The NCAA News - News & Features

Court considers sovereignty in restricted-earnings appeal

U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil had ordered all NCAA Division I institutions to submit information relating to coaches' salaries to the plaintiffs' attorneys by July 5. For every institution that did not comply by that date, a fine of $100 per day was to be levied on the NCAA and its legal counsel.

However, on July 5, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on a motion filed by the Texas attorney general's office, temporarily stayed Vratil's order and gave lawyers for the state of Texas and the plaintiffs 20 days to file briefs.

The motion was filed on behalf of Texas' 14 state-supported Division I institutions. It claims that Vratil's order conflicts with the state's right of sovereign immunity guaranteed under the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Vratil ruled in May 1995 that the NCAA's restricted-earnings coach legislation violates federal antitrust laws. One provision of the legislation, which was rescinded upon Vratil's ruling, stated that coaches in that position were restricted to total annual earnings of $16,000.

Although the NCAA appealed Vratil's ruling on the merits of the case (that appeal may be heard as early as October), the damages phase of the trial has continued. The recent activity pertains only to the damages phase.

The NCAA claimed at a hearing in March that it did not have the authority to compel its members to submit the salary information sought by the plaintiffs. On May 29, Vratil issued her order requiring each Division I member to submit the information and providing penalties for failure to do so.

On May 31, the NCAA sent a packet of information to Division I members that contained Vratil's order and questions from the plaintiffs.

The NCAA appealed Vratil's order to the 10th Circuit, but the appeal was denied. The Texas motion was undertaken without the NCAA's involvement.

In addition to the $100 a day penalty that was to commence July 5, Vratil's May 29 order also set an August 5 deadline for all Division I institutions.

If they have not all complied by then, the court said it would enter a partial default judgment against the NCAA on the issue of damages and/or other relief, which could strip the Association of its ability to contest the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs.

It is not clear how the stay will affect that deadline.

In their interrogatory, the plaintiffs asked each Division I member to provide financial data about the salary, benefits, outside income, bonuses and incentive payments associated with each coaching position at that institution since 1985; to identify all athletics camps or clinics operated, sponsored or run by the institution or by any of its employees and compensation for work at the camp or clinic; and to provide its total budgeted and actual expenditures for each sport and each year since 1985, revenue from the sports, the institution's won-lost record in the sport, conference standings, postseason bids and national rankings.

The suit was brought by five Division I men's basketball restricted-earnings coaches. Also, separate suits were filed by a lacrosse coach and by several baseball coaches. The three cases are being considered together.