James Paxton’s fight with the NCAA brings out everything I hate about organized sports.  When it becomes all about money, power, and respect, people suffer.  Those, like Paxton, who do nothing illegal, unethical, nothing out of hatred or spite, but still get punished, show the problems that may exist in organized sport.  When institutions grow in strength, they feel that they can do whatever they please.  In this case, the institution won.  James Paxton was pushed away from the University of Kentucky, the university he came back to after passing up a seven-figure offer from the Toronto Blue Jays.  This is the NCAA’s way of saying thanks, but no thanks.  We have a boatload of student-athletes; you are just one unnecessary person in a large group of college baseball players.

Here is my most recent post, which explains some more about James Paxton’s situation, in case his name does not ring a bell.  The gist: The University of Kentucky suspended Paxton because he would not cooperate with NCAA investigators who wanted to question him about his advisor (Scott Boras) supposedly having direct communication with someone from the Blue Jays front office after Paxton was drafted last year (an NCAA rule violation).

After James Paxton withdrew from the University of Kentucky, the institution of higher education released the following statement (with my emphases added in certain parts):

The University of Kentucky is very disappointed in James Paxton’s decision to not meet with the NCAA about a potential amateurism issue. No one wanted James on the mound in a Kentucky uniform more than UK head coach Gary Henderson, athletics director Mitch Barnhart and the UK Athletics staff. Due to the possibility of future penalties, including forfeiture of games, UK could not put the other 32 players of the team and the entire UK 22-sport intercollegiate athletics department at risk by having James compete. It’s about the team and giving student-athletes the opportunity to achieve their goals. Throughout the process, UK has remained confident that James would be able to pitch for Kentucky during the 2010 season and UK offered every bit of assistance to aid James in that NCAA process.

UK does not know all the facts of last summer’s post-draft interaction among James, his advisors and the Toronto Blue Jays and has not prejudged his situation. James has an obligation under NCAA Bylaw 10.1 (j) to answer questions that relate to his amateur status. On advice of his counsel, James has elected not to be interviewed by the NCAA. UK has offered to pursue an immediate application for reinstatement for James with the NCAA if that became necessary. However, no request for reinstatement of his eligibility can be made based on mitigating circumstances until the student-athlete and his family cooperate and make all facts known to UK, with the NCAA having the opportunity to verify those facts. UK has never been provided all pertinent information from James and his family, who are following the legal advice of his attorneys not to be interviewed by the NCAA. Without knowing all the facts, UK cannot present mitigating circumstances to the NCAA on James’ behalf.

UK is more optimistic than James and his family that any period of ineligibility could be shortened to allow James to pitch during the last and most important part of the season, the Southeastern Conference schedule. So it is disappointing that James is unwilling to go through the normal NCAA process, allowing UK to appeal for him, if necessary. The University of Kentucky is sad to see James leave its baseball team, especially after other players gave up portions of their scholarships in August so that he would have a substantial scholarship for his senior year.

While UK is extremely disappointed in the decision made by James to not meet with the NCAA, he will always be a member of the Wildcat family. UK hopes that James will stay and earn his degree and wishes him the best in his professional baseball career. Should James change his mind and be willing to cooperate with the NCAA inquiry, the door is open for him to return to the UK baseball team and UK will seek any immediate appeal necessary for his reinstatement.

If it truly is about the team and giving student-athletes the opportunity to achieve their goals, wouldn’t that mean that the team/school would rally behind its individual athletes?  Does UK think that the stance it has taken will encourage future baseball players to attend its school any more after not backing up one of its own student-athletes?  And that sentence about UK being sad to see Paxton leave, especially after other players gave up portions of their scholarships…Please!  Do you care about Paxton, or do you wish you had the money to pay the other guys?

Now take a look at Paxton’s attorney’s statement regarding Paxton’s decision to leave UK.

In light of UK’s decision to issue a press release Friday evening, I feel compelled to explain this sad state of affairs, none of which would be occurring, if UK was not scared to death of the NCAA.

UK’s fear of the NCAA has resulted in UK withholding James from intercollegiate baseball competition, when there are no allegations or evidence against him, when he is eligible to play, and when UK admits that it cannot compel James to speak to the NCAA. This fear is based upon the unsupported supposition that someday allegations would be filed against James predicated upon some unknown set of facts that would result in some unknown NCAA retaliation down-the-line.

As everyone knows, James turned down a lot of money from the Toronto Bluejays to come back to UK to play with his teammates and for his coach with the hopes of reaching the post-season and the possibility of winning the College World Series for the Wildcats.

The past several months have been very challenging for James and his family as well as for his teammates and coach. To the many who have stood by him, he is forever grateful for their support.

