SPORTS AGENT RESPONSIBILITIES 4
Thelaw provides that sports agents, just like any other agents havelegal responsibilities in addition to other contractualresponsibilities. This means that they have certain legalexpectations that they have to meet in regard to their relationshipwith both the client and the parties that relate to the client. Inrelation to the student-athletes, the related body that is legallyconnected to the young players is the NCAA. Therefore, sports agentsneed to relate with the young athletes in ways that respect theregulations of the NCAA. This means that any contractual relationshipbetween such agents with student athletes or their schools should bewithin the regulations of the NCAA.
Thecase under review by Heitner (2010) illustrates an investigation bythe NCAA on a sports agency and the football authority of theUniversityof North Carolina. The sports body is accusing the sports agentinvolved as well as the school football program of violating the ruleconcerning gifts. According to the NCAA, a sports agent should notgive student-athletes gifts or benefits without the sport body’ssanction. According to Heitner(2010), the sports laws prohibit an agent to undertake some actionsdue to certain restrictions that are applicable under the SportsAgency Responsibility Act. In the article, the relationships betweenthe parties related to student athletes also depends on theagreements that each make with one another to avoid infringements.
Thisinvestigation and growing scandal does not surprise me because thereis always a tussles between the limits of the rights of agents, theschool and the NCAA all n regard to the signing of astudent-athlete. Many sports agent want to take all the rights of anathlete even when such athletes are evidently under the legalprotection of sports organizations. It is also not surprising thatthe sports organization NCAA wants all the rights over these playersin a bid to make money with them. The organization has been accusedof restraining the athletes too much, taking sponsorship money andgiving the young players little benefits.
Indiscussing this case, the author did well in explaining the legalissue. Heitner (2010) clearly describes the law of sports agents’law, section 7802(a) (1) (b) that specifically disallows agents fromcertain contractual dealings with student-athletes. By describing thelaw, Heitner (2010) particularly applies the law on the specific casethat requires its application. Heitner (2010) describes therequirement by the clause that sports agents should not give anyvaluable item to anyone related to student-athletes or even tostudent-athletes themselves. Heitner (2010) further explains that thesigning of a contract between the agents and the athletes willautomatically nullify the rights that the NCAA has over athletes.
Inaddition, Heitner (2010) brings the case of NCAA against theUniversity of North Carolina into an appropriate perspective. Heitnersets the details into context and helps the reader understand theimplications of the sides and form an opinion. In this case forexample, it is my opinion that the NCAA is justified to investigateUniversity of California because the rights of the association arelegally provided. However, I feel that the laws of NCAA should bereviewed to allow sports agents to provide valuable items or gifts.Through such reviews, the athlete will be left with some directbenefits compared to indirect scholarships NCAA gives them aftercashing in their sponsorships and media benefits.
Heitner,D. (2010). SportsLaw Blog: The UNC Football Scandal
RetrievedFrom,<http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2010/07/22/sports-blog-the-unc-football-scandal.aspx>May 4, 2014