college institutions seeking to participate in collegiate competition, are effectively coerced into affiliation.

If the institution is coerced through competitive boycott, the athlete, likewise. has little alternative but to attend an educational institution that has submitted to the grasp of the NCAA and the necessity of its membership.

I would like to quote from a Supreme Court case in the State of Oklahoma:

In dealing with an organization in which membership is an economic necessity, the courts must be particularly alert to protecting the public welfare. The necessity of court action is apparent where the position of a voluntary association is so dominant in its field that membership is, in a practical sense, not voluntary, but economically necessary. We agree that the facts reveal that the NCAA is a virtual monopoly engaged in interstate commerce.

There are several things about the NCAA rules and regulations that I think ought to be addressed. One is the retroactive method in which they apply their rules and regulations. Of course, Mike will be testifying later on. It cannot be voluntary if it applies to seniors in their senior year of high school. The NCAA's rules and regulations begin in high school. Their attempt to influence and dominate begins in the high school. They purport to have the authority to regulate the athlete who is yet to sign the letter of intent, an athlete who, at the time, may be a minor and not even have the freedom of independent contract.

The athlete, in high school, is given no copy of the rules or regulations. He signs no letter of intent and yet he may be penalized for the conduct of others occurring during his senior year, people who may be bound by the rules but who do not convey those rules to him.

He is forced, if he is to play football, and if football is a necessity to his education, then he is forced into affiliation with the NCAA. The rules of the NCAA directly and adversely affect the rights of the high school athlete. It restricts the number of institutions, the paid visits that he can have as well as the number of hours that he can remain at the institutions. It restricts how he travels. It restricts who he may do business with. It restricts his freedom of association. It restricts his freedom to accept valid and bona fide business offers which could be received through the mail and available to other students. It restricts what can be done in terms of his family, and who he can talk to, and where he can talk to them, and where he can go.

The high school must give permission to anyone to talk to him about the schools that he may attend. I personally find this offensive.

And, if an athlete should, incidentally, go to a college or a university and sign a letter of intent, and begin his first year, and then desire to transfer, there is a boycott imposed if he goes to another school without the permission of the college which he originally elected to attend. For the first year at the new institution, he can neither be encouraged to be there nor can he receive any financial aid. I feel this, incidentally, is similar to the Roselle rule that has played a direct violation of antitrust laws.

There is an interference with his right to freely travel throughout the United States and be treated like another citizen. I think these things are particularly bad.

As to the agreement as it applies to the student-athlete in modern. and common law, contracts are deemed to be in restraint of trade when

its performance would limit competition in any business or restrict a promisor in the exercise of a gainful occupation.

Generally, the things are looked at to determine whether or not restraint of trade exists and whether or not a particular act is unreasonable, is whether or not a restraint is greater than is required for the benefit of the person who seeks the restraint, and whether or not it imposes an undue hardship on the person to be restrained, and whether or not it tends to create, or has the purpose of creating, a monopoly, and whether or not it is based on a promise not ancillary to the sale of goodwill.

Of course, Oklahoma and most States have adopted statutory laws which prohibit and make invalid any contract which stop any person from pursuing lawful, gainful employment in any field, with the exception of the transfer of partnership business, or the transfer of goodwill in the sale of a business.

The NCAA has a rule that provides that athletes cannot work, if they are on scholarship, at all during the school term. I find this particularly offensive. At this point, it is important to note that this prohibits them from working in any business, during any hours, with the exception of designated vacations. I believe this to be a naked restraint void in the statutory laws of many States, unconscionable and unreasonable under the common law.

It is ironic to note that the student-athlete not on scholarship has no restraint on school-year employment. All too often, the athlete on scholarship needs financial assistance in order to obtain his education. If he is not a wealthy man, the NCAA rules assure that he will remain financially disadvantaged throughout his college experience.

One condition of participation at a college or university that is affiliated with the NCAA today, is that if you are poor when you go, you will be poor until the day you leave with the exception that they will allow you to live there and eat.

The scholarship gives him only the barest of essentials. They certainly don't live in any lavish means. They get room, board, fees, books, and tuition.

