Transcript Bylaw 12.1.2.1.5


Pre-Enrollment Amateurism
 Training and competition-related expenses
 Prize money
 Professional team involvement

Post-Enrollment Amateurism
 Preferential treatment
 Agent issues

Understand the application of common
pre-enrollment amateurism issues.

Understand the application of common
post-enrollment amateurism issues.

Understand potential student-athlete
reinstatement outcomes based on
particular violations.

Apply pre and post-enrollment
amateurism legislation appropriately.

Recognize potential amateurism issues.

Develop a working knowledge of studentathlete reinstatement guidelines.
 Amateurism Certification Staff
 Interpretations Staff
 Student-Athlete Reinstatement
Staff
ACP
Interpretations
StudentAthlete
Reinstatement
ACP
Subcommittee
for Legislative
Relief

Sophie Snow is a skiing prospective studentathlete (PSA) from Stockholm, Sweden.

Sophie received three $800 checks ($2,400
total) from Athletes in Excellence to assist
with her general training expenses.

Sophie received one check in the month of
June, one in the month of July and one in the
month of August.

Additionally, Sophie received $2,000 from Athletes in
Excellence and $1,000 through local fundraising
efforts in the month of September to assist with her
costs associated with competing in the Stockholm
Games.

Sophie’s actual and necessary expenses associated
with the Stockholm Games totaled $5,000.

Athletes in Excellence is a local Stockholm funding
program created to assist local elite athletes with
training expenses.
 Was it permissible for Sophie to
accept the three $800 stipend
checks from Athletes in Excellence
to cover her general training
expenses?


No.
Bylaw 12.1.2.4.6.
 General training expenses only permissible from
National Governing Body or United States
Olympic Committee (or international equivalent).
 Impermissible source.

Bylaw 12.1.2.1.4.3.
 Expenses not related to competition or practice in
preparation for competition in which the PSA is
representing Athletes in Excellence.

Proposal No. 2011-24:
 In individual sports, prior to full-time collegiate
enrollment, an individual may accept up to actual
and necessary expenses associated with a
competition and practice immediately preceding
competition, from a sponsor other than an agent,
a member institution or a booster.
▪ Expands permissible source of competition-related
expenses.

Under Proposal No. 2011-24:
 Still impermissible.
▪ Three $800 checks are for general training
expenses and not competition-related.

Was it permissible for Sophie to accept
the $2,000 from Athletes in Excellence
for competition-related expenses?

Under Proposal No. 2011-24:
 Permissible for Sophie to accept expenses;.
 $2,000 from Athletes in Excellence is related to
Sophie’s competition in the Stockholm Games;
and
 $2,000 is less than Sophie’s actual and necessary
expenses ($5,000).

Would have been an impermissible source
under prior legislation.

Was it permissible for Sophie to accept
the $1,000 she received through
fundraising efforts from outside sources
for competition-related expenses?

Under Proposal 2011-24:
 Permissible for Sophie to accept the $1,000 she
received through fundraising.
▪ Permissible source.
 Permissible to accept earmarked competition-
related expenses.
 Up to actual and necessary expenses.
▪ $1,000 is less than Sophie’s remaining actual and
necessary expenses ($3,000).

Factors to Consider:
 Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement
Prescribed Penalties.
 Case Precedent.
 Mitigation.

Prescribed Penalties:
 Bylaw 12.1.2.1.4.3 (Expenses from Outside Team or
Organization Violations).
▪ Repayment of impermissible expenses received.
▪ If total impermissible expenses exceed $3,500,
withholding condition on a case-by-case analysis.
(June 2009)

Outcome Under Proposal No. 2011-24:
 Repay $2,400 to a charity of Sophie’s
choice.

Brian McBride is a men’s basketball prospective
student-athlete from Dublin, Ireland.

Brian’s expected date of high school graduation is
June 2011.

During the 2010-11 season, while in high school,
Brian signed a written agreement with the DCU
Saints for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons.

Brian did not receive a salary or stipend from the
DCU Saints.

The DCU Saints compete in the Irish
Superleague, and is considered a professional
team under NCAA legislation for the 2010-11
and 2011-12 seasons, as it paid at least one
player above actual and necessary expenses.

Brian competed in six games for the DCU Saints
during the 2010-11 season.

Brian enrolled as a full-time student at
Dublin City University in August 2011.

Brian competed in eight games for the
DCU Saints during the 2011-12 season.
 Was it permissible for Brian to sign a
written agreement with the DCU
Saints?


