UPDATE: SB 193 – STUDENT ATHLETES’ BILL OF RIGHTS

During February 2003, California State Senator Kevin Murray (D- Los Angeles) contacted the NCAA Government Relations office regarding several student-athlete welfare issues. The information requests pertained to employment earning restrictions, health insurance coverage for student-athletes and agent representation. Despite our efforts to maintain an open dialogue and provide timely information to Senator Murray and his staff, an informational hearing was held on April 9, 2003, before the Senate Select Committee on the Entertainment Industry to discuss these matters further.

In addition to Senator Murray, chair of the select committee, only one other state senator attended for a brief period of time. Senator Murray’s relationship with the Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC) had been the motivating force for the hearing. Representatives from the CAC participated in the hearing and expressed their concerns, which focused on the cost of attendance and health insurance issues. In addition, there was substantial discussion by Senator Murray on the need for student-athletes to be able to have agent representation.

In order to respond to the variety of student-athlete issues raised by Senator Murray, the NCAA was well represented by Kevin Lennon, Bill Saum and three representatives from the NCAA’s Student-Athletic Advisory Committee (SAAC). In addition, a coalition including the government relations staff from the University of California and California State systems was formed. Both California University systems were represented at the hearing and supported the need to work within the NCAA legislative process to seek changes.

Several other issues addressed during this hearing included: the imposition of sanctions against an institution, graduation rates, academic reform, amount of athletic scholarships, length of athletic scholarships and transfer restrictions. At the conclusion of the hearing, we had hoped that we would continue our open dialogue with Senator Murray and he would await the outcome of some of the current NCAA proposals before introducing legislation.

Bill Introduction / Issues.

On April 24, 2003, Senator Murray introduced Senate Bill 193 and titled it the “Student Athletes’ Bill of Rights.” Senator Murray explained “the bill addresses the inequitable treatment of California’s student-athletes and removes some of the most archaic restrictions placed on colleges by the NCAA.” SB 193 would bar in-state colleges and universities from abiding by the NCAA’s rules on scholarships, health insurance coverage, agent relationships, transfer restrictions and enforcement actions and would effectively pull all California colleges and universities out of the NCAA.

Here is a brief summary of the issues set out in SB 193 and the status of the current or proposed NCAA discussion on the issue:

1. Outside Employment Limits – SB 193 would allow student-athletes to receive legitimate earnings from on- or off- campus employment without limit.

NCAA Position: As of August 1, 2003, student athletes will be allowed to earn legitimate income from on- or off-campus employment at any time without limit, provided the earnings are not generated as a result of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following the athlete has gained from his/her athletic ability.

2. “Grant-in-aid” vs. “Cost of Attendance” Scholarship Limit – SB 193 would raise the limit on athletic scholarships to actual cost of attendance. The actual cost of attendance would be based on the amount calculated by the campus financial aid office using federal regulations that includes transportation and other expenses.

NCAA Position: There are currently two legislative proposals, which address the issue of financial aid limits for student athletes. If either of these proposals is adopted, the amount of financial aid would effectively be raised to actual cost of attendance.

4. One-Year Scholarships Restriction – SB 193 would allow institutions to offer multi-year athletic scholarships.

NCAA Position: Discussions regarding multi-year athletics scholarships are ongoing.

5. Student-Athlete Health Insurance Restrictions – SB 193 would provide student-athletes health care coverage for any reason (including injuries suffered during nonsanctioned workouts).

NCAA Position: There is currently a legislative proposal which would permit schools to provide health care coverage for a student-athlete’s medical expenses resulting from any injury or illness, including those unrelated to athletics, provided it is necessary for the student-athlete to return to competition. This proposal will be formally considered by the Management Council in January 2004.

6. Ban on Licensed Representation – SB 193 would permit student-athletes to obtain licensed representation in making career choices.

NCAA Position: There is currently no discussion on this matter. However, there are several other ways that a student-athlete can receive advice in making decisions regarding their future careers without violating NCAA rules.

