The NCAA News - News & Features

Acceptance of cash awards for Olympics will nullify eligibility

BY GARY T. BROWN
Staff Writer

How much is it worth to be able to compete in intercollegiate athletics?

Most student-athletes would say you can't put a price on participation, but programs in effect for this summer's Olympic Games may test that resolve.

Athletes in swimming and women's soccer, among other sports, could earn as much as $50,000 dollars from national governing bodies for winning a gold medal this year in Atlanta. But if an athlete with remaining collegiate eligibility accepts the cash prize, it's goodbye to ever donning school colors in competition again.

That's the message -- loud and clear -- from the NCAA Eligibility Committee, which after hearing of the prizes reiterated that individuals who receive such cash awards are in violation of NCAA amateurism rules and their eligibility shall not be restored. The committee passed a warning to the NCAA Council, which referred the issue to the NCAA Olympic Sports Liaison Committee.

Acceptance of any prize based upon performance always has been a violation, but the fact that there is no chance of eligibility being restored after the violation is the Eligibility Committee's emphasis in this case. Because the potential for a slip-up is present, all parties involved want student-athletes to fully understand the ramifications.

"There are some instances in which student-athletes participating in the Olympics may receive money," said Carrie A. Doyle, NCAA director of eligibility appeals. "But just to simply get a lump-sum cash payment for winning a gold medal is impermissible."

Speculation is that most athletes who have reached the elite stage of Olympic competition are well aware of NCAA policies governing this issue. Member institutions, national governing bodies and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) all make a concerted effort to communicate the consequences.

Mistakes unlikely

"I don't see how anybody would ever slip through the cracks in terms of being able to make a mistake and accept the money and cash the check," said Mike Moran, USOC director of public information and media relations. "Money from the USOC is designed for Olympic athletes who continue to have the financial hardships that Olympic athletes do. This isn't going to the professional basketball players, and it's not available to NCAA athletes who wish to continue their participation and their education."

Moran was referring to a USOC program dubbed Operation Gold, which awards athletes $15,000 for winning a gold medal, $10,000 for a silver medal and $7,500 for a bronze. Other financial awards are given for fourth-place finishes, personal bests or other significant accomplishments.

The $50,000 cash prizes available this year in swimming are being coordinated through U.S. Swimming, that sport's national governing body. Other national governing bodies in soccer, cycling and weightlifting offer similar types of stipends, trusts or cash prizes for performance.

If there is an ethical dilemma here, it probably has to do with getting a handle on the changing nature of "amateurism." Pay for performance has been a hot topic, particularly at the collegiate level. There will be plenty of amateurs at this year's Olympics, but those with collegiate eligibility remaining may not enjoy the same financial benefits.

"It seems to me that from a public policy standpoint, someone within the NCAA membership might want to address the issue as to whether or not that is appropriate," said Charles W. Ehrhardt, professor of law and faculty athletics representative at Florida State University and a member of the Eligibility Committee. "Do we want to say to a swimmer or a competitor in another sport that if you win a gold medal and accept this cash prize, you will not be eligible to compete at an NCAA school, when other so-called amateurs who don't have eligibility remaining can accept that cash prize?"

Ehrhardt worries that such circumstances could encourage student-athletes to choose between collegiate athletics and other types of amateur competition.

"There is an NCAA definition (of amateurism) that the public does not understand or necessarily approve of," he said. "A lot of the criticism the NCAA takes is because of this definition. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for someone who competes for their country to accept a huge cash prize based upon performance in the Olympics. Is that inconsistent with the NCAA ideal of a student-athlete?"

Line between stipends

Ehrhardt also said the line between what types of stipends are acceptable for student-athletes and those that are not may be narrowing.

Student-athletes in some cases may receive payments for what are deemed "actual and necessary expenses" for practice and competition. Ehrhardt believes the potential exists for such incentives to begin seeping into other competitions.

