Sport

Recent events have brought the issues about National Letters of Intent to the forefront of sports law. The issue being that many high school athletes sign letters of intent to attend a certain school, and for some reason or another they end up reneging on their deal. The question then arises of whether the school can bring about a case because of this breach of contract. Many lawyers and athletic directors are saying yes, because when the letter of intent is signed, that is signing a contract. There are many areas of this issue that can be looked at such as coaching changes before the year begins, a simple change of heart, issues with the university among others. This is a research paper that discusses these in details and some of the necessary penalties given to the student-athlete upon breaching of the National Letters of Intent agreement.

The National Letter of Intent, NLI, has been used as an agreement that binds a student-athlete speculating to join a given institution. In this agreement or contract, the institution makes an agreement to provide for that particular student-athlete to be admitted into that given institution, that particular student being eligible to getting financial assistance as stipulated under the NCAA rules (Spainhour, 2007). The athlete aid is usually provided for a single academic year, and the agreement is an exchange for student-athlete to agree to be admitted into the institution for a period of one year for academic purposes. All the universities that have been participating in this National Letter of Intent program  have an agreement of not recruiting that given student-athlete the moment he has signed an NLI with any other university or learning institution.
The interpretation here is that this student who has signed an NLI with a given institution should never in any case receive any other contract from other institutions if he has to enjoy a scholarship with the institution. When signing the NLI, it is required that it has to be accompanied by the financial agreement which is given as aid by the institution (McQuilken, 1996). Should this student-athlete fail to get enrolled in that given institution for the stipulated time period of one year, then the he or she will be subjected to a number of specific penalties. These penalties include the loss of a year full season athletic eligibility and a residence mandatory requirement. In order to ensure its effectiveness, the program is guided by the NCAA Eligibility Center Office, NCCA-ECO. Any questions which can be asked about the program application have to be forwarded to NLI offices.

Is the National Letter of Intent Enforceable
The National Letter of Intent, NLI, is a document used inrepresenting a participation contract between a university and a willing student-athlete. If it happens - these two parties, the institution and the student-athlete, can sueone another should there occur a breach of the letter. When it comes to a student-athlete, however, the only issue necessary is not the litigation cost, but the entire time-period spent during the whole litigation process which might be a very pressing issue altogether. For instance, should a given player or athlete break this commitment of the National Letter of Intent, then the player is not even released or allowed by the Athletic Director, heshe is required to sit out from the game for an entire year (Becker, 2002). Having stayed out of the game, the player will as well lose the eligibility for that given year, and it would only be after the full year that the athlete or the player can be in a position of participating in any other athletics in any other university or college.

Recent events on the sporting arena have brought much conjecture concerning the National Letters of Intent to the forefront of sports law (Barry, 2004). The issue here has been that a number of high school athletes tend to sign up these letters of intent in promise of attending a given university, but for one reason or another, these athletes may end up not reporting, therefore reneging on the deal. The main question that arises is whether this given institution can bring about a lawsuit against this athlete or player for having breached the contract of the letter. A number of athletic managers, directors and lawyers have been in support for this this is because when the letter of intent has been signed by the athlete, this is as well an act of signing a contract that should not be violated whatsoever. It will be asked why these there is a very big burning issue about this occurrence. But we can look at it from very many angles upon the number of athletes who have signed up the contract, the coaching procedures in the institution is usually adjusted early in advance before the beginning of the year, there is also a simple change of heart, some issues within the university also have to be re-addressed, among many others. Therefore, it occurs that there are a number of legalities that have to be stipulated in order to address these issues in the best way we can.

Legalities with the NLI
This letter is in itself a contract that has to be honoured by both parties who sign up the deal. This means that the student-athlete should be in a position of taking legal actions against a school which has breached the contact (Allfred, 2005). Again, the school should also be given the mandate of taking legal actions against any student which has signed the National Letter of Intent and ended up violating the agreement. This means that the school would have to put the necessary technical changes in its operations, and hence any failure of not reporting will create a bigger harm in the operations of the schools sporting activities.

In order to be in a position of having a better address for this issue, the best thing would be to look at how the NLI is signed and the descriptions it thereby fits into. When it comes to this agreement, there have been a lot of discussions whether the agreement can be considered to be an unconscionable form of adhesive contract. In general terms, any adhesion contract is a form of agreement whereby one party comes up with a draft, while the other party will be forced to accept this draft or as well reject it, and this is something that has to be fulfilled without any opportunity to a negotiation (Becker, 2002).The NLI therefore fits the description. That being the case, the question concerning the enforceability of the law will not necessarily hinge on if this NLI as placed in as a Contract of Adhesion, CA.After all, what happens is that whenever the student-athlete is signing the contract, it is done in the same manner as people do when purchasing things like cell phones and entering into agreements, when signing up for gym membership, and everything else which is done in a manner that has not been thought-out for a second time, and thus these contracts have always been enforceable. This makes this NLI contract to fall under the same category so that it can be enforceable.If there would be an appropriate way of voiding this contract, the involved courtshould deem the contract unconscionable the way it is, or make it to be in contrast to the public policy (Barry, 2004).

The other important issue that has been discussed is the manner in which the NLI has been signed by the student. There is therefore another issue that has to be considered in terms of the NLI legality the student-athletes guide and access to a given counsel who may have assisted him when signing or even reviewing the National Letter of Intent.Should the NLI be noted to have been signed typically by the student-athlete alone, and without the counsel and advice from a given counsel, and with not even a single opportunity or room for negotiation, the student-athlete may as well be able to stand a better argument in voiding this NLI contract. This will be based on the policy grounds of public policy and unconscionability. Therefore, it would be necessary that, any slight access of advice from a relevant counsel will form a better foundation when there are any ongoing cases for collegiate athletics (Becker, 2002).

