National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Lasege
53 S.W. 3d 77, 2001 Ky. LEXIS 118, 2001 WL 674154 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court should not substitute its judgment for that of a voluntary athletic association unless the association's eligibility decision is arbitrary and capricious, meaning it is unsupported by substantial evidence. An association bylaw allowing for restitutionary sanctions against a member institution that fields an ineligible player under a subsequently-vacated court order is a valid, enforceable contractual provision.
Facts:
- Muhammed Lasege, a citizen of Nigeria, traveled to Russia to obtain a visa to come to the United States to become a student-athlete.
- While in Russia, Lasege signed a three-year contract with a sports agency, New Sport, which was to provide a salary of $9,000 per year plus incentives.
- Lasege also signed a second contract with a professional basketball team in Russia.
- Over approximately 18 months, Lasege received numerous benefits due to his athletic ability, including housing, meals, a driver, a cook, clothing, and multiple airline tickets paid for by the agency and other individuals.
- Lasege competed with two junior teams that were financially supported by professional teams and practiced with two professional teams, but did not compete in professional games.
- The University of Louisville (U of L), where Lasege enrolled, initially declared him ineligible for compromising his amateur status.
- U of L requested that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reinstate Lasege's eligibility, citing mitigating factors such as his ignorance of NCAA regulations and potential coercion.
- The NCAA's reinstatement staff and a subcommittee denied the request, finding Lasege's actions constituted a clear intent to professionalize based on his signing of contracts and acceptance of benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Muhammed Lasege filed a complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court against the NCAA seeking a temporary injunction to reinstate his basketball eligibility.
- The Jefferson Circuit Court (a trial court) conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted the temporary injunction, ordering the NCAA to restore Lasege's eligibility.
- The trial court's order also declared NCAA Bylaw 19.8 invalid and enjoined the NCAA from enforcing it against the University of Louisville.
- The NCAA, as appellant, sought interlocutory relief from the temporary injunction in the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) denied the NCAA's motion, finding the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
- The NCAA then moved the Kentucky Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for interlocutory relief to vacate the temporary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by issuing a temporary injunction that (1) overturns a voluntary athletic association's eligibility decision that is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) invalidates the association's bylaw authorizing restitutionary sanctions if the injunction is later overturned?
Opinions:
Majority - Keller, Justice.
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion in such circumstances. The court found that the trial court wrongfully substituted its judgment for that of the NCAA, whose decision was supported by substantial evidence—namely, Lasege's admitted signing of professional contracts and acceptance of benefits. A court's disagreement with the weight given to mitigating evidence does not render the NCAA's decision arbitrary or capricious. The court also held the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding the NCAA had no interest in the case and in invalidating NCAA Bylaw 19.8. This bylaw is a valid contractual agreement among NCAA members to allocate the risk of an erroneous court order and to restore competitive equity; it does not thwart judicial power as it only applies after an injunction is vacated.
Dissenting - Johnstone, Justice,
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and the NCAA failed to show the "extraordinary cause" necessary for relief. The dissent argues that the majority failed to give proper deference to the trial court, which conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing before issuing the injunction. The majority substituted its own judgment for that of the trial judge, who found substantial questions about the arbitrary nature of the NCAA's ruling. Furthermore, the dissent contends that the injunction against enforcing Bylaw 19.8 could be reasonably interpreted as applying only while the injunction was active, and that the majority's decision to overrule precedent on this issue was premature and unwarranted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the authority of voluntary athletic associations like the NCAA by reinforcing a highly deferential standard of judicial review for their internal eligibility decisions. It establishes that as long as an association's ruling is supported by substantial evidence, courts should not intervene, even if they disagree with the outcome. By explicitly upholding the validity of restitution bylaws (like Bylaw 19.8), the ruling provides these associations with a powerful tool to correct competitive inequities created by erroneous court orders and discourages member institutions from using litigation as a risk-free means to field potentially ineligible athletes.
