The New Amateurs Manuscript Submitted to IJSM

New Amateurs Running head: THE NEW AMATEURS The New Amateurs: The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Application of Amateurism in a Global Sports Arena Scholars have examined the NCAA’s (National Collegiate Athletic Association) definition, development, and application of amateurism (Allison, 2001; Byers, 1995; Crowley, 2006; Falla, 1981; Glader, 1978; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998; Smith, 1993; Thelin, 1996; Watterson, 2000; Wheeler, 2004), but the matter of amateurism as it pertains to international athletes has received limited coverage in academic scholarship even though influence of globalization has led to a steady increase in the number of international athletes participating in NCAA competition (Bale, 1991; Kaburakis, 2007; NCAA, 2007; Weston, 2006) One development that has not been sufficiently addressed in the academic literature is how the influence of international athletes, the decision by Division I to not deregulate amateurism, and changes within the student-athlete reinstatement (SAR) governance process all intersected to create a new application of amateurism in the NCAA It is important to examine this intersection New Amateurs not only because this particular evolution of amateurism policy remains uninvestigated, but also because it is important to understand the scope of forces that influence contemporary policymaking In this paper, the forces of globalization, emerging technology, legal decisions, the demands of member institutions, the pressure on coaches to win, and student-athlete welfare all converge to alter the way amateurism is applied by the NCAA in the twenty-first century This paper will demonstrate how the NCAA developed a creative institutional strategy to alter its application of amateurism in response to pressures in the external environment that sought eased amateurism restrictions during the recruitment of prospective international athletes This paper argues that the NCAA utilized the SAR process to change its application of amateurism in order to grant prospective international athletes eligibility without risking the negative public relations and legal consequences that would have resulted from directly changing the definition of amateurism through deregulation This paper begins with a review of the factors that have historically influenced the NCAA’s application of amateurism and then addresses the influence of international athletes on the NCAA’s contemporary application of amateurism The factors that influenced the amateurism deregulation effort of the early 2000s are subsequently examined, and then an explanation is given for why Division I rejected any substantive changes to the stated definition of amateurism The paper concludes with a discussion of why the NCAA utilized the SAR process to change its application of amateurism Review of NCAA Amateurism The influence of external forces and the demands of internal stakeholders have played a key role in the NCAA’s application of amateurism (Crowley, 2006), which is the bedrock principle that sets intercollegiate athletics apart from professional sport While the fundamental definition of amateurism and who is considered an amateur has generally stayed consistent throughout the history of the NCAA (Allison, 2001; Crowley, 2006; Glader, 1978), the New Amateurs application of amateur principles has evolved over time as the NCAA has recognized the demands of its constituents and the realities of its external environment (Crowley, 2006) Various external forces and logics have influenced universities and the NCAA to alter the application of amateurism to meet their needs, while leaving the stated definition of amateurism virtually unchanged in the NCAA Manual These factors include the need for American colleges to create the perception that college sports are amateur, the tradition of institutional autonomy influencing the NCAA’s governance structure, the notion that college athletics needs to be amateur for financial reasons, and the win-at-all-costs culture in college sports Perception of amateurism There has always been a desire by universities to foster the perception that intercollegiate athletics is an amateur enterprise (Byers, 1995) This desire is connected to the perception that athletics are and should be educational and that students participate for educational benefits The desire to appear as amateur actually pre-dates the NCAA when cultural differences between England and America prevented the traditional application of English amateurism in America (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998; Smith, 1988) As universities that invested in intercollegiate athletics recognized the prestige, support, and resources that could be accumulated through successful athletic teams, they implemented a professional model of athletics because an amateur model would have led to an inferior product (Smith, 1988; Smith, 1993) However, they claimed to be amateur in order to convince the middle and upper class that American universities were of high social esteem (Smith, 1988) Catering to the sensibilities of the middle and upper class served to protect the ability of institutions to simultaneously garner social esteem and field winning teams Similarly, after the failure of the Sanity Code and the implementation