The Wall Street Journal
October 22, 2014
Why the Mo’ne Davis Ad Is OK With the NCAACollege Sports’ Governing Body Now Willing to Consider ‘Unique Circumstances’
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-the-mone-davis-ad-is-ok-with-the-ncaa-1414006422?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThirdAmid a continuing national debate about amateurism, a little-known standard about how athletes can be paid before college without forfeiting their eligibility has come to light in an unlikely place: the World Series.
While the Giants routed the Royals 7-1 in Game 1 of the World Series Tuesday night, Little League World Series star Mo’ne Davis appeared in a 60-second television commercial titled “I Throw Like a Girl.” It ends with the words, “Chevrolet celebrates Mo’ne Davis and those who remind us anything is possible.”
Soon after, the NCAA, which in its bylaws states that “only an amateur student-athlete is eligible for collegiate athletics in a particular sport,” released a statement saying a January decision gives its staff increased flexibility to consider “unique circumstances when determining eligibility.” The NCAA said this allows the 13-year-old Davis to be paid for the ad “and still be eligible in any other sport—to include baseball.” According to the statement, the unique circumstances include her young age and “historically limited opportunities for women to participate in professional baseball.”
A Chevrolet spokesperson, who declined to comment on Davis’s compensation, said Davis’s voice-over in the advertisement was from a letter that Spike Lee asked her to write. Lee, who directed the commercial, said on WFAN radio Tuesday that Davis’s payment for the ad goes into a trust fund.
Steve Bandura, who handles media inquires for the Davis family, said that after receiving the proposal from Lee, they cleared the deal with the NCAA. He declined to comment further on the matter. An NCAA spokesperson declined to comment further on the situation beyond their statement, which was released Tuesday night.
Davis reached celebrity status this summer when she led a team from Philadelphia to the semifinals of the Little League World Series. In the first round, she became the first girl to earn a win in tournament history when she struck out eight batters and recorded a shutout.
Although Davis dazzled the country with her 70 mile-an-hour fastball, she said she aspired to play basketball for Geno Auriemma at Connecticut. But after Auriemma called Davis to congratulate her, the American Athletic Conference, UConn’s conference, received a complaint stating the contact was a recruiting violation.
The NCAA ruled that Auriemma committed a secondary violation, but UConn said in a statement that it disagreed because “Davis is not considered a prospective student-athlete by the NCAA.” The NCAA defines prospective student-athletes as someone who has started classes for the ninth grade.
The NCAA’s decision on Davis marks a further shift in their policy in recent years. In 2004, the NCAA denied an appeal that would have allowed Colorado football player Jeremy Bloom, a skiing World Cup gold medalist and two-time Olympian, to continue playing college football after receiving endorsement money related to his skiing. Despite Bloom’s attempts to sue the NCAA, he was never allowed to play collegiately again before being selected in the fifth round of the NFL draft in 2006.
NCAA bylaws allow an athlete to compete professionally in one sport while retaining their amateur status in another. But Davis’s situation appears unprecedented: The NCAA is allowing her to accept endorsement money, while completely retaining her status as an amateur.
Paul Haagen, a law professor at Duke University who specializes in sports and contracts, said he couldn’t recall any precedent for this decision because Davis’s fame in athletics at such a young age is so rare. He added that it opens the door for future pre-college athletes to do the same, though there won’t be any direct precedent binding the NCAA because her success is unique.
“But when there’s a girl who gets a gold medal in the Olympics, but is also a basketball player or something like that, will this be an issue? Absolutely,” Haagen said. “There will be arguments that the granting of a waiver in this case and not the next case is irrational and arbitrary.”
Haagen drew the connection between this decision and an August ruling by a federal judge that the NCAA’s ban on paying players for use of their likeness violates antitrust law. The ruling noted the NCAA’s inconsistent definition on what constitutes an amateur across different sports.
“This kind of waiver opens you up to that objection, [making it] possible to have a less restrictive set of controls on athletes,” Haagen said. “On the other hand, were they to have tried to block this, they would have been subject to all kinds of criticism for restraining the opportunities for women.”
