Paul Stuart Haberman [Associate, Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP]: "A decision like the one recently handed down by the Common Pleas Court of Erie County, Ohio in Oliver v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. [PDF file] was long overdue. For many years, college athletes that dare seek the guiding hand of counsel in negotiation with professional sports teams have done so at their peril, as NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 states that "[a] lawyer may not be present during discussions of a contract offer with a professional organization or have any direct contact (in person, by telephone, or by mail), with a professional sports organization on behalf of the individual. A lawyer's presence during such discussion is considered representation by an agent." NCAA athletes are not permitted to have agents, and risk being suspended from participation in their chosen intercollegiate sport for having them.

To the extent that a college athlete consults with an attorney about a professional contract, therefore, he must not only be able to exceptionally perform in his chosen sport, but he (and perhaps his parents) must also be able to successfully regurgitate each and every concern, proposed revision/addition, and negotiation point recommended by said attorney in his discussions with a professional team. Anyone that has represented a single athlete in their legal career should appreciate the absurdity of this scenario. Athletes know their chosen sport, but not necessarily the law and the nuances of negotiation. That is why scores of attorneys throughout the country devote their practices to the representation of athletes, just as others do for the personally injured, business owners, and others who do not have a useful grasp on the law without the guidance of learned counsel. Without someone at the negotiating table to interpret their professional contracts, athletes risk being buried in restrictive and unfair contract provisions and having their talents exploited by teams that may view them as little more than new cash cows.

The above is recognized in Oliver, as the Court held that allowing NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 to stand opens the door for the continued "exploitation of the student-athlete 'by professional and commercial enterprises[,]'" in contravention of the positive intentions of the NCAA to establish a clear demarcation line between amateur and professional athletes. Even without this provision, the NCAA's Bylaws already provide several useful demarcation lines between amateurs and professionals, including defining a professional athlete as "one who receives any kind of payment, directly or indirectly, for athletics participation except as permitted by the governing legislation of the association." With the line drawn by these other provisions, it is sound policy to allow an attorney to actively participate in the negotiation of an amateur athlete's professional sports contract. Indeed, most 18-to-21-year-old athletes would not know where to begin in reviewing, drafting, or negotiating options provisions, morals clauses, or annual compensation. Most 30-year-old athletes would not either. The athlete would, however, be held to the terms of his contract upon its execution in either instance. For the most important contract that they have likely entered into in their young lives, therefore, NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 is nothing short of an unconscionable handicap to an athlete's negotiating abilities.

For those that disagree with the above, I invite you to have Mike Tyson or Rafael Nadal represent you at your next court appearance. Let us know how that goes. In the meantime, excuse me while I go advise Tiger Woods on how to improve his stroke."