NCAA Rules Are ‘a Lawyer’s Paradise’

Anaheim, Calif. — Ronald S. Katz, a lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, has strong opinions on the NCAA and its sizable canon of rules. But he reserves particularly sharp criticism for those bylaws that attempt to enforce the NCAA’s core principle of amateurism—two of which have been the target of recent lawsuits in state and federal court.

In one case, which was settled last year, a baseball player from Oklahoma State, Andrew Oliver, sued the NCAA, claiming it improperly declared him ineligible because he allegedly violated the NCAA’s “no-agent” rule in a discussion with a Major League ball club.

In another closely watched case, pending in federal district court in Oakland, a former basketball star at UCLA, Ed O’Bannon, has sued the NCAA over its use of his image and likeness in commercial ventures, namely video games. (The NCAA requires college athletes to sign a waiver that allows the association to use their names or pictures to promote NCAA championships or “other NCAA events, activities, or programs,” but athletes do not receive income from the proceeds of those ventures.)

As a high-profile, powerful organization, the NCAA is no stranger to lawsuits. And it is accustomed to encountering unfriendly juries and lawyers: Even if the association loses at the trial level, it frequently wins on appeal, especially in cases that deal with a core principle like amateurism.

But Mr. Katz said Tuesday that while the NCAA’s rules on such matters might seem deliberate and careful to its member institutions, to outsiders they can appear unfair and even illegal—especially given the commercial tint of the ventures.  

The association’s rule-making process “tends to produce very complicated legislation,” Mr. Katz told a roomful of a dozen or so athletics compliance officials. “That is just a lawyer’s paradise. That is what the lawyers are looking for, is contradictions.”

And he predicted that athletes’ images or likenesses used in video games without the players receiving a cut of the profits would not sit well in a courtroom. “You think a jury’s going to look at that and say, It’s just a coincidence, its just amateurism, it’s not a problem that [the athlete] didn’t get a red cent out of this, but the NCAA was paid tens of millions of dollars?” Mr. Katz asked.

“There really is a new sheriff in town,” he continued, “and either the NCAA will change or outside entities like the courts will change the NCAA.”