Shelton v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 75-3578

• Decision Date: 23 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-3578,75-3578
• Citation: 539 F.2d 1197
• Parties: Lonnie J. SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an association, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1197

539 F.2d 1197

Lonnie J. SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an association, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 75-3578.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1976.

Allan Hart (argued), Lindsay, Nahstoll, Hart & Krause, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellants.

Bruce B. Samson (argued), Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WRIGHT and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and McGOVERN, ^* District Judge.

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

The principal issue in this appeal ¹ is whether the NCAA rule declaring ineligible for intercollegiate athletics in a particular sport any student who has ever signed a contract to play that professional sport violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

The basic facts are not in dispute. The NCAA constitution declares as one of its goals the promotion and preservation of amateurism in college athletics. In order to advance this goal, the NCAA constitution contains a rule which distinguishes between amateur and professional athletes on the basis of whether an individual has signed a contract to play professional sports. The rule provides that a student who has signed such a contract, regardless of its enforceability, is ineligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics in that sport.

Appellee Shelton does not deny that he signed a professional contract with an American Basketball Association team which resulted in his being declared ineligible by Oregon State University. Indeed, he contends that the contract is unenforceable because he was induced to sign it by fraud and undue influence. The legal enforceability of the contract is the subject of a separate action brought by Shelton against the professional team which is now pending before the district court. Shelton urges that the NCAA rule making him ineligible despite the alleged defects in the contract creates an impermissible classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. He wants the rule suspended while his litigation and the college basketball season continue.

Our review on such questions is limited. None of the parties contend that the NCAA rule infringes upon a fundamental right which would necessitate strict judicial scrutiny. Instead, we must examine the rule to determine whether it rationally furthers some legitimate purpose. If it does, then our review is complete.

The rule purports to promote and protect amateurism in intercollegiate athletics. None of the parties seriously contends that this goal is illegitimate. Instead they dispute the means chosen by the NCAA to achieve it.

Shelton believes that it is unreasonable to treat as a professional one who alleges that the contract which he signed is unenforceable. In effect, he contends that the NCAA rule is overinclusive because if he is successful in his other action and the contract is declared unenforceable he is not nor would he ever have been a professional.

In a similar case, two years ago, Associated Students, Inc. v. NCAA, 493 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. 1974), this court reviewed another NCAA eligibility rule which was challenged on equal protection grounds. We recognized that the application of such rules may produce unreasonable results in certain situations. Nonetheless, we found that the rule did not violate the equal protection clause. Moreover, we did so although we recognized that the rule and its enforcement provisions might not be the best means for achieving the desired goal. It is not judicial business to tell a voluntary athletic association how best to formulate or...