A working group formed to recommend legislation regarding the use of student-athletes’ names and likenesses in promotions began to develop a framework of guiding principles at its initial meeting October 11-12 in Indianapolis.

Led by University of Texas at Austin Director of Women’s Athletics Chris Plonsky, the group began to confront an issue that the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism has struggled with for more than a year. Members of that subcommittee, as well as additional members with expertise in compliance and marketing, make up the working group. Dave Maggard, chair of the AEC Cabinet subcommittee and director of athletics at the University of Houston, shares chair duties with Plonsky.

The current promotional-activity rules were crafted more than 20 years ago to address the use of a student-athlete’s name, image or likeness on imprinted materials only. The restrictions do not translate easily to other media, such as the Internet, mobile phones or even television advertisements in which footage of student-athletes engaged in competition often is used.

In August 2005, the Division I Board of Directors expressed a desire to explore more flexibility for institutions in promoting their athletics programs using new technology. Since then, the membership has struggled with the need to develop rules to account for the ever-changing technological landscape, while still preserving the principle of student-athlete amateurism.

At the heart of the issue is the possibility that corporate partners or others could sponsor promotional ads that would lead the public to perceive student-athletes as endorsing the commercial product or service the partner provides.

The members of the study group acknowledged, though, that corporate sponsors provide funding that allows athletics departments to rely less on institutional dollars.

"Corporate and media sponsors and broadcast entities are affecting — in a positive way — the types of programs we are able to offer our student-athletes," Plonsky said. "They allow us to do things we cannot necessarily fund, leverage or achieve ourselves."

Plonsky added that corporate sponsors support intercollegiate athletics because they believe in the concept of athletics as part of higher education.

"They believe in the enterprise," Plonsky said. "They believe in what the NCAA, the conferences and institutions do in running programs with integrity and providing access to higher education for student-athletes."

The group also noted that advertisements funded by broadcast and corporate sponsors could help institutions promote participation in intercollegiate athletics — and who better to attest to the value of participation than current student-athletes?

"Student-athletes are our best ambassadors for what the intercollegiate athletics participation experience truly is," Plonsky said. "Sponsors and broadcast partners can give us wonderful exposure of the student-athletes doing what they love — training and competing for their institutions while achieving an education and lifelong career skills."

However, members were wary of the possible implication of student-athletes endorsing a service or product. They expressed concern that a change in the rules could create an avenue for some entities to exploit student-athletes and indicated a desire to limit any promotions involving student-athletes to entities with clear relationships with an institution. The group is seeking a balance between allowing institutions more flexibility with their sponsors and partners and protecting student-athletes from exploitation.

To that end, the committee reviewed dozens of Web sites, print ads and television spots — some impermissible under current standards — to determine what, to them, constituted endorsing a product or service and what might be an acceptable use of student-athletes.

The review assisted them in developing a basic framework of principles. Members believed that any advertisement involving student-athletes in any way should tastefully promote the institution or intercollegiate athletics as a whole — not the product or service of the corporate sponsor or broadcast entity. The group did, however, agree that allowing a message that indicates the sponsor or broadcast entity is a "proud supporter" of an athletics team or program or intercollegiate athletics overall, would be acceptable.

Such a message would clearly state the relationship between the sponsor and the institution. The group also wants to avoid any "call to action" (for example, purchase an item or service) in promotional materials — by either student-athletes, the institution or the NCAA.

Above all, members want to protect the well-being of student-athletes and will develop safeguards to ensure that happens. They will strive for clear, concise language that can be applied as consistently as possible across all Division I institutions.

The group will continue to discuss the issue, hammering out more specific details over the next few months. It plans to develop legislation by March 2007. Membership feedback will be included in that process.

In the interim, the membership can apply standards set forth in Proposal No. 05-26 as a guideline. That proposal was withdrawn last spring to facilitate broader discussion on the issue, of which the study group is an integral part.

The standards in 05-26 require president or chancellor oversight when using a student-athlete’s image or likeness in institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotions. They also restrict the appearance and description of the commercial product or service and the company’s logo. In addition, the standards require an explanation of the commercial entity’s affiliation with the institution, conference or noninstitutional charitable, educational or nonprofit agency.