The Uniform Athlete Agents Act, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at the urging and with the support of the NCAA, is actively working its way through state legislatures from coast to coast.

Sixteen U.S. jurisdictions, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, already have enacted the UAAA -- an important tool as the first line of defense in regulating the activities of agents and protecting NCAA student-athletes and member institutions. The NCCUSL and the NCAA's government relations office have been working closely over the past two years to bring the act forward in the states and look forward to a banner year in 2003.

Five jurisdictions, Florida among them, enacted the UAAA in 2002, and the NCCUSL's commissioners report indicates that the act is on track for introduction in 25 additional states in the upcoming legislative session. That means states are well on their way to stopping unscrupulous sports agents and making life significantly easier for legitimate ones.

Representatives from all interested parties -- including sports agents -- were present during the drafting process. As a result, there has been virtually no substantive opposition to the new law.

The UAAA is designed to protect student-athletes and educational institutions by regulating the way sports agents deal with students on an initial agency agreement. It was drafted in response to a spate of scandals in the mid-1990s, with headlines of college athletes accepting illegal inducements from unprincipled agents in violation of NCAA rules, and colleges and universities suffering significant sanctions as a result. While about 25 states had laws pertaining to agents on their books before the UAAA was promulgated in the fall of 2000, they varied greatly from state to state and enforcement was spotty.

The UAAA requires agents to register with a state agency and to disclose in that registration current business information and any negative history (for example, loss of licensure, an administrative sanction, or a finding of conduct causing eligibility violations). Unlike many existing state laws, the UAAA gives the reviewing state agency express authority to examine -- and reject -- applicants based on those disclosures, which are required under penalty of perjury.

In addition to enabling the student-athlete to review a potential agent's business history, the act also provides contractual protections, including specific warnings about the potential loss of eligibility, required disclosure of important financial terms, and the ability to void a contract that fails to conform to the uniform act.

Educational institutions gain a statutory right of action against agents for violations of the act leading to NCAA or conference sanctions. With access to the business history of agents, athletics directors also are better able to advise students, if asked. Both the agent and the student-athlete are required to notify the affected school within 72 hours (or before the student athlete's next scheduled event, whichever is earlier) if an agreement is signed.

The clear rationale is that with greater scrutiny and better protection against unscrupulous agent practices, there will be fewer instances of ineligibility and school sanctions, which ultimately will improve the integrity, and the quality, of intercollegiate sports.

Reputable sports agents also support the act. Before the drafting of a uniform state law, agents had to keep up with 25 diverse requirements applicable to the activities of sports agents in the various states -- a fact that resulted in a high compliance cost in terms of time, money and aggravation. In one state, agents had to keep records for three years; in other states, for a period of four or five years, in other states, no record-keeping was explicitly required at all.

The UAAA eliminates much of that hassle, cost and confusion through reciprocal registration provisions. If adopted uniformly, the basic rules would apply anywhere, and nationally standardized contracts, registration applications and disclosure forms could be used.

Most agents want to comply with the law, and they want to see unscrupulous individuals within their industry eliminated. Uniform enactment in every state presents a win-win situation for all concerned.

Michael Kerr is the deputy executive director of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. For more information about the UAAA and what those who are interested can do to help with its enactment, contact Michael Kerr at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (312/915-0195 or mkerr@nccusl.
org) or Abe Frank of the NCAA government relations staff (202/293-3050 or afrank@ncaa.org)