Much has been speculated about why the NCAA wishes to interview James, even though UK admits that it does not know, and this speculation has focused on a single, unverified blog entry, which is vague at best. However, the implication is that James’ attorney violated the NCAA’s No Agent Rule, which attempts to limit his attorney’s representation of him, and which would be held invalid in Kentucky, if James were ever charged with such a violation—just like it was held invalid in Ohio in the Oliver v. NCAA case last year. The NCAA’s presumptive penalty for a No Agent Rule violation is permanent ineligibility, and not six games or the like that has been bandied about as a possible sanction for such a violation.

Some people wonder why James won’t just go to an NCAA “interview,” if he has nothing to “hide,” so let me tell you why:

First, at UK, students have due process rights under its Code of Student Conduct, faculty have these rights by Kentucky statute, James’ coach and the athletic director have these rights via their lucrative contracts, and UK has these rights via NCAA Bylaw 32, which affords it the rights, when it is being investigated, that it has ironically denied to James. In addition, all of these persons have the rights guaranteed by the Kentucky Constitution. However, James is being denied these rights. Indeed, despite making massive profits on the backs of student-athletes, the NCAA provides no due process protections to student-athletes like James;

Second, what the NCAA cloaks as an “interview” is in reality a prosecution and execution by ambush without notice of what the subject matter will be. On top of that, the NCAA sometimes relies on confidential witnesses, dubious so-called “evidence,” like blogs, without any standards for credibility or weight, and so on. The NCAA acts like an unscrupulous bully by doing essentially whatever it wants without regard to the rights of student-athletes;

Third, at the end its prosecution and execution of a student athlete, the NCAA, does not even have to put its reasoning or the alleged violations in writing to James. With absolute power over the athlete—as the UK AD put it, “the NCAA holds James’ life in its hands”—the NCAA is completely unaccountable to student-athletes;

Fourth, the schools like UK, which described itself to James as just the NCAA’s messenger, are forced to do the NCAA’s dirty work. Under NCAA rules, only UK can suspend James, and all suspensions are indefinite by definition. Indeed, UK indicated to James back in September that, if he went to the NCAA “interview,” he would be suspended— even though UK said that it did not know why. Thus, James has already been told going to an interview means suspension, and under NCAA rules, the suspension is indefinite and possibly forever;

Fifth, in December, James was told by UK that, if the interview was about the No Agent Rule, and if James went to the “interview” and asserted his attorney-client privilege regarding his communications with his attorney, it would be interpreted as not cooperating, and he would be suspended. In fact, UK told James that the NCAA Bylaws superceded his right to have confidential and privileged communications with his attorney, which is mind-boggling. In a nation built upon due process and equal protection, the NCAA’s refusal to respect student-athletes’ right to counsel is staggering;

Sixth, once suspended, only the NCAA can reinstate James, and it can impose whatever penalties it wants as a condition of reinstatement. James has no right to even seek his own reinstatement, and only UK can supposedly “represent” him on reinstatement, subject to whatever position regarding his future it decides to take, even if James disagrees with it. Thus, in layman’s terms, the NCAA has banned James from having any individual right to appeal, so it can do whatever it wants to him, and he has absolutely no recourse of his own; and

Seventh, UK which is beholden to the NCAA, scared of the NCAA, and the selfdescribed messenger of the NCAA, stated in its press release that it is “disappointed” that James is unwilling to go through “the normal NCAA process.” This is astonishing, because in a civilized society, the “normal NCAA process” is hardly normal and is about as un-American as it can get. Hypocritically, UK and the other NCAA members do not believe that such a process would be fair to them, since they have negotiated their own due process protections that apply to them, when they are investigated by the NCAA.

James’ lawsuit against UK was a civil rights case under the Kentucky Constitution, where he challenged the denial of due process rights to student-athletes, yet the circuit court did not even discuss the merits of this challenge. Likewise, the court of appeals did not analyze or even discuss any of the specific arguments advanced on James’ behalf, and, instead, it blamed James for this situation, which was hardly of his own making. While James could have sought discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court, any such review, if at all, would most likely have come long after the baseball season was over, thus making the effort a futile one, all the while leaving James in limbo during the remainder of the season.

At some point, James believes you have to stand up for what is right, and James has decided to do so by taking a leave of absence from the University. James understands that his life will be defined by his principles, and he is making a heartbreaking sacrifice to stand up for what he believes is right. James is a wonderful young man with a bright future, and he will emerge from this process stronger and wiser than he was before. I look forward to that day very soon, when I will be able to see him pitch in the Major Leagues.