Yes.
Bylaw 12.2.5.1.
 Permits professional team contracts prior to initial
collegiate enrollment in sports other than men's
ice hockey and skiing.
 Analysis is based on the point in time at which
PSA signed contract.
 PSA signed professional contract pre-enrollment.

Was it permissible for Brian to compete
with DCU Saints:
 In six contests during 2010-11 season?
 In eight contests during 2011-12
season?

2010-11 season.
 Yes.
 Bylaw 12.2.3.2.1.
▪ Prior to initial collegiate enrollment, competition on a
professional team in sports other than men's ice hockey
and skiing is permissible, provided PSA does not receive
more than actual and necessary expenses to participate
on the team.
▪ Pre-enrollment analysis is based on the individual PSA
instead of the team or PSA’s teammates.

2011-12 season:
 No.
 Bylaw 12.2.3.2.
▪ Brian enrolled as a full-time student at Dublin City
University in August 2011.
▪ Impermissible for Brian to compete with DCU Saints in
eight contests during 2011-12 season.
▪ Post-enrollment analysis is based on the nature of the
team, which may be determined by benefits provided to
teammates in excess of actual and necessary expenses.

Prescribed Penalties:
 Bylaw 12.2.3.2 (Competition with Professionals).
▪ Two for one withholding condition.
(May 201o)

Outcome:
 Withholding from the first 16 regularly
scheduled contests of the 2012-13
men’s basketball season.

Raquel Racket is a women’s tennis prospective
student-athlete from Columbia.

Raquel graduated high school June 2011, but was not
recruited and did not have the financial ability to
attend college without a scholarship.

To gain exposure to college recruiters, Raquel
continued to participate in organized competition
until May 2012.

She initially enrolled full-time at a Division I institution
for the 2012 fall term.

During 2011, Raquel earned $6,700 in prize
money.

During 2012, Raquel earned $11,500 in prize
money, including $750 above expenses in one
event.

Raquel’s career expenses exceeded her career
prize money.

Was it permissible for Raquel to accept
the $6,700 in prize money earned during
2011?

Was it permissible for Raquel to accept
the $11,500 prize money earned during
2012?

Proposal No. 2011-25.
 In tennis, prior to initial full-time collegiate
enrollment, an individual may accept up to $10,000
per calendar year in prize money based place finish or
performance in open athletics events.
▪ Prize money may be provided only by the sponsor of an open
event in which the individual participates.
▪ Once the individual has reached the $10,000 limit in a
particular year, he or she may receive additional prize money
on a per-event basis, provided such prize money does not
exceed actual and necessary expenses for participation in the
event.

Under Proposal No. 2011-25:
 2011:
▪ Permissible for Raquel to accept $6,700 in prize money
given prize money never exceeded $10,000.
 2012:
▪ Permissible for Raquel to accept the first $10,000 in
prize money because it was earned prior to full-time
enrollment.
▪ Remaining $1,500 in prize money evaluated on a per
event basis.
▪ Raquel received $750 above expenses in one event.

Prescribed Penalties:
 Bylaw 12.1.2.1.5 (Prize Money Violations).
▪ For prize money violations prior to initial collegiate enrollment
when PSA accepts prize money above actual and necessary
expenses in one or more events, but less than career expenses
▪
▪
▪
▪
Less than $500 = Repayment
Greater than $500 - $700 = 10% withholding and repayment
Greater than $700 - $1,000 = 20% withholding and repayment
Greater than $1,000 = 30% withholding and repayment
(May 2010)

Potential Outcome Under Proposal No. 2011-25:
 Repay $750 to a charity of Raquel’s choice.
 Withholding from first 10 percent of the regularly
scheduled dates of competition of the 2012-13
women’s tennis season.

Enforcement Staff

Interpretations Staff

Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff
Enforcement
Interpretations
Student-Athlete
Reinstatement
Enforcement
Institution

Alex Alley-Oop is a recruited first-year men’s basketball studentathlete at Ballin’ University.

During October of Alex’s first year at Ballin’, his parents could not
pay rent so they reached out to Alex’s former non-scholastic
basketball coach, Charlie Cheatum, to see if he could loan them
money.

Charlie informed Freddy Football, a current NFL player and
financial supporter of Alex’s former non-scholastic team.

Freddy deposited $3,000 into the non-scholastic team bank
account.

Charlie withdrew the money and provided it
to Alex’s parents.

Alex’s parents repaid the money two months
later.

Alex had no knowledge of the loan to his
parents for rent.

Was the loan provided to Alex’s parents
from Freddy permissible?


No.
Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6.
 No benefits based on athletics reputation extends
to parents.

