! Sports article provided further proof that an institution is only one Facebook entry, blog post or Internet rumor away from intense scrutiny. The difficult task facing institutions is how to get a handle on illicit benefits high-profile athletes receive from boosters and other third-parties (e.g., individuals associated with a prospect, sports agents, runners, sports marketers, financial planners, investment advisers). An institution cannot afford to treat the UM enforcement case as an once-in-a-lifetime event or to be reactive or programmatic. The solution requires an institution to transform its rules-compliance program. Moreover, an institution should constantly adjust and manage for ongoing changes in this area.
The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm recommends institutions consider implementing the following measures to assist administrators with: identifying high-profile athletes (prospective and enrolled); collecting pertinent rules-compliance data and information; discovering "red flags" of possible illicit activity involving high-profile athletes and third-parties; and developing solutions to minimize major amateurism and extra-benefit rules-violations. [Note: We acknowledge it may be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent all rules-violations, but the Committee on Infractions requires an institution to demonstrate it fulfilled its duty to monitor proactively compliance with NCAA legislation.] The following checklist includes the minimum elements of a "transformative due-diligence program":
1. Develop (for adoption by the institution's governing board, president or chancellor) a high-profile student-athlete due-diligence policy.
2. Create an objective (non-discriminatory) set of criteria to identify the institution's high-profile student-athletes (prospective and enrolled).
3. Implement the following registration and monitoring activities: a) sports agent/sports marketer/financial planner/investment advisor program; b) student-athlete vehicle registration program; c) student-athlete and parental housing registration program; and d) student-athlete employment program.
4. Increase monitoring activities of (and limit access to) the following areas: a) athletics facilities (including locker-rooms and practice areas); b) sidelines or other limited-access areas during athletics contests; and c) team-chartered transportation.
5. Monitor social-network and other Internet sites (including, but not limited to, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs and sports media websites).
6. Create a daily Google search/alert for compliance-related news on identified high-profile student-athletes.
7. Follow-up reports of high-profile student-athletes attending parties or other social gatherings hosted or organized by boosters, individuals associated with a prospect, professional athletes, corporations, sports agents, runners, sports marketers, financial planners, investment advisers or other third-parties. [Note: Use in conjunction with Recommendation No. 13.]
8. Require student-athletes to read and sign a statement acknowledging receipt and understanding of legislation and institutional policies concerning third-parties, amateurism and extra-benefits.
9. Schedule regular rules-education sessions for student-athletes, coaches, athletics administrators and staff, university employees with athletically-related duties and responsibilities and booster/alumni groups highlighting: NCAA legislation implicated in the UM enforcement case; and issues relating to sports agents (as well as runners, sports marketers, financial planners and investment advisers), amateurism and extra-benefits. [Note: Maintain attendance sheets, agendas and handouts.]
10. Address issues relating to boosters, sports agents (as well as runners, sports marketers, financial planners and investment advisers), amateurism and extra-benefits during at least one student-athlete advisory committee (SAAC) meeting each academic year.
11. Include questions relating to boosters, sports agents, runners, sports marketers, financial planners and investment advisers in student-athlete exit interviews (for seniors, transferring student-athletes or student-athletes without eligibility) and annual student-athlete surveys (for returning student-athletes).
12. Create an anonymous hotline to receive allegations, tips, questions or other information concerning alleged NCAA rules-violations.
13. Implement (in conjunction with Recommendation No. 7) a sign-out policy for all student-athletes who will leave campus for a period that exceeds 24 hours in duration. [Note: The policy would apply only when the student-athlete is: enrolled in academic courses; under the supervision or control of the institution; and/or participating in countable athletically-related activities.]
14. Address issues involving third-parties in regular rules-compliance audits.
15. Benchmark the institution's due-diligence program with protocols used at other NCAA member institutions to monitor high-profile student-athletes and third-parties.
