History

     During the summer of 2002, the House Education Committee investigated the effects of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) sanctions against a university.[1] It looked at how the school and the community are affected when an athlete becomes ineligible because he accepted gifts to attend that school to play a sport.[2] During the House Committee’s study, it realized that while NCAA procedures punish athletic department staff members and boosters who engage in improper solicitation,[3] the punishments were inadequate compared to the sanctions the university, the community, and the student athlete receive.[4]  The student athlete could lose eligibility, and the university could suffer enormous financial loss, including exclusion from revenue-generating bowl games.[5] The House Committee proposed a solution to punish athletic department members and boosters that improperly solicit student athletes.[6] The House Committee intended to give colleges and universities the chance to seek either restitution or criminal prosecution against a person who improperly solicits a student athlete and causes an NCAA violation.[7] The House Committee sought to ensure awareness among student athletes of the ramifications for accepting gifts to attend a particular college.[8] Since Texas passed similar legislation, no one in that state has been charged for improperly soliciting a student athlete.[9] Representatives from the NCAA and Georgia colleges and universities that have athletic programs provided input for HB 95 and supported its introduction.[10]

HB 95

     Representatives Chuck Sims, Louise McBee, DuBose Porter, and Earl Ehrhart of the 130th, 74th, 119th, and 28th districts, respectively, sponsored HB 95.[11]  The Speaker referred the bill to the Committee on Higher Education.[12] The House Committee favorably reported the bill with a slight change.[13] The original bill provided that violators would be “guilty of a felony,” but some legislators were concerned that a felony conviction might be too harsh in certain situations.[14] For instance, if a booster gives a student athlete a $15 shirt to attend a particular college, the House Committee felt a felony conviction would be too harsh, even though this would still be an NCAA violation.[15] The House Committee offered a substitute to provide for a misdemeanor, instead of a felony, conviction.[16] The House adopted the Committee substitute and passed the bill on March 28, 2003.[17] The Senate read HB 95 on April 7, 2003, and it was referred to the Senate Higher Education Committee.[18] The Senate Committee offered an amendment to change a grammatical error, and the Senate adopted HB 95, as amended, on April 17, 2003.[19] The House agreed to the Senate’s amendment on April 22, 2003.[20]

The Act

     The Act creates Code sections 20-2-317 and 20-2-318.[21]  The Act authorizes colleges and universities to pursue a cause of action against persons who offer high school athletes money, or any other thing of value, to attend a particular college or university.[22] The Act also provides that such incentives shall not be given to an athlete’s immediate family.[23] The institution can recover damages reasonably related to penalties incurred as a result of an athlete’s suspension or disqualification.[24] Damages can include the loss of scholarship money or the loss of television revenue.[25]

     The Act does not prohibit the university from offering financial aid awards and grants to the student.[26] The athlete may also accept any approved intercollegiate athletic awards.[27]

     Furthermore, the Act requires high schools to disclose the names of all student athletes and to provide the athletes with information pertaining to college eligibility requirements.[28]  The Act does not “apply to intramural athletic programs.”[29]

Kimberly L. Johnson