As a method to help myself build on the concepts learned in the SPMA 4P86 class, I will be writing a few posts that are called "Quick Hits." These posts are designed to be shorter in length, and will allow for me to expand a little deeper on some of the concepts that weren't elaborated on in great detail in lecture. These will allow me to expand my knowledge, which will in turn help me in my career.
In class a few weeks back, we briefly talked about the concept of non-competition clauses. A non-competition clause is something that the signee would have to abide by when the contract comes to an end. Non-competition clauses try to prohibit the individual from entering into an agreement with another organization for a certain period of time. Sometimes it can prohibit the individual from entering into an agreement with an organization in the same industry, which makes things tough for the party.
Recently, Kansas State University dismissed guard Marcus Foster from the program, for reasons that were not disclosed at the time. However, some of the details that were released stated that Foster cannot enrol in a school in the Big 12 conference. Foster is considered one of the more talented players in the country, and despite his attitude and off-court issues, he is a player that Kansas State doesn't want to play against. This could be one factor into why the clause is in the agreement, but I'm sure there are others.
It's hard to get hold of the athlete agreement, so all we can realistically do is speculate other reasons why the clause is in there. Fortunately for athletes in the NCAA, a non-competition clause have little effect on where players are able to transfer to. With 351 Division I institutions, eliminating the ones in their conference shouldn't impact a player's decision too much. A player usually transfers closer to home, which renders the clause in the agreement irrelevant. These clauses are in the agreements to help the institutions when presented with player transfers. I have yet to see a case where a player has violated the clause, so I cannot comment on how schools and the NCAA handle the situation.
Non-competition clauses need to be carefully written to be enforceable. Some agreements identify a particular radius in which individuals cannot work in, while some specifically state that the person cannot work for an organization that is anywhere close to that of their former employer. These clauses are harder to draft for NCAA schools, as it's tough to say a player cannot transfer to a school with "similar" interests. All schools in the NCAA have the same interests, which means that once the player enrolled at a school he wouldn't be able to transfer if things didn't work out. It makes things hard for the schools, which is why I feel that they indicate the conferences as the only limitation.
Hearing about the dismissal and transfer of Marcus Foster got me thinking of non-competition clauses, and I hope that this post provided a bit more clarification into the concept and why the NCAA has a difficult time when it comes to these clauses.
- T.B.
In class a few weeks back, we briefly talked about the concept of non-competition clauses. A non-competition clause is something that the signee would have to abide by when the contract comes to an end. Non-competition clauses try to prohibit the individual from entering into an agreement with another organization for a certain period of time. Sometimes it can prohibit the individual from entering into an agreement with an organization in the same industry, which makes things tough for the party.
Recently, Kansas State University dismissed guard Marcus Foster from the program, for reasons that were not disclosed at the time. However, some of the details that were released stated that Foster cannot enrol in a school in the Big 12 conference. Foster is considered one of the more talented players in the country, and despite his attitude and off-court issues, he is a player that Kansas State doesn't want to play against. This could be one factor into why the clause is in the agreement, but I'm sure there are others.
It's hard to get hold of the athlete agreement, so all we can realistically do is speculate other reasons why the clause is in there. Fortunately for athletes in the NCAA, a non-competition clause have little effect on where players are able to transfer to. With 351 Division I institutions, eliminating the ones in their conference shouldn't impact a player's decision too much. A player usually transfers closer to home, which renders the clause in the agreement irrelevant. These clauses are in the agreements to help the institutions when presented with player transfers. I have yet to see a case where a player has violated the clause, so I cannot comment on how schools and the NCAA handle the situation.
Non-competition clauses need to be carefully written to be enforceable. Some agreements identify a particular radius in which individuals cannot work in, while some specifically state that the person cannot work for an organization that is anywhere close to that of their former employer. These clauses are harder to draft for NCAA schools, as it's tough to say a player cannot transfer to a school with "similar" interests. All schools in the NCAA have the same interests, which means that once the player enrolled at a school he wouldn't be able to transfer if things didn't work out. It makes things hard for the schools, which is why I feel that they indicate the conferences as the only limitation.
Hearing about the dismissal and transfer of Marcus Foster got me thinking of non-competition clauses, and I hope that this post provided a bit more clarification into the concept and why the NCAA has a difficult time when it comes to these clauses.
- T.B.