- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Mississippi does not want to risk losing a Heisman trophy. Motivated by Reggie Bush’s loss of his Heisman, Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman led the charge in passing a new Mississippi law tightening sports agent regulations, saying, “If Mississippi ever wins a Heisman trophy, we want to keep it.” (Hopefully, Hoseman realizes that states do not win Heisman trophies.) Amid the recent inundation of college football scandals, however, Hoseman’s move is not surprising. Schools nationwide have been plagued by student-athletes receiving unauthorized compensation from sources outside universities, and it was only a matter of time before states started to act. Hoseman hopes that Mississippi’s new law will not only protect student-athletes’ eligibility, but it will also protect the future of student-athletes that unscrupulous agents attempt to exploit.
Mississippi’s new law contains a long list of new regulations; however, one of the most interesting is its broadening of the definition of compensation. In Mississippi, “compensation” to a student-athlete now includes “anything of value,” preventing agents from skirting the law by offering goods to student-athletes not covered under the law. More important, however, is that whoever gives something of value to a student-athlete will be classified as an “agent” under the law, requiring that person to register with the secretary of state. This change was a response to “runners” who provided student-athletes with compensation. “Runners,” many of whom are students on campus, are usually employed by agents to give benefits to student-athletes in order to entice them to sign a contract with the agent. Hoseman hopes that this new law will prevent “runners” from operating under the radar.
Other changes to the law include requiring agents to register with the secretary of state before ever signing a player; requiring them to notify the university before soliciting the student-athlete, his relatives, or “anyone living in the same place” as the student-athlete; and requiring disclosures of current litigation the agent is involved in and state licenses the agent holds, among other things. Any violation of these regulations or numerous others will result in a civil or criminal penalty not to exceed 2 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.
Although this new law appears to be a step in the right direction, it has been criticized by some. The requirement to register with the secretary of state before signing a player has been criticized as a barrier to entry for smaller agents, who would want to see if they could sign a student-athlete before paying the registration fee. The law used to allow agents seven days to register with the secretary of state after signing a player, and it is argued that there was no reason to change this part of the law. Others simply believe that agents are only a small part of the problem, and that without also imposing penalties on coaches and boosters, the problem will not be solved. Finally, some believe the possible 2 years of jail time does not fit the crime. However, Texas (10 years) and Tennessee (6 years) already impose much harsher penalties. What do you think? Will this law mitigate the seemingly prevalent corruption of college athletics? Or is the threat of 2 years in jail for giving a college student a couple hundred bucks absurd?
– R.L. Florance
Recent Blog Posts
- First Circuit Aligns With Third: Actavis Extends Beyond Cash Settlements
- Current Issues in Technology Law: Dr. Asma Vranaki Analyzes Data Privacy Regulation in the Context of Facebook Advertisements
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Rises in National Law Journal Rankings
- Dancing Babies: The Ninth Circuit May Have Protected Them from Computer Algorithms
- Starbucks’ Next Top Model: It Could Be You
- The Official Legal Showdown: Protecting Street Art, Wynwood Art District as a Case Study, Part 2
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution