The NCAA News - News & Features

U. S. judge demands data on earnings

The questions seek financial information to be used in the damages phase of the trial.

U. S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil issued an order on May 29 that requires each Division I institution to respond to the interrogatories by July 5, 1996.

Vratil, U.S. district judge for Kansas, ordered the Association to "transmit to each Division I member a copy of plaintiffs' third interrogatories, along with a copy of this order."

If each Division I institution has not responded to the questions by July 5, then beginning the next day, a fine of $100 a day will be levied on the Association and its legal counsel for each school that fails to comply.

Vratil's order relates to a March 29 hearing regarding financial data the coaches say they need to determine the amount of damages. The NCAA has claimed it does not have the information and can obtain it from member schools only if the schools choose to provide it.

In May 1995, Vratil ruled that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law with its restricted-earnings coaching provision. The provision limited coaches in the position to $12,000 in income and $4,000 for the summer.

The interrogatories referred to in Vratil's order request that schools provide information in three areas:

* Each Division I member of the NCAA is asked to provide financial data about the salary, benefits, outside income, bonuses and incentive payments associated with each coaching position at that institution since 1985;

* The member institution is asked to identify all athletics camps or clinics operated, sponsored or run by the institution or any of its employees and compensation for work at the camp or clinic; and

* The institution is requested to provide its total budgeted and actual expenditures for each sport and each year since 1985, revenue from the sport, the institution's won-lost record in the sport, conference standings, postseason bids and national rankings.

Earlier this year, the NCAA sent a survey seeking that information to Division I member institutions. That survey was accompanied by a memo from NCAA Executive Director Cedric W. Dempsey stating that each member should consult its legal counsel before responding.

As of June 4, 15 substantive responses and 17 objections to responding had been received from member institutions. Vratil found that the "NCAA executives and defense counsel acted in bad faith in drafting and distributing the survey" and criticized the NCAA's response to the court.

Pursuant to Vratil's order, each school is required to answer the interrogatories under oath and return the responses to the coaches' attorneys by July 5. If any member institution fails to comply with the order by August 5, the court will enter a partial default judgment against the NCAA on the issue of damages. A default judgment could strip the Association of the ability to contest the amount of damages to be awarded to the coaches.

In the ruling, Vratil also censured the NCAA and its legal counsel in Kansas City and Indianapolis and ordered them to pay the legal fees plus a 25 percent penalty of the cost of the coaches in their attempt to get the financial information.

Legal options concerning Vratil's most recent ruling are being evaluated.

The Association currently has an appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit Court in Denver on the antitrust finding and a permanent injunction ordered by the Kansas court in January to prevent the NCAA from reinstating the monetary limitations. That appeal is expected to be heard in October.

The suit was brought by five Division I men's basketball restricted-earnings coaches. A class-action suit also was filed by a men's lacrosse coach representing restricted-earnings coaches in other sports and a separate suit was filed by several baseball coaches. The three cases are being considered together by the Kansas court.

After Vratil's ruling a year ago, the NCAA Administrative Committee rescinded the compensation provisions of the legislation but left intact other elements such as the restriction in Division I basketball that an individual cannot serve as a restricted-earnings coach if he or she previously has been a head or assistant coach.