of full ride scholarships in 1956, the NCAA invested in a vigorous public relations campaign to create the term “student-athlete” in order to convince taxpayers, judges, and lawmakers the NCAA was an educational enterprise and that athletes were typical students (Byers, 1995; Sack & Staurowsky, New Amateurs 1998; Staurowsky, 2004) This public relations campaign served to protect the NCAA’s powerful economic and political interests (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998) Finally, the split into three divisions in 1973 permitted the presence of Division III institutions to “provide the seed of truth” (Staurowsky, 2004, p 155) that amateurism exists in intercollegiate athletics Institutional autonomy The tradition of institutional autonomy in American universities has also influenced the application of amateurism Home rule was the basic governance structure of the NCAA for its first fifty years and was predicated on the autonomy individual institutions believed they should have in making decisions (Crowley, 2006; Thelin, 1996) However, as applied to the NCAA, home rule essentially prevented enforcement of rules, which meant institutions could disregard the Association’s stated amateur policies (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998; Smith, 1988) This led to instances where the NCAA was powerless to stop activities that clearly violated its amateur principles, such as athletes receiving payment for summer baseball and various conferences permitting athletic scholarships (Thelin, 1996; Watterson, 2000) Financial benefits The notion that college athletics must be amateur for financial reasons has also influenced the application of amateurism Because there has always been an economic incentive to persuade the public and government officials that college sports is an amateur enterprise, the NCAA has invested numerous resources into sustaining a system comprised of cheap labor (Lawrence, 1987) Institutions avoid paying athletes a salary, entering into an employee-employer relationship that would require the payment of benefits and workers’ compensation, and paying income tax while receiving tax-exempt status (Brand, 2006) Emphasis on winning Finally, the win-at-all-costs culture in intercollegiate athletics has caused the NCAA to alter its application of amateurism Not only did an emphasis on winning facilitate the adoption of a professional model prior to the establishment of the NCAA (Smith, 1988), but it has also affected decisions made by the NCAA since its inception For example, as administrators realized that it was virtually impossible to stop institutions from offering athletic New Amateurs scholarships despite the fact that such a practice opposed NCAA principles, it was apparent that winning took precedence over a commitment to amateurism (Thelin, 1996; Watterson, 2000) Coaches wanted to win to keep their jobs and advance their careers, and institutions wanted to win to gain prestige in the eyes of students, alumni, and lawmakers as an institution of higher education (Chu, 1989; Toma, 2003) In conclusion, the desire for American colleges invested in intercollegiate athletics and for the NCAA to appear as an amateur enterprise, a status which offers a financial benefit, while simultaneously pursuing a win-at-all-costs culture has meant that the NCAA’s stated definition of amateurism has not changed much since 1906 However, changes to amateurism have always occurred through the application of the stated rules The next section describes the influence of international athletes on the NCAA’s contemporary application of amateurism International Athletes The need for coaches and member institutions to recruit international athletes has been an important factor in the NCAA’s contemporary application of amateurism A variety of external forces combined to alter the application of amateurism to make it possible for international athletes to obtain or redeem their amateur status to participate in college sports, including globalization, the emergence of new technology, the pressure on coaches to win, the need for institutions to gain prestige from winning, and an emphasis on attracting a diverse student body Globalization Athletic departments in the United States search globally for the best athletes in the quest to produce winning teams (Bale, 1991; Bale, 2003; Bale & Sang, 1994; Maguire, 1999) The number of international athletes participating in American intercollegiate athletics has increased steadily since the 1960s (Bale, 2003) In 1991-92 the NCAA estimated 6,833 athletes were international (NCAA, 1996), and by 2006 the NCAA estimated that number had grown to 12,356 international athletes, which accounted for approximately 3.1% of the student-athlete population (NCAA, 2007) In recent years some sports have seen a rapid increase New Amateurs in the number of international athletes For example, the percentage of male Division I international tennis players increased from 16.6 percent in 1999-2000 to 30.5 percent in 20052006 (NCAA, 2007) The migration of sports talent was a defining feature of the sports industry in the twentieth century, yet not different from other industries (Maguire, 1999; Maguire & Bale, 1994; Solimano, 2008) The movement of athletes from their home country to a foreign country for the purpose of participating in sport is similar