Official interpretation [Reference: 6/06/00].
 Does not meet the pre-existing relationship test.

Bylaw 12.1.2.1.4.3.
 Also not permissible expenses from an amateur
team.

Guidelines:
 Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 (Preferential Treatment After
Enrollment).
▪ Value of benefit is $100 or less = Repayment .
▪ Value of benefit is greater than $100 to $300 = Repayment and
10 percent withholding.
▪ Value of benefit is greater than $300 to $500 = Repayment and
20 percent withholding.
▪ Value of benefit is greater than $500 = Repayment and 30
percent withholding.
(May 2008)

Staff has the ability to increase or decrease
the withholding condition based on a review
of factors and culpability .
(May 2007)

Potential Outcome:
 Repay $3,000 to charity of Alex’s
choice.
 Withholding from first 30 percent of
regularly scheduled contests of the
2012-13 men’s basketball season.

Tommy Touchdown is a third-year football
student-athlete.

Tommy received $1,200 in airfare, lodging
and entertainment expenses from his former
teammate, Casey Kicks, who is assisting
Tommy in selecting an agent for the
upcoming NFL draft.

Casey demanded that any prospective agent
who wanted to meet with Tommy provide
Casey with a percentage of his or her
earnings if Tommy signed with the agent.

Casey arranged for Tommy to meet with four
prospective agents, who all agree to Casey’s
stipulations.

Casey is not a certified contract-advisor.

Casey is not affiliated with any one particular
sports agent.

Tommy was unaware of Casey’s agreement
with the prospective agents.

Was it permissible for Tommy to accept
the $1,200 in benefits from his former
teammate, Casey?

Proposal No. 2011-23.
 Amends Bylaw 12.02 as follows:
▪ An agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly:
(a)
(b)
Represents or attempts to represent an individual for the
purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation
for financial gain; or
Seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from
securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an
educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential
earnings as a professional athlete.

Proposal No. 2011-23 (cont’d.)
 An agent may include, but is not limited to, a
certified contract advisor, financial advisor,
marketing representative, brand manager or
anyone who is employed or associated with such
persons.

Under Proposal No. 2011-23:
 Not permissible.
 Casey would constitute an agent.
 Tommy’s acceptance of $1,200 from Casey is an
impermissible benefit from a prospective agent.

Bylaw 12.3.1.2.
 Impermissible benefits from a prospective agent.

Guidelines:
 Bylaw 12.3.1.2 (Benefits from an Agent or a Prospective
Agent Violations).
▪ Less than $100 = 10 percent withholding condition and repayment.
▪ Greater than $100 to $300 = 20 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ Greater than $300 to $500 = 30 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ Greater than $500 to $1,000 = 50 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ For violations greater than $1,000, the minimum withholding
condition is sit-a-season, charge-a-season up to permanent
ineligibility and repayment.
(December 2010)

Potential Outcome:
 Repay $1,200 to a charity of Tommy’s choice.
 Sit-a-season, charge-a-season withholding
condition.

Debbie Dribble is a fourth-year women’s
basketball student-athlete.

Debbie accepted $800 from a financial
advisor to assist with her training expenses
during the summer prior to her fourth year at
State University.
 Debbie agreed to repay financial advisor $800
when she turned professional.

Financial advisor wants to manage Debbie’s
future investments if she becomes a
professional athlete.

Financial advisor is not affiliated with any
particular contract advisor.

Was it permissible for Debbie to accept
the $800 from financial advisor for
training?


No.
Under Proposal No. 2011-23.
 Financial advisor would constitute an agent.
 Debbie's acceptance of $800 from financial
advisor is an impermissible benefit from a
prospective agent.

Bylaw 12.3.1.2.
 Impermissible benefits from a prospective agent.

Guidelines:
 Bylaw 12.3.1.2 (Benefits from an Agent or a Prospective Agent
Violations).
▪ Less than $100 = 10 percent withholding condition and repayment.
▪ Greater than $100 to $300 = 20 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ Greater than $300 to $500 = 30 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ Greater than $500 to $1,000 = 50 percent withholding condition and
repayment.
▪ For violations greater than $1,000, the minimum withholding
condition is sit-a-season, charge-a-season up to permanent
ineligibility and repayment.
(December 2010)

Potential Outcome:
 Repay $800 to a charity of Debbie’s
choice.
 Withholding from first 50 percent of
the regularly scheduled contests of the
women’s basketball season.

Pre-Enrollment Amateurism
 Training and competition-related expenses
 Prize money
 Professional team involvement

Post-Enrollment Amateurism
 Preferential treatment
 Agent issues