TAKE AWAY
- The NCAA’s alternative arbitration body, the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), determined that the clothing company’s sponsorship deal did not make the company a booster.
- Going forward, it is unlikely that apparel sponsorship deals and funds provided under those deals alone will trigger “booster” status.
- Member institutions should include rules in their compliance documents governing the circumstances under which apparel company representatives may become boosters.
In 2023, the name image and likeness (NIL) allowance, transfer portal, conference realignment, and overall governance structure of the NCAA have attracted significant media attention. But one of the most significant issues in the college athletics and sports law enforcement industry continues to be what precisely constitutes a “representative of (a university program’s) athletic interests )”, colloquially known as “booster”. Indeed, under long-standing NCAA law, member institutions are held liable for the actions of their promoters under the very low standard of proof of “knowing or should have known.”
On this issue, the NCAA’s alternative adjudication body, the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), recently issued a definitive ruling – bringing significant victories to Pillsbury’s clients, the University of Kansas, and the coach in men’s basketball head Bill E. Self – who resoundingly rejected the NCAA’s decision. claim that a sports sponsorship deal between adidas and KU turned adidas and its representatives into “boosters” of the school, making the school (and Coach Self) responsible for surreptitious actions taken by some adidas representatives (deliberately hidden from KU, Coach Himself and the men’s basketball staff) that violated several NCAA rules.
The IARP decision, issued as part of a comprehensive report released October 11, 2023 by the Independent Resolution Panel (IRP) in charge of the case, stems from the FBI’s multi-year investigation into corruption and bribery -of-win in college basketball recruiting and the subsequent SDNY investigation. criminal proceedings against representatives of adidas and subsidiaries of sports agencies. Despite undisputed testimony in the criminal trials establishing that neither KU nor its basketball coaches were aware of illicit payments made by Adidas representatives to the families of prospective student-athletes, enforcement staff The NCAA alleged that KU, Coach Self and assistant men’s basketball coach Kurtis Townsend, collectively, committed five NCAA Level I violations.
At the heart of the NCAA enforcement staff’s case (and, after its transfer to the newly created IARP in 2020, the prosecution’s Complex Case Unit (CCU) theory) was the assertion that adidas and its representatives became promoters of KU under adidas-KU. sponsorship agreement and provision of funds by adidas to KU. Thus, when these Adidas representatives made concealed illicit payments (and took other actions) in violation of NCAA rules, their transgressions were transmutable to KU and Coach Self, warranting severe sanctions.
NCAA Constitution 6.4.2 defines what constitutes a “representative of athletic interests” or a “booster.” Boosters can include individuals, organizations (such as a “booster club”), and “corporate entity” (for example, an clothing or equipment manufacturer). Although recall status can be assigned in several ways (e.g. by donating money to an athletic department), Constitution 6.4.2(e) is relevant to the KU case (and several others arising of SDNY Prosecutions), in which an individual or entity “(i) is otherwise involved in promoting the institution’s athletic program.” Booster status is particularly important in the context of NCAA rule enforcement because, although the member institution and/or its coaches are not strictly responsible for the actions of their boosters, they are subject to the standard relatively weak from “known or should have known”. » about the activity in question.
In the KU proceedings, the CCU – the entity that assumed prosecutorial power after the case was transferred to the IARP – put forward the following position: among othersAdidas and its representatives became boosters simply by virtue of Adidas’ apparel sponsorship deal itself, as well as the funds Adidas provided to KU through its annual Midnight Madness event, Late Night in the Phog, and for a celebration of Coach Self, a former NBA player and other adidas associate inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 2017.
Although NCAA Constitution 6.4.2 was amended in 1999 to refer to apparel industry entities, the CCU’s theory of liability was new: a sponsorship agreement with a member institution automatically transformed the industry enterprise clothing and its employees as boosters. Taken at face value, endorsing this theory would have profound implications for college sports – and basketball in particular – given that nearly every Division I football and basketball program has a sponsorship deal with one of the three dominant clothing companies, Nike, Under Armor or Adidas, and that the representatives and affiliates of the clothing companies are closely tied to grassroots amateur basketball.
The IRP, however, flatly rejected the CCU theory, finding instead that the KU agreement was: (1) “materially indistinguishable” from similar agreements with other institutions; and (2) designed through a series of incentives aimed at promoting the clothing business and not KU. The IRP also rejected arguments that adidas’ provision of funds to secure a musical artist for the 2017 Late Night in the Phog and the 2017 Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame Induction Celebration gave rise to status of reminder. Instead, the IRP found that these funds promoted Adidas and the Adidas brand; they did not promote KU’s athletic interests.
Ultimately, the IRP concluded that a single external Adidas consultant became a booster in August 2017 under the “promotion of the institution’s sports program” component of section 6.4.2. However, this was done through a traditional factual analysis that relied on a series of communications between the external consultant, members of the men’s basketball coaching staff and the coach’s tutor. a potential student-athlete, who was also independently involved in grassroots basketball. The communications in question concerned the guardian’s efforts to obtain used clothing to be sent back to Angola for use by a men’s amateur basketball team. The IRP ultimately concluded that the underlying actions constituted only a violation of the Level III rules, the most minor infraction.
Conclusion
The IRP’s rejection of the CCU booster theory is a significant development in NCAA rule enforcement. Going forward, it appears unlikely that the Infractions Committee will find that an apparel sponsorship agreement and funds from the apparel manufacturer consistent with the spirit of the agreement are sufficient to trigger recall status for the clothing company and its representatives.
However, the decision regarding Adidas’ external consultant is also important for continued education regarding NCAA rule compliance. Communications between men’s college basketball coaches and third-party affiliates of apparel companies, such as Adidas’ outside consultant, are ubiquitous, permitted by NCAA rules, and have taken place for decades with the knowledge and tacit approval of the NCAA. However, in certain circumstances, these benign and authorized communications may still give rise to recall status under traditional fact-driven investigation. NCAA member institutions should supplement existing educational materials on rules compliance to specifically address communications with third-party apparel company affiliates and grassroots basketball representatives to avoid future liability.
The full NCAA IARP report can be found here.
(View source.)