to the socially and geographically mobile workforce that comprises most industrial societies (Maguire & Bale, 1994) For example, the rosters of major league franchises in the United States reflect talent migration In 2006, 27.4 percent of the players in Major League Baseball and 18.2 percent of the players in the National Basketball Association were born outside the United States (Weston, 2006) The migration of sports labor is facilitated by globalization and closely linked to the development of sports worldwide (Maguire & Bale, 1994) The search of global athletic talent is aided by the fact that modern sport has developed into a world system (Allison, 2001; Bale, 1991) Emerging technologies The emergence of the internet has also facilitated the recruitment of international talent (Wilson & Wolverton, 2008) Prior to the expansion of the internet, Bale (1991) predicted, “As knowledge of sports scholarships spread beyond the existing knowledge frontier, so the numbers of foreign student-athletes might be expected to rise” (p 65) Indeed, as the internet emerged, the number of international athletes increased 81 percent from 1992 to 2006 (NCAA, 1996; NCAA, 2007) Not only has the internet allowed international athletes to acquire more information regarding athletic scholarship acquisition at American colleges, but it has also created inexpensive and permissible ways in which coaches can communicate with international athletes (Wilson & Wolverton, 2008) The NCAA does not regulate email communication (Bylaw 13.4.1.2) between institutional staff members and prospects Because New Amateurs coaches are typically unlikely to take an expensive recruiting trip overseas, they are more likely to communicate via email, which is unregulated and inexpensive The use of voice over internet protocol technology also decreases the cost of calling prospects overseas The internet has made easier the flow of information between coaches and international prospects Pressure to win Coaches are under pressure to produce winning teams, and they recruit internationally because they believe foreign athletes will improve their chances of winning (Bale, 1991; Brown, 2004; Weston, 2006; Wilson & Wolverton, 2008) Weston (2006) noted that the arms race is “fueling efforts to recruit top talent internationally, therefore increasing competition among schools to search worldwide for talented players” (p 835) For coaches, the pressures to win, and the penalties for losing, are exacting Many Division I coaches' jobs are predicated on the strength of their programs, causing them to recruit the best talent they can find, in many cases from the international pool (Weston, 2006, p 860) Highly coveted international athletes have dominated competition in recent years, particularly in non-revenue individual sports such as tennis (Brown, 2004; Drape, 2006; Weston, 2006) For example, at the end of the 2007 men’s tennis season, seven of the top ten ranked Division I players were foreign (College Tennis Online, 2007) In the 2005 Division I men’s and women’s singles tournament, 71 of the 128 (55.5%) participants were international athletes, and 110 of the top 200 (55%) individual rankings were international students (Weston, 2006) In men’s and women’s swimming in 2005, international athletes constituted 40 percent of the field at the Division I championships (Weston, 2006) International athletes have been instrumental to the athletic success at Baylor University, which won either individual or team championships in men’s and women’s tennis and women’s basketball in 2004 and 2005 Seven of the eight varsity players on the men’s tennis team, which won the national championship in 2004 and was the runner-up in 2005, were foreign (Drape, 2006), and one of those international athletes won the individual national title in 2004 and 2005 New Amateurs Seven of the nine women’s tennis players were international, including the 2005 individual national champion, during a stretch where Baylor reached the Sweet 16 and was ranked in the top 10 three consecutive years (Drape, 2006) Finally, the women’s basketball team, which won the 2005 national championship, received 32.2% of its offense from international players Not only can coaches create winning programs through the recruitment of international athletes, but coaches can also maintain successful teams with international athletes through the establishment of talent pipelines (Bale, 1991; Bale, 2003; Bale & Sang, 1994; Wilson, 2008) Bale (1991) discovered talent pipelines in which concentrations of athletes from certain countries were found in particular NCAA institutions Bale (1991) noted that institutions unable to compete for homegrown talent, due to lack of prestige or unattractive campus location, established talent pipelines with a foreign country For example, a talent pipeline of elite track and field stars from Kenya was found at the University of Texas El Paso, Washington State University, Iowa State University, and the University of Richmond, and a pipeline of track talent from Nigeria was identified at the University of Missouri and Mississippi State University (Bale, 1991) Coaches hope that friend-to-friend recruiting will result in attracting elite athletes from a particular foreign country The establishment of talent pipelines is an important recruiting strategy, particularly when coaches