"We have international track athletes who travel to Europe every summer," he said. "Is an all-expenses paid trip to Oslo for a week to run in one race that different? Clearly, the athlete gets a benefit. If you talk about an Olympic or international competition where that's permissible, what about a collegiate tournament or a track meet -- what if the Penn or Drake Relays say they're going to award a certain amount of money for every world record set? That to me would not be appropriate."

Also central to the issue is whether the stipends or prizes are seen as an incentive or reward. Moran said the USOC is in the delicate position of providing U. S. athletes with enough financial support to keep up with what other countries offer while preserving opportunities at the collegiate level.

"There is a tremendous amount of cooperation now between the USOC and the NCAA on preserving athletes' opportunities in the collegiate world, the Olympic world and beyond," he said. "It's light years from what it was a decade ago. And the recent legislation and our interest now in directing funds to the NCAA to preserve some Olympic sports and programs that are endangered is testimony to this arrangement and the relationship that is going on.

"Nonetheless, we were told clearly by our athletes in 1988 that their biggest need was direct cash to help them to live and maintain training and buy time on the ice or services of a coach -- we were losing ground."

Reward for commitment

Moran doesn't see the increasing dollars so much as an incentive or temptation for student-athletes to give up eligibility as a reward for the financial commitment that an athlete who has exhausted collegiate eligibility has made to compete at the elite level.

"The fact remains that an American swimmer who wins one gold this summer and is eligible to accept the money -- chances are you're repaying that athlete and his or her family only a portion of what it took to keep that athlete in the sport....," Moran said.

"A lot of our athletes and their parents have significant debts. The gross income to the athlete after taxes on these stipends really only begins to chip away at some of the debts that the family or the athlete may have incurred. And we clearly understand that NCAA rules prohibit athletes with eligibility remaining from accepting these payments. It can present that athlete with a difficult decision because there is significant money available to an athlete who achieves great success in the Olympic arena in some sports."

Tom Dolan, a sophomore swimmer at the University of Michigan, is a good example. Dolan has won six NCAA individual championships in two years and is regarded as a top American threat to win medals in several events in Atlanta. He recently announced that he would forgo his final two years of eligibility at Michigan in order to pursue Olympic gold.

"The interesting dilemma will be to athletes like a Tom Dolan who have significant possible participation ahead," Moran said. "Dolan could win five gold medals -- and that undoubtedly was a difficult decision for Tom and his family.

"But it's (Operation Gold) how we have to be able to support these kinds of dreams for our athletes as well."

No changes in sight

At this point, there is little movement toward changing NCAA policies regarding pay for performance. The Olympic Sports Liaison Committee (OSLC), which was established in 1991, and its predecessor, the Special Committee to Review Amateurism Issues, have been consistent so far in their recommendations.

"The committee has had a number of opportunities during its life to recommend substantial changes in rules to provide for exceptions to allow amateurs to receive 'true' pay under some circumstances," said committee liaison David A. Knopp, NCAA director of compliance services. "But it has not been willing to make any drastic change in NCAA principles to allow such things as trust funds or the like that would be considered as pay based upon performance. Part of the rationale is that the committee isn't sure the membership is ready to take that big of a step.

"In addition, the Special Committee to Review Amateurism Issues had talked about the changes in the amateur code or definition of an amateur in international competition. Part of the discussion was whether the NCAA should catch up with what's changing in international competition. Neither that special committee nor the OSLC has felt that the tenor of the membership would dictate a major change yet, even though both groups gave indications they favored moving in that direction."

At the NCAA Convention in January, the Special Committee on Agents and Amateurism was established primarily to focus on agent issues. That committee's charge, however, has been expanded to pick up where previous committees left off concerning other amateurism issues. For now, however, the focus is on making sure athletes with remaining eligibility are aware of current circumstances.

Moran believes the USOC and the NCAA have worked together to drastically minimize the potential for mistakes.

"In a couple of sports where our athletes are really in their prime during their NCAA years or even before, such as gymnastics or swimming, it may present the athlete with a dilemma if they achieve success," he said. "But there aren't that many, and we're working very closely now with the NCAA -- and the mutual benefits out of this kind of relationship will far exceed any of those small dilemmas that a handful of athletes will have to face."