 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 student- athlete reinstatement guidelines.

 Amateurism Certification Staff  Interpretations Staff  Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff

ACPInterpretations ACP Subcommittee for Legislative Relief Student- Athlete Reinstatement

 Sophie Snow is a skiing prospective student- athlete (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  General training expenses only permissible from National Governing Body or United States Olympic Committee (or international equivalent).  Impermissible source.  Bylaw  Expenses not related to competition or practice in preparation for competition in which the PSA is representing Athletes in Excellence.

 Proposal No :  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 :  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 :  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 :  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 (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 :  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  During the season, while in high school, Brian signed a written agreement with the DCU Saints for the and 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 and seasons, as it paid at least one player above actual and necessary expenses.  Brian competed in six games for the DCU Saints during the season.

 Brian enrolled as a full-time student at Dublin City University in August  Brian competed in eight games for the DCU Saints during the season.

 Was it permissible for Brian to sign a written agreement with the DCU Saints?

 Yes.  Bylaw  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 season?  In eight contests during season?

 season.  Yes.  Bylaw ▪ 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.

 season:  No.  Bylaw ▪ Brian enrolled as a full-time student at Dublin City University in August ▪ Impermissible for Brian to compete with DCU Saints in eight contests during 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 (Competition with Professionals). ▪ Two for one withholding condition. (May 201o)

 Outcome:  Withholding from the first 16 regularly scheduled contests of the 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  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  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: ▪ 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 (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 :  Repay $750 to a charity of Raquel’s choice.  Withholding from first 10 percent of the regularly scheduled dates of competition of the women’s tennis season.

 Enforcement Staff  Interpretations Staff  Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff

EnforcementInterpretationsEnforcement Student-Athlete Reinstatement Institution

 Alex Alley-Oop is a recruited first-year men’s basketball student- athlete 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  No benefits based on athletics reputation extends to parents.  Official interpretation [Reference: 6/06/00].  Does not meet the pre-existing relationship test.  Bylaw  Also not permissible expenses from an amateur team.

 Guidelines:  Bylaw (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 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  Amends Bylaw as follows: ▪ An agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly: (a) Represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or (b) 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 (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 :  Not permissible.  Casey would constitute an agent.  Tommy’s acceptance of $1,200 from Casey is an impermissible benefit from a prospective agent.  Bylaw  Impermissible benefits from a prospective agent.

 Guidelines:  Bylaw (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  Financial advisor would constitute an agent.  Debbie's acceptance of $800 from financial advisor is an impermissible benefit from a prospective agent.  Bylaw  Impermissible benefits from a prospective agent.

 Guidelines:  Bylaw (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