In conclusion, James apologizes to his teammates and coach, who are stuck in the middle, just like he is. James wishes his teammates and his coach a successful season, and he will be there in spirit cheering them on. James is and always will be a Wildcat at heart.

Sad ending to a sad story.

First up: Samuel Michael Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company.  The complaint was filed on May 5, 2009 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Electronic Arts has created a long line of profitable games under the EA Sports umbrella.  For its games based on professional sports, it can use players’ names and their likeness by bargaining with the players’ association.  For instance, if EA Sports wants to put player names on Madden 2010, the NFLPA can assign those rights to Electronic Arts (for roughly $35 million per year, according to the lawsuit).  EA pays the NFLPA a fee, and all is said and done.  So, can’t Electronic Arts make a similar deal with the NCAA to use college athletes’ likenesses on games like NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, and NCAA March Madness?  Keller is arguing that such a deal is illegal.

The claim being made is that NCAA bylaws (Bylaw 12.5), contracts, and licensing agreements (between Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company) prohibit outside entities from using NCAA players’ names, pictures, and likenesses; however, the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company are doing absolutely nothing to deter Electronic Arts from using those names and likenesses.  In fact, Keller argues that the NCAA encourages the violation of its own bylaws, contracts, and licensing agreements, because in the end, the NCAA benefits from increased royalties.  In defense of EA, players do not have names attached when a consumer purchases the original game.  However, Keller claims that EA does not do enough to prevent gamers from uploading new rosters that include player names.  This sounds like a claim of vicarious liability that I believe will be hard for Keller to prevail on.

Keller wants to make it a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all NCAA athletes who have had their names and likenesses used without permission.  If your height or weight is not the same (or very close to the same) on the game as it is in real life, then sorry, but you’re left out of the suit.

Is EA’s replication of an athlete’s jersey number, height, weight, build, skin tone, hair color, hair style, and accessories (like wristband, headband, facemask, and/or visor) a replication of that player’s likeness?  That’s for the court to decide.  When you hit the sticks for a rivalry match between the Gators and Seminoles, can you easily tell that the starting Quarterback for the Gators is Tim Tebow based on his image alone?  Or are you only confirmed of that based on your prior knowledge that he is the QB for the National Champions?

Players’ names are left off of jerseys on purpose in an effort to avoid this type of litigation.  The NCAA and CLC may point to that and show just how many gamers go through the process of downloading the rosters so that the names are then revealed.  I do not believe that EA is contributorily liable for the actions of the consumers who download the rosters, because I cannot see how EA encourages the downloading of those rosters by any specific act.  However, perhaps EA is found to be vicariously liable.  It’s hard to say that EA does not have constructive knowledge that its consumers are actively downloading rosters.  But does EA directly or indirectly benefit from the action?  I would say that people are going to buy the games whether or not they can download the rosters.

The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.  One would think that maybe the NCAA, CLC, and EA would take interest in this case.

Case #2: Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr. v. NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company. The complaint was filed on July 21, 2009 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

The NCAA and CLC might take interest in this one too.  Electronic Arts breaths a sigh of relief…unless Keller’s suit is joined to O’Bannon’s.

Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr., also known as Ed O’Bannon, also does not like not getting paid when his likeness is used.  Like Keller, he has decided to file suit in Federal Court, and made it a class-action suit on behalf of all of his collegiate athlete brethren.  O’Bannon has a lot more fish to fry than Keller, though.  Not only is he upset with the NCAA for allowing the usage of his likeness on video games, but also on DVDs, TV, photos, memorabilia, and advertising in general.

O’Bannon is not only claiming that current student athletes have a right to royalty payments when their likeness is assigned or used by the NCAA.  He is also claimimg that former players control the right to use their likeness and former likeness, and that the NCAA should be prohibited from earning profits on players’ likenesses once they leave campus.  Additionally, O’Bannon claims that athletes transfer their name/likeness rights to the NCAA upon accepting a scholarship because they have absolutely no choice and are never told to attain outside legal advice before making the transfer.

O’Bannon believes that the NCAA has restrained trade in an effort to exploit former collegiate athletes and reap profits without making any type of royalty payment to those athletes.  This lawsuit has a little Antitrust zing that the Keller complaint seems to lack.

A little FYI – the Collegiate Licensing Company is a subdivision of IMG.  IMG is a conglomerate with a large sports representation practice in golf and tennis.

Another FYI – O’Bannon has some big guns on his side: Attorneys with solid track records in popular cases and Sonny Vaccaro.

At least these cases won’t prevent the release of future versions for Bulls vs. Blazers or Tecmo Super Bowl.  Yeah…like the Bulls and Blazers will ever be in the Finals again, anyway!