The other important issue that has been voiced out about the legality of the National Letter of Intent is that the contract should be deemed as a Contract of Adhesion, and therefore, it would be better if a few considerations have to be made before its application or being validated (Allfred, 2005).A number of lawyers have therefore argued that one should keep in his or her mind that, although this NLI may have some terms that are purely one-sided, the contract posed by the NLI is something purely voluntary, and thus the termsshould never in any way rise to a level unconscionability within the courts eyes.

Although many experts, lawyers and sporting directors have given varied arguments about the same, it would be necessary that these Letters of Intent remain binding between the university and the student-athlete. This is in consideration that the litigation procedures may as well not be fruitful for court proceeding, whether filed by the student or the university, and despite the cost involved, more time may end up being wasted in the process. Therefore, it would be better for NLIs that existing penalties should never be breached by the students. This is because each and every NLI signed sees the institution re-structuring itself so as to have adequate provision of resources and services to the anticipated athletes. Once the student-athlete breaches the contract, it means that the institution may as well be required to get a huge loss.

It the student-athlete has breached the NLI agreement contract between him and the school, it should be necessary that the existing penalty is maintained in order to ensure no one blackmails the other. Since our question of study tends much to the students failure to join the institution, and thereby breaching the agreement, the school should be in a position of ensuring that there is a well laid procedure in which there will be the suspension of the athlete from the game for the stated one year period. In that case, should a given player or athlete break this commitment of the National Letter of Intent - the player is not even released or allowed by the Athletic Director, this given player is required to sit out from the game for an entire year (Becker, 2002). Once this given player has stayed out of the game for this one full year, the athlete will as well lose his eligibility for that given year, and it would only be after the full year that the athlete or the player can be in a position of participating in any other athletics in any other university or college. This penalty is timely since it makes sure that all those athletes willing to sign the National Letter of Intent keep the contract (Fleisher, 2002).

Therefore, the breach of the NLI agreement and contract by the student-athlete after having successfully enrolled in the institution, who then goes ahead to enter a contract with another school attracts a number of penalties which should be deemed necessary. If a student-athlete has successfully entered this contract by signing the NLI agreement, he or she is entirely committed to report and attend the institution he has entered the agreement with for the stated one year period. If this given individual fails to attend the institution he or she had signed an agreement with, and by doing so attends another one, the penalty is that the individual will have to be precluded so that there is no self-representation into the second institution until the individual has completed a full academic year of residence with the original institution. Sometimes, the athlete will also be forced to lose a full season by not competing in any of the sporting events (Becker, 2002).

The issue of seeing these athletes sitting out for a year is something that is quite necessarily if we think of it from both sides. From the students side, if the student-athlete is denied the chance having signed the NLI, it becomes a big question as he may be forced to file a case against that given institution. This will ensure that all the institutions issue these letters depending on the capacity of their services and resources, and how effectively that can serve the accepted applicants. On the other hand, once a student has signed this NLI, it places the institution in a position of recruiting coaches, installing more facilities, and so on, and therefore, if it happens that the student-athlete fails to honor the contract, then it places the institution at a precarious angle which may see it recording a great loss (Fleisher, 2002).

The other important thing is that there is the requirement that a number of games should be number of games determined by the NCAA, the body which oversees integrity in the National Letters of Intent and how student-athletes adhere to the signatory. This is because, once a given institution has been given financial aid through the program, it would be necessary that there is effective monitoring so that the best practise is provided for the institution by the player (Fleisher, 2002). This is quite important since it ensures that the player provides the necessary services as agreed in the program. Also, there is the need to ensure that, once a given athlete has been denied to join a latter institution by the NLI agreement as stipulated by the NCAA, and may he or she be allowed to continue playing for the institution, it would be necessary that the player is monitored so as to ensure he gives his best to the school, otherwise, any failure to do so will eventually result in the cancellation of the financial aid.

So that there can be sanity in the sporting arena within the National Latter of Intent program, it has been necessary for the NCAA to come up with guidelines which have to be applied in all the universities giving the contact agreements. Therefore, NCAA has the mandate of opposing any misconduct in the sporting since this has a very big potential of undermining the sports integrity within these institutions. The NCAA also ensures that it prevents any form of sport wagering. For instance, sports wagering has been known to demean sporting and competition activities, and therefore making the sporting lose meaning at the very end. Therefore, there have been guidelines that are put in place to ensure that the students do not participate in gambling (Berry  Wong, 1996). Therefore, it would be necessary to agree that the National Letter of Intent is totally enforceable by the NCAA.

It can therefore be agreed that the existing plan of action is relevant regarding the National Letters of Intent and the contracts involved. This is to ensure that both the student-athlete and the university benefit accordingly as stated in the agreement contract. This will ensure that the student does not opt for any other college or university upon entering into an agreement with the later institution in the very first place. This will ensure that, once a student has been enrolled in a given institution, it will happen that he or she will not leave that institution (Wong, 1998). This ensures that the institution does not end up having a loss. Once an institution has accepted a given student-athlete for an NLI program, it will recruit the necessary trainers and coaches and also install sufficient facilities. Therefore, if the student does not report, it will be disadvantageous for the college or university.