Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

• Decision Date: 01 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 50149,50149
• Parties: , 1977-1 Trade Cases P 61,288 BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA et al., Appellees, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 499

561 P.2d 499

85 A.L.R.3d 953, 1977-1 Trade Cases P 61,288

BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA et al., Appellees, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants.

No. 50149.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 1, 1977.

Crowe, Dunlevy, Thweatt, Swinford, Johnson & Burdick by Ben L. Burdick, Clyde A. Muchmore, Richard C. Ford, John J. Griffin, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellees.

Fellers, Snider, Blankenship & Bailey by James D. Fellers, John Joseph Snider, Oklahoma City, for appellants; Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Thurlo & Clarke by George H. Gangwere, John J. Kitchin, Kansas City, Mo., of counsel.

John Irvan Moritzky Choate, Sand Springs, for amicus curiae.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting a temporary injunction which enjoined enforcement of bylaw 12--1 of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) which limits the number of coaches a Division I member of the NCAA may employ.

The NCAA asserts that injunctive relief is not proper ¹ and that an adequate remedy at law exists based on an action by the coaches to recover for breach of contract. ²

The ultimate issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. This Court pursuant to 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b) (2) ³ may reverse, vacate or modify a judgment of the district court where, on review it appears from the nature of the case and all the facts properly before the court the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction and that it should not have been granted. ⁴ An action for injunction is one of equitable cognizance and this Court will consider all the evidence on appeal. ⁵ The granting of injunctive relief will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion. ⁶ In order to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion, a review of the facts and the law is essential.

The NCAA is a voluntary association comprised of approximately 800 members. Its active members are four-year colleges and universities located throughout the United States of which approximately 137, including the University of Oklahoma, are Division I members in football. One of the purposes of the NCAA is to legislate, through bylaws or by resolution of a convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members in the administration of intercollegiate athletics. A fundamental policy is the application of legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletic programs of member institutions to basic athletic issues, such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. ⁷ The NCAA has among its purposes the initiation, stimulation, and improvement of intercollegiate athletic programs for student-athletes, and the promotion and development of educational leadership, athletic excellence, physical fitness, and sports participation as a recreational pursuit. It also seeks to encourage its members to adopt eligibility rules to comply with satisfactory standards of scholarship, sportsmanship, and amateurism. In furtherance of these purposes, the NCAA has certain fundamental policies which recognize that the competitive athletic programs of the colleges which are members of the NCAA are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. It also seeks to maintain such intercollegiate athletics, including coaching activities, as an integral part of that educational program, and to maintain the athlete as an integral part of the student body. It seeks to maintain a clear line of demarcation between college athletics and professional sports, so that intercollegiate football will be played by amateur student-athletes who engage in such sports for education, physical, mental, and social benefits and to whom participation in such sports is an avocation rather than a business.

There are definite procedures for adopting the rules and regulations of the NCAA. Basically, the legislation policies of the NCAA are initiated by an active member or an allied conference submitting a proposed amendment. It must be circulated by a certain deadline to all member institutions, after which there is an opportunity for each member to submit proposed amendments. An annual convention is held to which all of the delegates from all of the membership are assembled and vote on the proposed amendment which has been previously circulated. Amendment of the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of those present and the bylaws require a majority vote. The bylaws are adopted by the membership following established procedures which the members themselves have adopted and the bylaws are then enforced by and against the member institutions. A member joins the organization by its own voluntary action, agrees to be bound by the NCAA's rules and regulations and is thereby obligated and responsible to administer its athletic program is accordance with the bylaws adopted by the membership.

In its January Convention, the NCAA membership in convention adopted a resolution which directed the NCAA Council, the eighteen-person governing board of the Association, to call a special meeting on economy. A representation of all the Divisions of the NCAA, as well as representatives of the college presidents, faculty representatives, athletic directors and coaches attended the meeting. These representatives discussed and recommended areas where costs could be curtailed, new areas to obtain additional revenues for funding the existing athletic programs, and expansion of programs, including opportunities for women student-athletes, and to increase competitive opportunities. After the special meeting in April of 1975, the council recommended to the NCAA Council that a special convention of the NCAA be called to submit the proposals on economy to the general membership. All members were sent the official convention notice and program on June 30, 1975, containing the legislative proposals to be discussed, including the size of the coaching staff.

The special convention was held in Chicago, Illinois on August 14--15, 1975, and was attended by OU President Paul Sharp, Interim Provost J. R. Morris, Faculty Athletic Representative David Swank, and Director of Athletics Wade H. Walker. Art. 3 of the NCAA Constitution was amended by a 2/3 vote of the delegates of all three divisions to enable the members of each division to consider coaching staff limits as a subject of general concern. As enacted it provides as follows:

'Section 10. Principle Governing Personnel and Squad Limitations. The Bylaws of the Association may prescribe limitations as to the number of coaches a member institution may employ or otherwise utilize, the size of a squad in any sport and game scouting activities.'

The provisions dealing with personnel and squad limitations, which are now bylaw 12--1 and the subject of this litigation, were adopted by a majority vote of the members of Division I in football on August 15, 1975. A summary of the legislative decisions, along with certain council interpretations, was mailed to the membership August 22 and the legislative changes were published in an NCAA memorandum dated September 15, 1975.

The provisions of bylaw 12 were further reviewed and amended in January, 1976. Efforts to delete Section 1 were defeated. Bylaw 12--1 became effective August 1, 1976, and provides:

'Section 1. Number of Coaches. A member institution shall not employ or otherwise utilize the services of coaches in excess of the following numbers: (a) Division I Football--One head coach, eight assistant coaches, two part-time assistant coaches.'

Each of the plaintiff assistant coaches was hired by OU on an annual basis. Their current contracts date variously either from January or February of 1976, and for the first time the contracts included a provision stating OU's policy that 'all assistant coaches will be retained in their positions so long as they carry out their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.' The coaches had been verbally advised of this provision in July, 1975. The limitations of bylaw 12--1 do not apply to assistant coaches who, because of academic tenure, enforceable contracts or formal security of employment commitments in effect on August 15, 1975, are entitled to continue in their jobs as assistant coaches. ⁸ However, it has been determined by the NCAA officers that these exceptions do not apply to any of the appellee assistant coaches under the official interpretation adopted by NCAA. ⁹ The coaches have not in this case pleaded or otherwise raised any issues to the contrary. OU has, in fact, abandoned its appeal of such issues to the NCAA Council and has elected to attack the basic validity of the bylaw. OU does not contest the validity of bylaw 12--1 insofar as it limits recruiting activities to the number of coaches authorized by the rule. Apparently the contention is that coaches Jimerson and Shimek would have to be terminated or transferred to other duties if the football coaching limits are observed, and that the bylaw is invalid in so requiring.

Two other assistant coaches, Steve Barrett and Jim Helms, found similar employment at other institutions and have been voluntarily dismissed as appellees in this case. Thus, under the evidence at the hearing on preliminary injunction, it was only the status of coaches Jimerson and Shimek that remained to be resolved in this lawsuit. OU has chosen to hire appellee Selmon as a part-time assistant coach with other duties outside the athletic department.

It is asserted by the NCAA that judicial scrutiny of the bylaw is inappropriate. ¹⁰ Courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of voluntary membership associations, however, in particular situations, where the considerations of policy and justice are sufficiently compelling judicial scrutiny and relief are available. In dealing with an organization in which membership is an economic necessity, the courts must be particularly alert to the...