are unable to compete for homegrown talent (Wilson, 2008) Prestige acquisition The institution also benefits from international athletes First, assuming that international athletes assist the institution in achieving athletic success and that institutions seek prestige from athletic success, it can be argued that institutions “use global human resources to further local pride-in-place” (Bale, 1991, p 189) Because nationalism is emphasized less than localism in intercollegiate athletics, institutions concentrate on boosting their own success rather than focusing on developing U.S Olympic talent (Bale, 1991) Hence, the recruitment of foreign talent is a competitive tool to win games, but from a broader New Amateurs perspective it is also a tool used by institutions to acquire prestige According to Bale (1991), “The world has now become the arena in which place loyalties are constructed through the recruitment of foreign gladiators representing communities across America” (p 17) Diversity Institutions may also use foreign athletes as a strategy to assemble a diverse student body (Wilson & Wolverton, 2008), a strategy that may “provide a valuable sense of diversity and a positive dynamic which enriches the team environment and educational experience” (Weston, 2006, p 831) Pickle (2003b) noted that some institutions “have institutional missions based on the inclusion of international students, and in those cases, the student-athlete population mirrors that of the overall student body” (p 20) American institutions of higher education have historically emphasized the educational, social, and cultural benefits of assembling a diverse student body (Bowen, 1977; Hu & Kuh, 2003), which is part of its ideology that welcomes “within its academic walls a large number of foreign students” (Bale, 1991, p 39) While international athletes may comprise a small percentage of the total number of athletes, they may be used as a tool in the recruitment of international students to the institution The Amateurism Deregulation Movement As the focus of recruiting shifted to international athletes and coaches capitalized on the competitive advantage gained through recruiting international athletes, athletic administrators at member institutions became increasingly frustrated that it was often times difficult to ensure that international prospects were eligible under NCAA amateurism guidelines Fundamental differences between the definition of amateurism in the NCAA and other counties and the difficulty member institutions faced in certifying an international prospect’s amateur status created legislative and competitive equity concerns for the NCAA As a result the NCAA underwent an extensive review of its stated amateur policies Incompatible sport governance structures Kaburakis (2007) established the “fundamental differences in philosophy and culture between the world of NCAA DI and the New Amateurs 10 world of international sport governance” (Kaburakis, 2007, p 101), which resulted in IPSAs facing difficulties in establishing amateur status with the NCAA (Kaburakis, 2005; Kaburakis, 2007; Weston, 2006) Because IPSAs are governed by the sport federation laws of their home country, which operate under different definitions and rationales of what constitutes the difference between professional and amateur sport, they may have unknowingly violated NCAA amateur regulations (Kaburakis, 2005) According to Kaburakis (2007), There are cases of adversely affected classes of prospective student-athletes that wish to attend U.S academic institutions and although according to the laws of their own countries and the regulations of their specific sport entities they are not considered professional athletes, the NCAA DI respective regulations classify them as such, and find them ineligible for intercollegiate athletic competition (p 101) Additionally, the NCAA recognized that in a global environment, “it is increasingly difficult to understand how international teams operate in the context of the current definition, since many countries and leagues define ‘professional’ differently” (NCAA, Division I Proposal 2001-96, LSDBi database) Weston (2006) concluded “the different international education programs and athletic systems, coupled with language barriers, varied standards, and inconsistent recordkeeping, can lead to uncertain assessments of an [international student-athlete’s] eligibility” (p 832) This eligibility issue led to lawsuits against the NCAA In the case of NCAA v Lasege (2001), Muhammed Lasege, a men’s basketball recruit from Nigeria, sued the NCAA claiming they arbitrarily and capriciously declared him permanently ineligible for participating in 13 games for a junior club team in Russia Lasege went to Russia as a 17-year-old in an attempt to obtain an American visa While in Russia he was kept under armed guard and forced to sign a contract with a junior club team The trial court determined that the NCAA had ignored mitigating circumstances including economic hardship, cultural disadvantages, ignorance of New Amateurs 21 shifted away from dictated outcomes based on case precedence to a focus on approaching each case on the merits of its unique mitigating factors With this change in approach, the staff is now responsible for discussing what factors should be considered in the analysis of various cases Most