REVERSING FIELD: EXAMINING COMMERCIALIZATION, LABOR, GENDER, AND RACE IN 21ST CENTURY SPORTS LAW

Introduction

Introduction Stacey B. Evans* “ R eversing field” is a term of art that describes a change in course or direction. In football, a “reverse field” occurs when a player abruptly changes the flow of a lateral play. In October 2007, the West Virginia University College of Law hosted a two-day sports law symposium entitled “Reversing Field: Examining Commercialization, Labor, and Race in 21st Century Sports Law.” This symposium invited academics and practitioners from across the nation to explore whether vexing issues in sports law such as race, gender, labor, and commercialization have “reversed field” or whether progress still needs to be made. The world of professional and collegiate sports involves an ever-changing landscape. Efforts are continuously made to increase the number of minority coaches and team executives, to equalize the playing field for female athletes, and to ensure cheat-free sports by perfecting drug testing techniques. It was this sort of intellectual, academic, and sociological discourse that was envisioned when conceptualizing the premise for this symposium. West Virginia University’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society challenged its speakers to be provocative and to broach topics that were not previously discussed at other law schools. This symposium endeavored to cover more than the standard “Current State of Athletics” or “Recent Developments in Sports Law.” So often, the trials and tribulations of male athletes are documented on ESPN, in Sports Illustrated, and in the local newspaper. Nonetheless, issues unique to female athletes, such as pregnancy, or issues pertaining to the student-athlete, such as the extent to which labor and employment laws are used to regulate student-athletes, are largely ignored. But the fact remains that society is fascinated with all athletes. Celebrity status used to be something reserved only for professional athletes. But today, the popularity of former collegiate players such as Matt Leinart, Candace Parker, and Kevin Durant has sent celebrity status into an entirely different stratosphere. Tremendous debate has been raised as to whether a full scholarship is sufficient to compensate these student-athletes for the millions of dollars their respective schools earn because of their talent and status. Pregnancy and premarital sex are often taboo topics that academic conferences seek to avoid. The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) lack of a definitive rule regarding pregnancy has led to 2 Stacey Evans a system whereby individual schools are left to create policies regarding athletes and pregnancy. Although the NCAA permits an extra year of eligibility for an athlete who becomes pregnant, this rule is not mandatory. Ultimately, it is up to the school to determine whether to revoke the female student-athlete’s scholarship. This flexibility in the rule has led to disastrous results. One notable example is Clemson University, where at least seven student-athletes terminated their pregnancies in order to preserve their athletic scholarships.1 When one Clemson student-athlete discovered that she was pregnant and informed her administrator, she was told: “Just think about your options. You know Coach isn’t going to give you back your scholarship just like that. If she finds out and if you decide to keep it, that’s gone.”2 This is a precarious position to place young females in, especially those who cannot afford to attend college without a financial aid award. Meanwhile, at the University of Memphis, female student-athletes were required to sign a contract acknowledging that pregnancy was grounds for immediate dismissal and nonrenewal of scholarship. These coaches are effectively reprimanding pregnant athletes the same way they would reprimand a student-athlete who missed class or broke into a dorm room.3 While a pregnant studentathlete may not be able to keep up with the physical requirements of a non-pregnant student-athlete, it seems unconscionable to treat a student in this situation as a malcontent or criminal. These young, often impressionable girls need support, not a giant scarlet letter. As noted University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Deborah Brake highlighted in her symposium presentation, this is one area in which universities and the NCAA have certainly not reversed field toward purposeful progress.4 This policy raises the question of whether colleges and universities are violating Title IX by discriminating against pregnant student-athletes. In part, Title IX mandates that “institutions receiving federal funds cannot discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, and the law also mandates that those institutions shall not exclude any student from its education program or activity . . . on the basis of such student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false...