Recommended Alerts

Sign Up For Alerts

COVID-19 and the Challenges of Remotely Running a College Athletics Department

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing all of us to radically change how we live and work. College athletics programs have not been immune to these changes and, in fact, have been forced to rethink how they can operate in this “new normal.” To date, the NCAA and conference commissioners have been stepping in to try to ensure that teams continue to operate on a level playing field. This article identifies some of those changes and alerts athletic directors, coaches, and compliance officers to the accompanying compliance risks. Since the risks from COVID-19 may not be going away anytime soon, this article also addresses what may be long-term changes to recruitment, training, and employment efforts across the college sports landscape. When instituting changes to their athletics programs, coaches and athletic directors should be mindful of existing NCAA bylaws, as well as COVID-19 guidance published by the NCAA, to ensure continuing compliance throughout the pandemic.

Read More

And They’re Off: Supreme Court Strikes Down PASPA, Leaving States Free to Legalize Sports Wagering

Time to Read: 1 minutes Practices: Sports

Printer-Friendly Version

On May 14, 2018, in Murphy v. NCAA, No. 16–476 (2018), the Supreme Court held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which barred states from legalizing sports wagering within their borders, violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition to striking down PASPA’s core provision, 28 U.S.C. § 3702(1), the Court also concluded that the provision is not severable from the remainder of the statute, thus invalidating PAPSA in its entirety. 

PASPA’s core provision prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling, but the Act also included grandfather provisions for jurisdictions that already had schemes in place. Consequently, under PASPA, states could not change their minds to allow sports gambling. Another provision of PASPA prohibited private persons from conducting sports gambling “pursuant to the law or compact” of a state. Writing for the Court, Justice Alito rejected the distinction between compelling states to enact legislation and forbidding states from enacting certain laws. Both, he writes, conflict with the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment.

Contrary to what some in the mainstream media have reported, the Supreme Court’s decision does not legalize sports wagering. Rather, it shifts to each individual state the decision whether to legalize sports wagering within its borders, as well as how to regulate whatever wagering it chooses to allow. The opinion also leaves open the possibility that Congress may constitutionally enact new laws regulating interstate wagering pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers. Sports leagues and other sports entertainment companies will need to account for this fluid, multi-jurisdictional legal and regulatory environment when considering the impact of the Court’s decision on their businesses.

Printer-Friendly Version

Cookie Settings