importantly, the result of these discussions regarding mitigating circumstances and the effect they have on eligibility decisions defines the way amateurism is applied in the NCAA Changes in penalty structure Occurring at the same time as the discussion of amateurism deregulation and the changes in the SAR staff’s approach to decision making was a rapid succession of changes to the penalties incurred by athletes competing in professional competition The distinction between the definition of amateurism in the NCAA Manual examined by scholars, taxpayers, and the courts and the application of amateurism implemented through the decisions made by the SAR staff can be illustrated in examining the changes to the penalty structure Four key changes to the penalty structure are displayed in Table In 1999 the student-athlete reinstatement committee (SARC) established a two-pronged approach for analyzing amateurism cases involving competition as a professional First, an athlete was not reinstated if the athlete’s actions indicated intent to professionalize Second, if the actions did not indicate intent to professionalize, the athlete was reinstated and withheld from the same number of games in which he or she participated at the professional level For example, if an athlete competed in eight professional games, he or she would sit out eight college games The Division I Management Council amended the one-for-one withholding condition in 2001, a change which reduced the penalty for competing with or against professionals from one-for-one to a twenty percent withholding condition (“Preliminary report,” 2002) For example, if an athlete competed in eight professional games, he or she would sit out two college games After the decision concerning deregulation was confirmed by the Division I Board of Directors in 2002, the SARC made changes to its approach to decision making and the penalties given to prospects competing against professionals To begin, the SARC made significant New Amateurs 22 changes to how it approached reinstatement cases involving professional competition According to the SAR staff at the time of the change, Noting that the current philosophy focuses on whether the student-athlete intended to professionalize, the committee has been considering whether a more objective approach would be more appropriate for the reinstatement process (“Preliminary Report,” 2002, Description of amateurism analysis and potential shift ¶ 1) The SARC moved away from the intent-to-professionalize method to a reasonable person standard because the former standard resulted in inconsistent reinstatement decisions (Brown, 2001) In sum, the reasonable person standard shifted from the subjective analysis of analyzing intent to a more objective approach focused on actions rather than intent (Pickle, 2003a) Additionally, the SARC distinguished between prospects competing against professionals prior to the first opportunity to enroll and subsequent to the first opportunity to enroll, but prior to actual enrollment Prospects participating on a professional team after their first opportunity to enroll (typically the year between high school graduation and initial college enrollment) would be permanently ineligible In contrast, prospects that competed on a professional team prior to their first opportunity to enroll and received no more than expenses and did not sign a contract would be penalized with a one-for-one withholding condition not to exceed one season The onefor-one withholding condition was a departure from the 20 percent withholding condition and a return to the penalty assessed in 1999 (Brown, 2002b) After assessing the influence of the Association’s student-athlete first decision making culture and the impact of the standard of review changes made in 2002, the SAR staff and committee approved new guidelines that give the committee increased flexibility in amateurism cases to determine whether the violations warranted permanent ineligibility (“Reinstatement group gains flexibility,” 2006) The revised guidelines are “consistent with the general philosophy of the previous directive for amateurism violations that the Division I Management New Amateurs 23 Council approved in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2004, but they afford the committee and staff with the flexibility needed to consider the unique facts of each case” (“Reinstatement group gains flexibility,” 2006, p 11) Three years of applying the previous directive led the SAR staff to believe that it was unnecessarily restrictive in some cases (“Reinstatement standard,” 2005) The new guidelines, endorsed by the Management Council in January 2006, require the staff and committee to review each case under a “reasonable person” standard to determine if the facts of the case warrant permanent ineligibility (“Reinstatement group gains flexibility,” 2006, p 11) In sum, the new directive permitted the staff greater flexibility in applying amateurism rules The previous penalty was that prospects competing subsequent to the first opportunity to enroll would be ineligible The new policy implemented a 2-for-1 withholding condition with no maximum (“Reinstatement standard,” 2005) The penalty for prospects competing against professional competition prior to the first opportunity to enroll remained as a 1-for-1 withholding condition, with a maximum penalty