Compliance Question Of The Week - Indiana University Athletics

Compliance Question Of The Week
For the week of: October 8, 2001

Question:
One of our donors became friends with a currently enrolled student-athlete's family during the student-athlete's AAU career. Assume for purposes of this question that this friendship developed prior to the student-athlete starting high school, but also as a result of his athletics participation.

Question 1: Can the donor give or sell his season tickets in football (not the prospect's sport) to the family?

Question 2: Can the donor take the student-athlete and/or his family out to dinner at a restaurant?

Answer:
Answer 1: No, because there is an athletics nexus to the relationship between the prospect and the donor, the relationship does not pass the four-part test issued in an NCAA official interpretation on June 6, 2000 (see below). So, even though the relationship started prior to the student-athlete becoming a prospect, giving or selling tickets would be considered either an extra benefit or preferential treatment. Of course, if the donor could prove that he or she sells his tickets to anyone in the general population, then it would be okay for him or her to SELL the tickets at their face value (again, the NCAA would argue that a discount would be an extra benefit).

Answer 2: No, a donor (representative of IU's athletics interests) can have the student-athlete over for an occasional home meal at his or her home. The student-athlete's family would not be able to attend even if they had gone to dinner at the donor's house before the student-athlete became a prospect (started classes for the ninth grade) because the relationship developed as a result of athletics participation (see below).

Here is the 4 part test. Please note that it is applicable to both prospective student-athletes and currently enrolled student-athletes. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Benefits Resulting from an Established Relationship (I)
Date Issued: Jun 06, 2000
Type: Official
Item Ref: 4

Interpretation:

The subcommittee reviewed the application of NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6 as it relates to factual situations in which an individual (student-athlete or prospective student-athlete) has received benefits prior to or during collegiate enrollment from someone other than a family member or legal guardian, and agreed that the following objective guidelines generally should be used in determining whether such benefits are contrary to the legislation:

Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) develop as a result of the athlete's participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto? The NCAA says this answer must be "no," otherwise the benefits are not permissible. There must not be an "athletics nexus." If the answer is "yes," go to question number two.
Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status as a prospective student-athlete? This must be a "yes" answer. If so, go on to question three. Otherwise, there is an "athletics nexus" and the benefits are not permissible.
Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation? Again, the answer must be "yes." If so, go on to question four. Otherwise, there is an "athletics nexus" and the benefits are not permissible.
Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete's parents) prior to the athlete attaining notoriety as a skilled athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature? This answer must also be a "yes." The pattern of benefits provided must be similar to those provided in the past - no escalation can occur.

The subcommittee, however, noted that the origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors in determining whether the benefits provided are contrary to the spirit and intent of Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6.