I did make inquiry of the approximate value of that. At Oklahoma State University, it would be $2,500. Incidentally, there is a distinction in its value between the schools. Someone going to a private school or institution, the value of that to them may be much greater.

There is no financial allowance for toothpaste, for gas, or for clothes. As a matter of fact, they reduced the amount of money that is given to an athlete. They took away the $15 clothing allowance. I believe that was about 3 years ago.

He is effectively prevented from earning supplemental income.

On the other hand, the wealthy student-athlete can work as he pleases and has a different lifestyle. It is inequitable, arbitrary, and unreasonable. We have assumed that those of less financial fortune shall not improve their status even through honest labor but must remain in that position until the NCAA authorizes otherwise.

The rule discriminates on the basis of wealth among athletes otherwise similarly situated. It is oppressive in ignoring the financial plight of those who have the most need. Summer employment alone is not adequate. There are restrictions on the amount he can be paid in the

summer. There are restrictions on the amounts that can be paid their spouses. He is, during those months, obligated to provide his own room and board so his money must be directed to the bare essentials which have been eliminated in the summer months.

The NCAA's wrath, sanctions, and penalties, are swift and sure for those who would offer such an athlete a ride to his employment, give him a hamburger, buy him a coke, or offer assistance in the event of an emergency.

If there are violations in some cases, I submit it is of necessity and it is forced by the unreasonable rules of the NCAA.

Meanwhile, the executive committee of the NCAA holds it sessions and conventions in far away places, plush resorts, and hotels. With $50 per diem, where no first-class fares exist between the cities, they are reimbursed 111⁄2 times the coach fare, even though they only expend coach fare.

Student-athletes are prohibited from promoting or advertising products. Meanwhile, the NCAA actively promotes and endorses products for sale here and in foreign countries. Its hosiery, shoes, bags, and pajamas are among these. Many of the university coaches will be seen on TV marketing and promoting a wide variety of products with impunity. I find this offensive. What is good for the athletes certainly should be reasonable restrictions on those who would purport to regulate them.

I believe that there are problems in the Mike Edwards case, in particular on the restraints that are imposed. Mike Edwards is charged with entering into a valid and bona fide business agreement, regularly solicited through the mail, and I find that this also operates as a restraint upon other people's businesses who are not under the NCAA guidelines. Mr. Musselman, who I am sure will come up later, the man who Mike Edwards charged his airline tickets with, operates a valid tour travel service. Through this tour travel service, he offers a benefit that is equally available to all people as a part of his commercial enterprise.

The NCAA has, in fact, told Mr. Edwards and the other athletes coming to the Oklahoma State University, that if they take Mr. Musselman up on his business offer, if they do business with him, they will not play football.

There are group boycotts, I believe that exist in the NCAA. The coaches I find severe problems with the method of treatment of coaches. They suggest that if a coach is removed or if a coach has had a prior NCAA penalty imposed upon him, that that should be taken into account by another university in its hiring. Suggested and implicit in that is: "Thou shalt not hire someone who has offended the NCAA."

The NCAA regulates the price of tickets. I think it is important, incidentally, to look at the source of NCAA funds. They receive dues from the membership institutions. They receive gate receipts from televised and championship games and bowls. They receive part of the registration fees. They receive part of the proceeds from television and radio contracts and broadcasts, advertising and program sales. They incidentally, have a lot to do with the marketing of programs. They restrict who can advertise in the various programs at the competitions.

They make their revenue from the marketing of NCAA products and the royalties obtained thereby. They do reserve the right, incidentally, to market those products at any NCAA-sanctioned game. They have investments. They have the proceeds of booklets, printed programs, publications, books, and subscriptions. They reserve the right to review contents of programs. They reserve the right to all of the fame films for later marketing, and they may be marketed for commercial purposes.

The contradiction between the athletes is treated, I think, particularly noteworthy. There are other problems that I think are inherent and I would like to get a little bit into due process.

The NCAA, when they try a case, have their fingers on the scales of justice. I think we should go legitimately through what actually happens in an NCAA infraction involving an athlete. The athlete, and Mike Edwards in particular, has never, to this day, been given a copy of the NCAA rules and regulations. The athlete is generally forced to rely upon what his coaches advise him, and what they tell him, and what they recommend.