of one season (“Reinstatement standard,” 2005) The new standard allowed prospects to participate in professional competition subsequent to their first opportunity to enroll, provided they serve a 2-for-1 withholding condition In conclusion, the penalty structure utilized by the SAR staff is the way that the NCAA applies the stated definition of amateurism found in Bylaw 12 Facilitating the rapid change in penalty structure was the change in decision making approach to focus away from case precedent to flexible based upon mitigating circumstances This more responsive, flexible, student-athlete friendly approach was perfectly in-tune with the calls for finding a way to attend to the memberships’ need to declare international athletes eligible for competition while at the same time not compromising amateurism as defined in Bylaw 12 Results of SAR cases 2004-2006 Data collected on all 430 amateurism SAR case between 2004 and 2006 revealed that student-athletes were reinstated in 94.2% of the cases (Pierce, 2007) This result confirms that an examination of the decisions made by the SAR staff New Amateurs 24 is needed to understand the NCAA’s amateur policies Examining Bylaw 12 may reveal the stated definition of amateurism, but with most cases resulting in reinstatement, an understanding of SAR is needed to understand how the NCAA applies amateurism Comparison of penalties given to prospective international and domestic athletes In comparing the results of cases involving prospective international prospective student-athletes (IPSAs) and domestic student-athletes (DSAs), IPSAs were reinstated at a similar rate to DSAs as shown in Tables 2-5, but received stricter withholding conditions than DSAs as shown in Tables 6-8 (Pierce, 2007) The fact that IPSAs served more significant withholding conditions than DSAs can be demonstrated by examining the number of games from which the athlete was required to be withheld and the amount of money that was repaid Table displays the number of games imposed as a withholding condition, and table displays the repayment values imposed by the SAR staff for IPSAs and DSAs in Bylaws 12.1 (payment), 12.2 (competition against professionals), and 12.3 (agents) The SAR staff required that IPSAs be withheld from more games than DSAs as a condition to gain reinstatement As can be seen in Table 7, over half of DSAs were required to sit out less than 2-3 games or 10% of the season, while only one-third of IPSAs were required to sit out as many games Stated differently, two-thirds of IPSAs were withheld in excess of games or 20% of the season, while less than half of DSAs were withheld from as many games IPSAs also accounted for 76.9% of the cases in which the SAR staff imposed a withholding condition of at least one season and 73.3% of the cases requiring 21-30 games or half the season The SAR staff also required IPSAs to repay more money than DSAs as a condition to gain reinstatement The median repayment value for IPSAs was $500 while the median repayment value for domestic SAs was $176 As can be seen in Table 8, nearly three-fourths of DSAs repaid less than $500, while half of IPSAs repaid less than $500 Stated differently, 50% of IPSAs repaid a benefit greater than $500, while only one-fourth of DSAs repaid a benefit New Amateurs 25 greater than $500 Additionally, IPSAs accounted for 70% cases that required repayment in excess of $3,000, and IPSAs accounted for two-thirds of the cases that required repayment in excess of $2,000 In contrast, DSAs accounted for nearly three-fourths of the cases that required repayment less than $100 In sum, Division I IPSAs were reinstated at a similar percentage as DSAs in violations of NCAA regulations regarding receipt of payment, professional competition, and agents However, as a condition to reinstatement, IPSAs served more significant and stricter withholding conditions as measured by number of games withheld and amount of money repaid This result occurred as the NCAA recognized the public relations and legal consequences of changing the definition of amateurism through deregulation and the competitive equity concerns among the membership of reinstating IPSAs with only minor withholding conditions Conclusion As coaches and member institutions recognized the positive impact of international athletes and responded to the driving force of globalization and talent migration in sport, they wanted greater access to international prospects in such a way that was competitively equitable However, Division I recognized the potentially hazardous public relations and legal consequences that could have befallen it and rejected deregulation proposals that would have permitted PSAs to participate, receive a salary, and sign a contract as a professional after their first opportunity to enroll in college without penalty Such legislation would have fundamentally altered the definition of who is considered an amateur In order to create a mechanism that would grant IPSAs eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics without rewriting the definition of amateurism, the NCAA used its reinstatement process to issue penalties to international prospects that had competed as a professional The results documented by examining reinstatement cases confirmed that IPSAs were reinstated upon the condition of serving a New Amateurs 26 withholding