7. Transfer Restrictions – SB 193 would permit student-athletes to transfer without loss of eligibility if a head coach leaves the school of attendance or anticipated attendance.

NCAA Position: The Student Athlete Advisory Committee began discussions regarding transfer restrictions and the impact those restrictions have on student-athletes. Current transfer regulations are designed to ensure proper emphasis on educational objectives, promote competitive equity among institutions, and prevent exploitation of student-athletes.

8. Penalties for Rules Violations – SB 193 would prohibit a student-athlete from being penalized, including forfeiting a game or being denied participation in a tournament, for violations that she or he did not commit.

NCAA Position: There are currently no proposals on this matter. The Committee on Infractions considers the impact of a penalty on uninvolved student-athletes and coaches when determining what penalties will be assessed.

California Senate Action.

Soon after introduction, Senator Murray gained the support of Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D- San Francisco) for the bill by including a provision that prevents the imposition of a penalty on a current student-athlete for a violation of a rule that was not committed by that student-athlete, i.e. post-season bowl ban. Due to the strong political push by Senator Murray, SB 193 was passed out of the Senate Committee on Education May 6, 2003. There was very little time for our coalition of California member institutions to educate members regarding the harmful consequences of the bill. With the support of the President Pro Tem, the bill then moved to the Senate floor and was passed by a 26-10 vote on May 29, 2003.

California Assembly Action.

Following passage in the Senate, the bill was dually refereed to the Assembly’s Committee on Higher Education and the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media. After some postponements, the Committee on Higher Education was scheduled to hear the bill first on July 8, 2003.

Prior to this hearing, NCAA staff, Pacific-10 Conference and West Coast Conference staff, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the California Community Colleges and several representatives from NCAA member institutions met with each of the committee’s legislative members and/or their staff to discuss our concerns with the bill. The Committee on Higher Education has eleven members; 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans. During these discussions, it appeared that the Republicans as well as a few of the Democrats had concerns with the bill. The chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, Assembly member Carol Liu (D-Pasadena), expressed some specific concerns regarding the consequences of the bill. In addition, her committee staff prepared a summary and analysis of the bill that pointed out some of our concerns. Our coalition was pleased with progress we had made with the chair’s staff.

At the July 8 hearing, Senator Kevin Murray, the bill's author, appeared first before the Committee and discussed the bill's goals and history. Senator Murray went through each of the seven student-athlete welfare issues highlighted in his bill. His testimony was very dramatic as he equated student-athletes to “sharecroppers”. Also, he introduced several student-athletes, both current and former, who strongly believed that NCAA rules were unfair.

Among those student-athletes testifying in support of the bill were CAC President Ramogi Huma and organizing director Ryan Roques, who focused their comments on the problems student-athletes face in regards to health insurance and the cost of attendance. Roques recounted his experience of being unable to give his mother one of his jerseys and yet seeing it sold in the school bookstore. Clearly, these personal stories received great attention by the legislators in attendance.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were: Kevin Lennon, vice president for membership services for the NCAA, Ted Leland, director of athletics at Stanford University, Tom Hansen, commissioner of the Pacific-10 Conference and James Washington, a former UCLA football player. In addition, several other parties publicly stated their opposition to the bill including the West Coast Conference, the UC system, the CSU system, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the National Organization of Women, and the California Community Colleges, as well as some representatives of member institutions.

Following the testimony, some of the legislators present expressed concerns regarding various NCAA rules. Even the Republican members present became concerned with some of the NCAA rules addressed in the bill. With the consent of Senator Murray, the Committee on Higher Education agreed to extend SB 193 into a two-year bill and postpone any further consideration until the 2004 session. During that time, it is expected that the issues set out in SB 193 will be considered further by the California member institutions and the NCAA.

Next Steps: NCAA staff will continue to be very proactive in its efforts to defeat SB 193. In conjunction with the large California coalition, efforts will continue to educate members of the California legislature on the current NCAA legislative process, proposals under consideration and the consequences of the legislation.