Monitoring student-athlete 1's employment at sports marketing firm. Student-athlete 1 went to work as an intern for sports marketer A's sports agency in late April 2005. In 2005, such internships were established exclusively for USC student-athletes. As previously set forth in Finding B-2, by seeking out and employing USC student-athletes exclusively in 2005, the sports marketing agency became a representative of the institution's athletics interests pursuant to NCAA Constitution 6.4.2-(d) and Bylaw 13.02.13-(d). As set forth in detail in Finding B-2, after hiring student-athlete 1, sports marketer A provided numerous impermissible benefits to him, as well as to members of his family and friends. As previously documented, student-athlete 1 subsequently signed a sports marketing contract with sports marketer A's agency.
Due to the fact that the sports marketing agency contacted the institution about interns, and subsequently hired student-athlete 1--an elite student-athlete with a bright professional future--for employment, the institution assumed a heightened responsibility to monitor the situation. Yet it failed to take a "proactive" stance or investigate concerns and questions that arose regarding the relationship. For example, there was no written description of the duties student-athlete 1 was to perform, at no time did anyone from the institution conduct "spot checks" to ensure that student-athlete 1 was showing up at work and performing appropriate duties, and there was no evidence that the institution performed any other monitoring of this employment relationship.
Not only did the institution assume a heightened responsibility to monitor sports marketer A when the institution knowingly permitted student-athlete 1 to be employed by his sports marketing agency, it failed to follow-up on later information that suggested something in the relationship among sports marketer A, student-athlete 1 and the young man's parents might involve NCAA rules issues. A full investigation of the information might have prevented and/or detected violations of NCAA legislation by sports marketer A.
On November 9, 2005, the sports information director ("sports information director") notified the faculty athletics representative ("FAR"), the then director
University of Southern California Public Infractions Report
June 10, 2010
Page No. 49
__________
of compliance ("then director of compliance") and the former director of compliance by e-mail that inquiries had been made by a journalist ("journalist") concerning sports marketer A being on the institution's sidelines during football contests, student-athlete 1's employment with sports marketer A, and sports marketer A's role as advisor to student-athlete 1 and his family. A day later, November 10, the former director of compliance contacted the FAR, the then director of compliance and the then compliance coordinator by e-mail. He told them that sports marketers A and B had been contacted by the journalist, who was making inquiries into the relationship between sports marketer A and student-athlete 1. In particular, sports marketer A "was concerned because (the journalist) seemed to focus on (student-athlete 1)." Even though sports marketer A had assured the former director of compliance that he was doing everything "by the book," the former director of compliance came away from the conversation with the impression that "the reporter shook up (sports marketer A) and has him second guessing himself." [Note: the following day, November 11, sports marketer A provided impermissible benefits to student-athlete 1's parents by paying their expenses to the institution's away football game against the University of California, Berkeley (Cal) including airline and limousine transportation. See Finding B-2].
The e-mail from the former director of compliance concluded as follows: "I think we should call [student-athlete 1] in to discuss and confirm. I can do that today (since they most likely leave tomorrow for the Cal game)." However, no follow-up meeting with student-athlete 1 concerning the issues raised by the journalist ever took place. The FAR claimed no recollection of receiving or reading the e-mail.
On November 14, the journalist's article, [Student-Athlete 1] Getting Advice from Reebok Consultant, was published. In the article, the journalist reported, among other things, the following:
Sports marketer A had developed a close relationship with student-athlete 1;
Sports marketer A was an advisor to student-athlete1's step-father;
Sports marketer A had advised student-athlete 1 to declare himself eligible for the NFL draft;
Sports marketer A had been seen on the institution's sidelines at games and with student-athlete 1's family members at "tailgate" parties;
University of Southern California Public Infractions Report
June 10, 2010
Page No. 50
__________
Sports marketer A acknowledged that he would like to represent student-athlete 1; and
Other sports agents had reported that they had to go through sports marketer A to have a chance to sign student-athlete 1.
In spite of all this information, the institution failed to undertake even a limited inquiry into the issues raised by the journalist to determine if sports marketer A provided student-athlete 1 or his family with impermissible benefits.4 The FAR could not recall anyone at the institution discussing the issues raised in the article, and the former director of compliance stated it was concluded within the department of athletics that the article was "sensationalistic" and "the internship was being misconstrued as something more than it was." The former director of compliance stated that he had a "vague recollection" of possibly talking to sports marketer A about the article, but he said no one from the institution made an effort to speak with student-athlete 1's parents because student-athlete 1 "didn‟t want us talking to them about the agent stuff „cause he [sic], they were not going to be part of the process."
During a December 5 telephone conversation, sports marketer B told the former director of compliance that sports marketer A had the medical examination forms for student-athlete 1's disability insurance policy and requested the assistance of the former director of compliance in getting the forms completed. On December 8, the former director of compliance received the forms from sports marketer B. The former director of compliance told sports marketer B that it was inappropriate for the sports marketing agency to be involved with student-athlete 1's disability insurance policy, but he did not take any action to sever the involvement or investigate the matter. [Note: During the same time frame, sports marketer A's agency was providing airline tickets and paying a $150 service fee to friends and family of student-athlete 1. [See Finding B-2]. Instead, he passed the forms on to an institutional athletics trainer, who assisted in completing the forms. Subsequently, an insurance company representative ("insurance company representative") came to campus on December 10 to collect the completed and signed insurance forms. No one within the athletics administration conversed with the insurance company representative to determine any relationship he had with sports marketer A, sports marketer A's involvement in procuring the policy, or who was making the $22,350 premium payment. In a later interview with the enforcement staff, the insurance company representative stated that sports
4The committee acknowledges that USC provided general education to student-athlete 1 regarding agents. However, this situation called for constant, heightened and specific vigilance.
University of Southern California Public Infractions Report
June 10, 2010
Page No. 51
__________
marketer A was the "point person" involved in obtaining the policy, that he (the insurance company representative) dealt exclusively with sports marketer A in working on the details of the policy, and that all paperwork regarding the policy had been received from sports marketer A.
The institution was made aware that sports marketer A was involved in the process of procuring a disability insurance policy for student-athlete 1. At least one member of the athletics staff recognized the impropriety of such involvement. Yet the institution never investigated why and to what extent sports marketer A was involved in obtaining insurance coverage for student-athlete 1. Its failure to do so constitutes a lack of control and dereliction of its obligation to monitor this type of illicit activity.