penalty that was more stringent than DSAs due to the difference in sport governing structures abroad The rationale of the SAR staff also confirms this point: Although participation on a professional team is a serious violation, the act in and of itself does not cross the threshold warranting permanent ineligibility However, the serious nature of the violation and the competitive advantage gained will be addressed through appropriate withholding conditions (“Reinstatement standard,” 2005, p 3) The SAR process is the way in which amateurism is applied by the NCAA Division I altered its application of amateur principles to permit former professional athletes, typically IPSAs, to participate as amateurs, provided they serve a penalty, while leaving the stated definition of amateurism and who is considered an amateur essentially untouched The result achieved through using the SAR process was the same as would have been achieved through deregulating amateurism, with the exception of international student-athletes serving withholding conditions prior to actually being eligible to participate International prospects were predominantly reinstated upon the condition of serving a withholding penalty that was more stringent than their domestic counterparts To conclude, Division I made studentathlete reinstatement the vehicle by which IPSAs could regain their amateur status despite violating elements of the NCAA’s stated definition of amateurism New Amateurs 27 References Allison, L (2001) Amateurism in sport: An analysis and a defence Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers Bale, J (1991) The brawn drain: Foreign student-athletes in American universities Chicago: University of Illinois Press Bale, J (2003) Sports geography (2nd ed.) London: Routledge Bale, J., & Sang, J (1994) Out of Africa: The ‘development’ of Kenyan athletics, talent migration and the global sports arena In J Bale & J Maguire (Eds.), The global sports arena: Athletic talent migration in an interdependent world (pp 206-225) London: Frank Cass Banks v NCAA, 977 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir 1992) Brand, M (2003, Sept 1) Reform includes giving student-athletes benefit of doubt The NCAA News, pp 4, 14 Brand, M (2006, Nov 13) Letter from Myles Brand to The Honorable William Thomas Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room/2006/november/20061115_resp onse_to_housecommitteeonwaysandmeans.pdf Bowen, H.R (1991) Goals: The intended outcomes of higher education In J Bess & D Webster (Eds.), Foundations of American higher education (2nd ed., pp 23-37) Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing Brown, G.T (2001, Jan 15) Division I delegates say more than pro on amateurism package The NCAA News, pp 1, C6 Brown, G.T (2002a, Apr 15) Management Councils take mountain-sized steps at Denver session The NCAA News, pp 1, 15 Brown, G.T (2002b, Aug 5) Council meetings focus on eligibility, postseason issues: Reinstatement conditions clarified for athletes who play professionally The NCAA News, pp 1, 10 Brown, G.T (2003, Sept 1) Less bureaucratic is more responsive The NCAA News, pp A1-A4 Brown, G.T (2004, Dec 6) Foreign matter: Influx of internationals in college swimming tugs on bond between campus and country The NCAA News, p New Amateurs 28 Byers, W (1995) Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press Chin, C.L (1993) Illegal procedures: The NCAA’s unlawful restraint of the student-athlete Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 26(2), 1213-1225 Chu, D (1989) The character of American higher education and intercollegiate sport Albany: State University of New York Press College tennis online (2007) Singles rankings for Division I men Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.collegetennisonline.com/view/rankings.aspx?pType=S&lgId=1 Crowley, J (2006) In the arena: The NCAA’s first century Indianapolis: The National Collegiate Athletic Association Drape, J (2006, Apr 11) Foreign pros in college tennis: On top and under scrutiny The New York Times, p D1 Gaines v NCAA, 746 F Supp 738, 744 (M.D Tenn 1990) Glader, E.A (1978) Amateurism and athletics West Point, NY: Leisure Press Hairston v Pacific 10 Conference, 101 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir 1996) Hawes, K (2000, Jan 3) Debate on amateurism has evolved over time The NCAA News, pp 1, 16-17 Hawes, K (2002, Jan 21) Division III to examine its future, amateurism proposals approved The NCAA News, pp 1, A15-A16 Hennessey v NCAA, 564 F 2d 1136 (5th Cir 1977) Hu, S., & Kuh, G (2003) Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development Journal of College Student Development 44(3), 320-334 Jones v NCAA, 392 F Supp 295 (D Mass 1975) Justice v NCAA, 577 F Supp 356 (D Ariz 1983) Kaburakis, A (2005) NCAA DI amateurism and international prospective student athletes: The professionalization threshold (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2005) Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(01), DAI-B AAT 32904289 Kaburakis, A (2007) International prospective student-athletes and NCAA Division I amateurism International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 2(1/2), 100-118 Lawrence, P.R (1987) Unsportsmanlike conduct: The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the business of college football New York: Praeger Publishers New