Major or Not? Tennessee's Cover Charge Violation
by Compliance Guy on July 9, 2010
While NCAA violations are the least of Tennessee's worries after a
brawl involving seven to ten Volunteer football student-athletes sent another customer to the hospital and knocked a cop unconscious, it's never a fun day for the compliance office when things like this get published in the paper:
Basically, it was a normal Thursday night — Thursday's our big night," [bar co-owner Sandy] Morton said. "We had all the UT football players come in. They're on a first-name basis with my husband (and co-owner), and they get VIP status, which means they pay no cover at the door.
Kudos to Dan Wolken of the Memphis Commercial Appeal for narrowing it down to the
exact bylaw involved in the violation, rather than the more general extra benefit legislation:
Bylaw 16.11.2.2.3 – Entertainment Services.
A student-athlete may not receive services (e.g., movie tickets, dinners, use of car) from commercial agencies (e.g., movie theaters, restaurants, car dealers) without charge or at reduced rates, or free or reduced-cost admission to professional athletics contests from professional sports organizations, unless such services also are available to the student body in general.
It's hard to argue that there isn't a violation here, especially if the bar owners fall into the definition of boosters, which invokes another, more general bylaw:
Bylaw 16.11.2.2 – Discounts and Credits.
A student-athlete may not receive a special discount, payment arrangement or credit on a purchase (e.g., airline ticket, clothing) or a service (e.g., laundry, dry cleaning) from an institutional employee or a representative of its athletics interests.
The question now is how severe the violation is, specifically whether it rises to the level of a major violation. That's always more of an issue in the "little" extra benefit cases like those involving textbooks and telephone access codes. The benefit received by an individual student-athlete might meet the definition of a secondary violation in Bylaw 19.02.2.1 as it may be isolated or inadvertent, did not provide a significant competitive advantage, and was not a "significant" extra benefit. But the aggregate violation is much harder to fit into that box.
Statements from the bar owner like the fact that "all" of the UT student-athletes visited the bar and at least some were on a first-name basis with the owner (meaning they were presumably regulars) means the total value of the benefits could be up into the thousands of dollars even if the benefit was only $2 to $5 a pop. The key issue will be time and how far back UT can find evidence of the extra benefits.
If this has been going on for longer than just this summer or involves more than the handful of student-athletes who got into the brawl last night, UT is likely looking at a major violation. As far as major violations go, it wouldn't be one of the worst, but no major violation is anything to sneeze at. Penalties might be a loss of a couple scholarships, vacation of any wins the involved student-athletes participated in, and repayment of the impermissible benefits to charity.
Likely to come off the worst in a potential major infractions case are the bar owners. UT would almost certainly be required to disassociate the owners of the bar. That means they would not be able to donate to UT, not be permitted to purchase tickets, now allowed to purchase sponsorships, essentially banned from the UT athletics program.
But that is well down the road. UT will need a great deal of time to conduct the interviews, nail down dates and times, and come to some conclusion about the extent of the benefits received. Given that we're talking about bar cover charges, there is not likely to be a big paper trail. So expect there to be a lot of estimates and averages, and expect not to hear much about this for a while.
LINK
