With all the talk recently about pay for play, people may have forgotten that there is permissive legislation that allows pay for teaching to play.

In April 2002, the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors without too much fanfare passed a proposal commonly referred to as "fee for lesson."

The fee-for-lesson concept already is allowed in Divisions II and III, but Division I previously had forbidden the practice, mostly because of its perceived potential as a competitive advantage.

"The fear was that the star quarterback at Rival U. would be able to do something that players at other schools wouldn't be able to arrange," said Bill Saum, the NCAA's director of agents, amateurism and gambling activities. "It was an example of over-regulation based primarily on fear or mistrust. Now that veil has been lifted, allowing the student-athlete to earn money from his or her talent, as a clarinet player might do by giving lessons for a fee."

The proposal may have had little effect initially, since its effective date was August 1, 2002. That made fee-for-lesson legislation logistically awkward at first.

"Even though we knew fee for lesson was going to be effective August 1, 2002, it was difficult to educate our student-athletes about it at the end-of-the-year meetings last year," said Jennifer Heppel, who handles compliance for the Big Ten Conference. "You couldn't very well tell the athletes, 'OK go home and don't do this during the summer, but on August 1, you can.' So last summer, the educational focus was still on fee for lesson not being permissible because we didn't want to expose ourselves to mistakes that might happen."

Fears of abuse unfounded

It also was difficult for student-athletes to take advantage of the legislation during the past academic year, since the current work rule employs a $2,000 cap for earnings, and time demands for most athletes during the year are too heavy to allow for much outside work. This August, legislation lifting the cap becomes effective, but the time-demands issue, however, may not go away.

"It's difficult for student-athletes to find time in their busy schedules, with classes, study halls, tutors, practices and competition," said University of Florida Associate Athletics Director Jamie McCloskey, who noted that not many Gators have expressed an interest in the fee-for-lesson legislation.

McCloskey said, though, that use of the legislation may depend largely on the circumstances. For instance, he said that in Gainesville and other non-metropolitan areas, student-athletes may not be as readily afforded the opportunities to teach for a fee as some might in larger cities. Also, the times that youngsters who may want lessons from student-athletes may be the times that the student-athletes are in season. If a youth football player, for example, wants help with his techniques in August, college football players will be working too much on their own techniques to have the time to give lessons.

Many of those factors may have played a role in the legislation's passage. McCloskey said while the fee-for-lesson legislation represents an important change of pace for NCAA regulations, the realization that there wouldn't be a land rush on using the rule may have given administrators a comfort level with passing it. The situation is not too different from the work rule, which was controversial when first proposed. Many compliance people saw the potential nightmare of tracking such a rule, but when it was finally passed, not an over-abundance of student-athletes took advantage of it because they didn't have the time, so the tracking issues became moot.

Use should increase

Nonetheless, the fee-for-lesson rule is important since it enables those who want to take advantage of it to do so. Administrators think those student-athletes are out there, and compliance people are making sure athletes know it's available.

"We've met with all 35 of our teams and made sure they understand the rule," said Heather Lyke, the associate athletics director for compliance at Ohio State University. "We've had fewer than 10 athletes take advantage of this during the year, but this summer, that number probably goes up."

Lyke said the only concerns most compliance people have about the fee-for-lesson rule is evaluating what constitutes a "going rate." One of the rule's restrictions is that the fees the student-athlete receives are commensurate with fees a non-student-athlete would receive for the same instruction.

"That might be easier to determine for golf, for example, than football," Lyke said. "There's not really a going rate for quarterback lessons."

The Big Ten's Heppel said that may be why student-athletes in individual sports are taking advantage of the legislation more than those in team sports. She also said that monitoring the "going rate" is not an additional headache for compliance coordinators since that's something they already do for the work rule.

Heppel, in fact, is optimistic about the future of fee for lesson.

"Next year, when we see deregulation of the employment earnings -- when the cap is lifted and earnings are unlimited, not countable and can even exceed the cost of attendance -- we should see an increase in fee for lesson during the academic year as well as in the summer. There should be a continual rise in use."

To be sure, fee for lesson represents a friendlier legislative day for student-athletes, and it in some ways counters critics who say the NCAA needs to get more money into athletes' hands.

"Right now," the NCAA's Saum said, "the concerns are about whether the rule is being communicated and used, not about whether the rule is being corrupted and abused. That represents a refreshing change in my mind -- that people are thinking on behalf of the student-athlete and not trying to impose more restrictions or gain a competitive advantage."

Athletes now free for lessons