Amateurs 29 Maguire, J (1999) Global sport: Identities, societies, civilizations Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc Maguire, J., & Bale, J (1994) Sports labour migration in the global arena In J Bale & J Maguire (Eds.), The global sports arena: Athletic talent migration in an interdependent world (pp 1-24) London: Frank Cass McCormack v NCAA, 845 F 2d 1338 (5th Cir 1988) Menzel, B.A (2002) Heading down the wrong road?: Why deregulating amateurism may cause future legal problems for the NCAA Marquette Sports Law Review, 12(2), 857-884 Mitten, M.J (2000) Applying antitrust law to NCAA regulations of ‘Big Time’ college athletics: The need to shift from nostalgic 19th and 20th century ideals of amateurism to the economic realities of the 21st century Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1), 1-7 Muenzen, K.R (2003) Weakening its own defense? The NCAA’s version of amateurism Marquette Sports Law Review, 13(2), 257-288 Nagy, T (2005) The ‘blind look’ rule of reasons: Federal courts’ peculiar treatment of NCAA amateurism rules Marquette Sports Law Review, 15(2), 331-368 NCAA (1996) 1996 NCAA study of international student-athletes Retrieved February 1, 2007, from www.ncaa.org/library/research/international_s-a/1996_international_s-a.pdf NCAA (2007) 1999-00 – 2005-06 NCAA student-athlete race and ethnicity report Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/200506_race_ethnicity_reportf05055c6-deb3-45de-ab1c-cbeeb4c19584.pdf NCAA (n.d.) Division I proposal search Retrieved from LSDBi database at https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBI.home NCAA v Lasege, 53 S.W.3d 77 (S Ct Ky 2001) Pickle, D (2002, Aug 5) Committee believes legislative deregulation needs another year The NCAA News, p 11 Pickle, D (2003a, July 21) Division I eligibility standard based on professionalization The NCAA News, pp 1, 11 Pickle, D (2003b, Sept 29) Division II continues on its amateurism-reform journey The NCAA News, pp 1, 20 New Amateurs 30 Pickle, D (2004, Aug 2) Final deregulation review reveals amateurism frustration The NCAA News, p 13 Pierce, D (2007) Applying amateurism in the global sports arena: Analysis of NCAA studentathlete reinstatement cases involving amateurism violations (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington, 2007) (Proquest No AAT 3297099) Preliminary report of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee (2002, May 10) AEC Supplement No Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/aec_cabinet/2002/june_2002/SUP PLEMENT_7.htm Reinstatement group gains flexibility with new guidelines (2006, Mar 13) The NCAA News, p 11 Reinstatement groups gain comfort level with ‘student-athlete-first’ philosophy (2004, July 19) The NCAA News, p Reinstatement standard applied to amateurism violations (2005, Dec 7) Retrieved Jan 1, 2007, from http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/administrator/lsdbi/PreEnrollmentAmateurism.html Sack, A.L., & Staurowsky, E.J (1998) College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers Smith, R.A (1988) Sports & freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics New York: Oxford University Press Smith, R.A (1993) History of amateurism in men’s intercollegiate athletics: The continuance of a 19th-century anachronism in America Quest, 45, 430-447 Smith v NCAA, 139 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir 1998) Solimano, A (2008) The international mobility of talent: Types, causes, and development impact New York: Oxford University Press Staurowsky, E.J (2004) Piercing the veil of amateurism: Commercialisation, corruption, and U.S college sports In T Slack (Ed.), The commercialisation of sport (pp 143-163) New York: Routledge Thelin, J.R (1996) Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press New Amateurs 31 Thompson, A.A., Strickland, A.J., & Gamble, J.E (2007) Crafting and executing strategy (15th ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin Toma, J.D (2003) Football U.: Spectator sports in the life of the American University Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press Watterson, J.S (2000) College football: History, spectacle, controversy Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Weston, M.A (2006) Internationalization in college sports: Issues in recruiting, amateurism, and scope Willamette Law Review, 42(4), 830-860 Wheeler, S (2004) Rethinking amateurism and the NCAA Stanford Law & Policy Review 15(1), 213-235 Wilson, R (2008) A Texas team loads up on All-American talent, with no Americans Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18), p A30-A31 Wilson, R., & Wolverton, B (2008) The new face of college sports Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18), p A27-A29 ... a commitment to amateurism (Thelin, 1996; Watterson, 2000) Coaches wanted to win to keep their jobs and advance their careers, and institutions wanted to win to gain prestige in the eyes of students,... small percentage of the total number of athletes, they may be used as a tool in the recruitment of international students to the institution The Amateurism Deregulation Movement As the focus of recruiting... relationship between the institution and the athlete (Brown, 2001) Professional sport organizations could have sent their players back to the college ranks in order to improve New Amateurs 14 their skills