It is interesting to note, incidentally, that if Mike Edwards is truly to be charged with the violation of riding 5 miles with the coach, not one coach in Oklahoma State University, has been subject to any sanction. Yet, in order for there to be representatives of athletic interests, there must be some coach involved. In order for Mike Edwards to have ridden in a car with a coach, he had to be there to do the driving. But the coaches, strangely, have evaded any of the penalties of the NCAA. The athlete receives no notice of the specific charges when he is involved in an alleged infraction. I think a basic fundamental of due process is a notice of the rules and regulations that are expected of you, and then notice of the charges when they are brought.

The rules are deliberately vague and indefinite, allowing for spontaneous interpretation and that suits the whim of the leadership of the NCAA. The location of the hearings I believe to be calculated to insure that athletes cannot attend and participate. As a matter of fact, athletes are not allowed to participate in any of the rulemaking process or the legislative process. They are kind of nonmembers to the NCAA contracts and agreements.

They have traditionally not been allowed to have other people present when they are talked to by NCAA investigators. They are asked to sign written statements only on limited occasions.

Mike Edwards was never asked to sign any kind of a written statement.

There is a conflict, incidentally, that I think is important to note at this juncture, between the universities that are member institutions, and the athletes who would be charged with violations. I think that this conflict is irreconcilable at this time. As long as the NCAA maintains the financial and economic stranglehold on member institutions, the member institutions seem to sacrifice the will and the benefit of the athlete in lieu of their financial gain.

When an athlete is charged, he is threatened with more severe penalties if, in fact, he fights for his constitutional rights or raise those issues. We have been told repeatedly throughout the progress of the hearings involving Mike Edwards that it will be much more difficult

for him if we raise his constitutional rights. The rules are inherently unreasonable and arbitrary. We don't provide these young men with any type of fair, livable income. We don't give them anything they are not entitled to. They certainly don't make the minimum wage.

They are denied the benefit of effective counsel. The NCAA has at all times required, as a condition precedent to my representation of Mike Edwards, that I be left in a state of ignorance, and that I not receive copies of the regular correspondence, and that I not have access to the record of prior proceedings involving a client, and that I not be allowed to participate in the scheduling of hearings, and that I not be allowed to interview witnesses. The restraints that have been imposed on requiring me to do my dealings with the NCAA through the Oklahoma State University legal counsel, when I believe a sufficient conflict to exist.

We were allowed to proceed with only one of the appeals if OSU decided that that matter should be appealed. Not if Mike Edwards determined that it should.

The athlete is charged and accountable for the actions of others. A good example is the issue of the airplane ticket. There is no way that an athlete can ascertain when he receives correspondence through the mail what is in the mind of the individual, and whether or not he is preferential toward athletes, or whether or not he has some secret desire to lure athletes to one school over another. Yet, if he does, Mike Edwards pays the penalty, although it does not have to be known to him.

As far as the method of conducting the hearings is concerned, they impose restraints on your ability to have the athlete present at the hearing that involves him. They impose restrictions on how he can be flown and whether or not he can attend.

I would like to talk about the hearing, particularly in Atlanta. I came into Mike Edwards' case subsequent to the hearing before the committee on infractions. I came in at the stage where there was a hearing by the NCAA Council. After lengthy correspondence, which I understand has been furnished to the subcommittee, we appeared in Atlanta, and we asked to be heard. At that time we asked for a public hearing because the allegations against Mike Edwards were released to the press long before I became involved.

I feel that if a man is to be accused in public, he has a right to clear his name in public. Of course, we were denied that right.

I asked for the right to voir dire the panel, the members of the NCAA Council, to determine if any of them might have a bias that should be disclosed. After all, each and every institution in the NCAA is competitive for athletes. They are competitive for scholarships. They are competitive for television contracts. They are competitive for championships.

So, I do think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find within the NCAA a panel who can truly judge another competing institution fairly. This, incidentally, is much similar to the Blaylock case, where the woman pro golfer raised the same issue in a disciplinary proceeding.

We were told that we did not have the right, and it was not a concern to us to voir dire the panel or ascertain its biased interests or prejudice.