As many of you already know, the NCAA released a statement today declaring Cam Newton eligible for this season. As most of you also know, I am an Auburn graduate and devout fan. What you may not know is that I am also an attorney and, as an attorney, there is one particular aspect of the Newton ruling (and especially the resulting fervor it has generated), that I feel the need to discuss. Namely, what precedent, if any, has the NCAA set with this ruling. Precedents are extremely important in American jurisprudence and the large majority of legal education and practice in this country is spent interpreting and applying precedents that have been set by our various courts, agencies, etc. This is what attorneys do. That’s why the popular interpretations of this ruling that are currently being bandied about on sports radio, as well as all the various blogs and forums that comprise our little sports universe, leave me confused and even a little indignant. Allow me to explain. Precedents gleaned from rulings must be specifically tailored to the facts of the case in which the ruling was issued. Let’s look at a simple example. Let’s say you own a knife. Now, let’s say that a friend of yours steals your knife from you and ,without your knowledge, uses it to stab his girlfriend (Note: this is a totally fictional story and not in any way based on thousands of cases I saw as a prosecutor in Memphis). The girlfriend then sues you for damages. If the court rules that you are not liable for your friend’s actions, even though your knife was involved, the precedent must be something along the lines of: a person cannot be punished for the wrongdoing of another, even if that person’s property was used in the wrongdoing. What the precedent cannot be expanded to is something like: no one can be punished for crimes involving a knife. Makes sense, right? So, how does this apply to the Cam Newton ruling?
The overwhelming majority of sports outlets have spent the day loudly proclaiming that the NCAA ruling regarding Cam Newton’s eligibility sets a precedent that allows representatives of potential student-athletes solicit money in exchange for the services of the student-athlete without fear of any punishment or consequences. Clay Travis, a popular blogger and radio personality (as well as fellow Vanderbilt Law School alum), characterized the precedent as a “dump truck-sized loophole” in the NCAA rules regarding player eligibility. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports essentially echoed that sentiment later on the Paul Finebaum Show. I respectfully disagree. The facts of this case as we currently know them and, therefore, the precedent this ruling sets, are much, much narrower than these individuals are choosing to believe (Note: of course, new facts could change everything, but we have to work with the facts we have). The real precedent that this ruling sets is that you will not be severely punished for soliciting money for the services of a student athlete so long as:
1. No money ever actually changes hands
2. The athlete does not sign with the school that was solicited for money
3. The athlete had no knowledge of the wrongdoing
4. The school the athlete does sign with did not participate in, and has no knowledge of, the wrongdoing
That’s hardly a dump truck-sized loophole, in my humble legal opinion. I fail to see how a ruling on those specific facts creates an incentive for representatives of student-athletes to solicit money without fear of punishment. The biggest element here is, of course, the money. The fact that no money ever changed hands is an absolute deal-changer in this case and allows the NCAA to carve this very minor precedent. After all, who would want to solicit money that they are not allowed to actually receive? How would one solicit money from a school while keeping the player and the school in the dark about the scheme? It is difficult to conceive of a scenario where someone could personally benefit, financially or otherwise, while staying within the precedent outlined above. That is why I believe that the Newton ruling will not, in fact, have the sweeping negative effect that these media personalities are predicting.
One argument that I have heard absolutely no one make (not surprisingly) is that the NCAA should be applauded for seeing that punishing an innocent player and an innocent school for an attempted solicitation of another school would be a hammer-handed and counterproductive response. Let’s think about if they had ruled the other way. What would Auburn be being punished for? What lessons would Auburn learn? How is it fair and/or efficient to punish a member institution and a student-athlete that are, by all available accounts, completely innocent of any wrongdoing? Wouldn’t that be a far more harmful precedent to set than the one outlined above? Personally, I’d fear the following rule:
A school can be severely punished for the wrongdoing of a third party of which the school had no knowledge or involvement.
much, much more than one that says:
Representatives can ask for money so long as they never receive it and the player doesn’t sign with the school that was solicited.
Am I way off-base here?
The Newton case is certainly an odd one. There’s no doubt that solicitation of money for the services of a student-athlete is against NCAA rules and an activity that the NCAA would certainly like to discourage. Some will argue that the Newton ruling is contrary to that goal. I, however, believe the precedent set is narrow enough that the NCAA has not undercut their goals and I applaud them for realizing that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment