Abstract
Statements found in the NCAA Manual and made by the NCAA President emphasize the primacy of academic success for college athletes. However the reality of a ‘meaningful education’ is often elusive due to the multitude of competing interests. College athletes must balance academic success with the extensive time demands of athletic competition, practice, travel, conditioning, watching game film, etc. Often, this balancing act proves unsuccessful insofar as it pertains to the achievement of educational goals. To date, there has been little legal recourse available for aggrieved college athletes who wish to argue that they have been unfairly deprived of the opportunity for a meaningful education. Educational malpractice lawsuits have been unsuccessful and contractual recourse for students has been limited to cases in which specific promises have been breached by a university. The authors argue, however, that college athletes should be able to rely upon a university’s good faith efforts to provide a meaningful education. If a university fails to act in good faith a cause of action based on a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing should be available to the college athlete.
Highlights
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cop-facarticles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Sports Sciences Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons
If courts appropriately adopt the neoclassical model of interpretation in the case of the college athlete and university relationship, justice is served by http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume6/number1/ciccolella adhering to the longstanding principle of ‘good faith and fair dealing’
Good faith and fair dealing with students, as expected under Williams, requires an athletic department first look to the students’ academic abilities and performance and only to examine athletic abilities.The good faith doctrine provides a mechanism by which courts can recognize the educational component of an institution's obligation to its college athletes (Davis, 1991)
Summary
When a college athlete alleges that the university has failed to provide a meaningful education, legal action may result. Such a claim, as in Ross, typically complains of failures related to academic offerings or performance, e.g., the type and nature of a course, the quality of an instructor, the provision of tutors, and the quality of equipment. This paper will focus on the contractual duty of a university to meaningfully educate the college athlete emphasizing the duty of good faith and fair dealing It will briefly explain why educational malpractice is not a viable cause of action for the student seeking legal recourse for alleged academic failures of the university. The section addresses the theory of good faith and fair dealing through an analysis of the Williams case and argues for the application of good faith and fair dealing in the college athlete context and is followed by concluding remarks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