Oklahoma State LHP, Andrew Oliver, is a stud on the mound. In 2006, he was drafted in the 17th round by the Minnesota Twins. He declined joining the Twins organization and instead helped his OSU team break the top 25 college teams in the nation this year with his arm and his heart. In fact, the Sophomore was named Big 12 Player of the Week back in April, after pitching a complete game three-hitter. He was later named to the first-team All-Big 12. This would be the type of guy that a manager wants pitching in an important game that could decide the school’s season. Unfortunately, on May 31, against a strong Wichita State team looking to advance in the CWS, OSU coach Frank Anderson did not have Andy as an option. All because Oliver spoke to someone claiming to be an agent?

The Oklahoma State Cowboys lost the Saturday night game to Wichita State. The result may have been different had the baseball been in Andy Oliver’s left hand. Andy was labeled indefinitely ineligible to perform for the rest of the season, which included yesterday’s day game against TCU and the night match-up against same team from Saturday, Wichita State. OSU won a thriller against TCU, but fell to Wichita State. The team’s season is over…but why?

The whole issue is over whether Andy Oliver had an adviser or an agent. Time to go old-school and reference a post that I wrote back in August of 2006: Agent or Advisor?

Section 12.3.4 of the NCAA Bylaws explicitly allows for adviser panels to exist. Importantly, it states that an adviser can review a proposed professional contract, help in securing tryouts with teams, and even assist a student-athlete with the selection of an agent.

Main benefit of being labeled as an adviser: Your friend (client) can maintain NCAA eligibility – this allows a player considering leaving college early for the pros to return to his/her college team if contract negotiations with a professional team fails. Signing with an actual agent would end friend’s (client’s) college eligibility.

Let me add an additional important item that is sent to college baseball players in a memo titled, NCAA Major League Baseball (MLB) First-Year Player Draft, Agents, and Tryouts:

Question: Am I permitted to have an adviser during this process?

Answer: Yes, provided the adviser does not market you to MLB teams. However, an adviser will be considered an agent if they contact teams on your behalf to arrange private workouts or tryouts.

The Oklahoman wonders, Did Oliver recently drop his adviser, and is this his former adviser’s way of “getting even”?

An inside source tells me that Andy Oliver’s family had an agent advising them while Andy was in high school leading up to the point he was drafted. His family recently started getting advice from a different agent and it ticked the first group off because it became apparent they would not get his signature on a dotted line after his junior year (next year). The first group decided to get even and billed the Oliver family $90,000 for 300+ hours of advice. The family told them to shove it because advice is free and that is how all agents get business. In this case the agent firm decided to get real scummy and turned in an allegation to the NCAA in which they alleged Andy accepted small items of value from them.

If the statement above is true, then yes, sleaziness has gone that far…far enough to intervene in an amateur event. When an agent sticks his nose into a situation and starts to change the landscape of amateur sports, then we as a profession have some serious reforming to do.

An agent is documented by the NCAA as anyone who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletic ability. That definition is extremely vague, and allows for an agent to be an advisor before any true marketing is done on behalf of friend/client.

Section 12.3.4 of the NCAA Bylaws explicitly allows for advisor panels to exist. Importantly, it states that an advisor can review a proposed professional contract, help in securing tryouts with teams, and even assist a student-athlete with the selection of an agent [The NCAA's Regulations Related to the Use of Agents in the Sport of Baseball].

Main benefit of being labeled as an advisor: Your friend (client) can maintain NCAA eligibility – this allows a player considering leaving college early for the pros to return to his/her college team if contract negotiations with a professional team fails. Signing with an actual agent would end friend’s (client’s) college eligibility.

Jason Wood, an agent in the state of Florida, does an excellent job of breaking down the advisor vs. agent relationship leading up to the June baseball draft [Agents vs. Advisors]:

August through June Draft
Families speak with agents about the possibility of the agent representing their son in the next amateur baseball draft. They tell you about their themselves and how they can help families through the draft process.

January through June Draft
The list of potential agents is narrowed down and evaluated more closely. A second meeting between the parties may take place. A family may even disclose to an agent they have chosen an adviser to help them through the draft process. During this time the agent analyzes the market and establishes parameters that will help the player determine if he will accept an offer from a Major League Baseball team.

June Draft
Once the team has presented the player with an offer that is within the families financial parameters and it looks likely that the player will sign a professional contract, the transition from adviser to agent is almost complete. When the team finally does give the player an acceptable contract and it is clear he will sign with the club, the adviser becomes the agent.

Once a professional contract is signed between player and team, the advisor is officially an agent. I like to think about it like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It is the same creature at a different stage acting in a new manner.