The NCAA News - News and Features

April 6, 1998

Congress considers requiring predictions of sports cutbacks

Two pieces of federal legislation currently being considered by the House and Senate may restrict institutions' decisions regarding sports sponsorship.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee adopted the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998 (H.R. 6) March 18. An amendment to the Equity in Disclosure Act was part of the subcommittee chair's package of amendments.

This amendment would require all institutions of higher education to predict what sports they might want to reduce or delete, four years in advance. As part of an individual institution's Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report, the institution would have to state whether it "may or is likely to" eliminate any sport; reduce participation numbers for any sport; or reduce any financial support for any given sport in the next four years.

The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee is considering adopting the House amendment or another amendment that is even more restrictive. The more restrictive amendment would require institutions to inform affected students of any decision the institution makes regarding elimination or reduction of sports teams, and it would also set a process for appealing that decision through campus procedures or federal district court.

Specifically, the Senate amendment would find an institution in violation of federal law if that institution does not provide a statement of justification to individual team members who participate on a sports team that is terminated, reduced in squad size or reduced in funding.

The statement of justification would have to include the institution's capital and operating budgets, identify the percentage of the overall athletics budget that the team represents, show proof that the decision was a fiscal necessity, and delineate a process for appealing the termination. A similar report would also have to be provided to incoming students.

If affected team members are not convinced that the proof presented by the institution justifies the decision, they may go directly to federal district court and seek an injunction to reinstate the funding.

NCAA officials are expressing concern that federal intervention of this sort would undermine decision-making within academics and pose an undue burden on the university community.

"This is a terrible intrusion into institutional integrity and discretion," said Doris A. Dixon, NCAA director of federal relations. "It would set a precedent that cannot be tolerated by our Association and others within the higher education community."

Dixon points out that the proposed legislation is more stringent than existing federal law governing when companies must inform employees of plant closings. "Federal law requires that companies give their employees 30 days' notice that they're going to lose their job. This legislation requires institutions to predict what's going to happen four years in advance."

In a March 27 letter to members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, NCAA Executive Director Cedric W. Dempsey cautioned that this legislation was inappropriate and unprecedented.

"NCAA member institutions make decisions on all campus programs based on what is best for that in-stitution. It is highly inappropriate for Congress to, in any way, restrict an institution's ability to design its programs or formulate its budget," Dempsey wrote.

"To hold an institution in 'violation' of federal law..., despite the institution's assessment that elimination of a certain sports team is in the best academic interest of that campus and its students, is over-reaching. To ask an institution to justify this decision is unprecedented in higher education federal policy.

"Further, to require institutions to predict 'any reductions that are likely to occur' in any sports team over the next four years...would require institutions to do the impossible -- foretell the future. Most institutions make final decisions on budgets one year in advance. A decision to eliminate a sports team or reduce a squad size is usually made after every attempt to prevent this has failed," Dempsey wrote.

Dempsey's letter also clarified the Association's position on sports sponsorship. "It is important to clarify that the NCAA does not favor dropping men's sports as part of an institution's efforts to achieve gender equity," he wrote.

The Senate committee is expected to act on the issue in the near future.

NCAA member institutions wishing to submit an opinion regarding the legislation can contact members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.

Members are Sen. Jim M. Jeffords, R-Vermont (committee chair); Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana; Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire; Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee; Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio; Sen. Michael B. Enzi, R-Wyoming; Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Arkansas; Sen. Susan M. Collins, R-Maine; Sen. John W. Warner, R-Virginia; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts; Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Connecticut; Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Maryland; Sen. Jeff Bingham, D-New Mexico; Sen. Paul David Wellston, D-Minnesota; Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington; and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island.