@rockchalkjayhawk said in What's our fate?:
Hereās a nice, simply stated story on what KU faces.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091334394/university-kansas-ncaa-violations ā
That story is misleading. It summarizes the FBI case by lumping KU into the allegations where school employees were directly involved in the Adidas payments. The FBI investigation concluded that KU did not know of them and, in fact, was the victim of the scheme.
The article also fails to address the unique theory that attempts to make KU liable for the Adidas scheme, i.e., that Adidas was a booster solely because we relied on Adidas help in recruiting, and we had a duty to detect and report Adidas misconduct.
The booster thing is important because it creates a special type of agency. In the law, you are responsible for things your agent does in the course of agency. But agency also requires a showing of control over the agent. Someone who does something for another, even by request or contract, is not automatically an agent if they are independent. (The fact that Adidas did not recruit exclusively for KU does not defeat agency, but it is a significant factor against it.)
The NCAA is trying to label Adidas as our booster, and from there to bootstrap all the attributes of agency into the relationship, including the duties to supervise all their conduct, put protections in place to prevent misconduct, and detect and cure any violations found. How in the world could KU supervise a multinational corporation?
An analogy would be any other procuring relationship. Take Boeing, for example. Let's say in the 80's Boeing needed more chrome, which was harder to get from South Africa when sanctions for impartheid were being enacted. They go out and hire some guys from the mob who have a reputation for being able to find things via underground connections, and they tell them to get South African chrome "no questions asked," i.e., on the black market. The mob sneaks chrome in in obvious S African crates, bypassing customs. Yes, Boeing has contracted with authorization for illegal transactions and could be held liable. But if Boeing hires another company that specializes in identifying and finding legal sources of materials, with a long history of working with lots of companies and having ongoing relationships with suppliers, and contracts to puchase chrome, then Boeing has not created an agency relationship rendering them liable for any illegally procured chrome received in legal-appearing crates. They are merely a customer, not charged with knowledge of where it came from since legal sources existed.
And yes, they would be the victim if their new supplier defrauded them by procuring chrome that might be seized if it was illegally imported.
KU's "admission" that Adidas was a booster was for the purposecof the Silvio case only. There are ways that lawyers can do "limited purpose" admissions that absolutely prohibit collateral use, but I have no idea if KU did theirs properly.
One other thing that needs to be addressed: if the IARP exceeds its authority or violates its own procedures, the unappealability of its decision goes out the window. Private organizations are required to follow their own rules, and any findings/sanctions, have to be grounded in the referral charter/warrant/whatever. Waiving the right of appeal would not, for example, authorize the IARP to prohibit KU from participation in all sports, or require closing the Student Union.
If the booster theory works, I want the NCAA to charge Oregon and other Nike schools with aiding and abetting violations of child labor laws in getting their shoes.
No opinion on anything not specifically discussed above!
