[Mick]

I've been recently thinking about scholarships, what they mean for both sides and the nature of the athlete/institution contract.  I'm particularly curious as to how the contracts are regarded as employment contracts.

An athlete signs with a college, and receives a scholarship for four years.  They may be granted a fifth year in the event of a redshirt.  Regardless, an athlete has to sit out a year if they decide to transfer.  But with these graduate transfer rules, as long as a student-athlete graduates in four years, they can go wherever they wish, presuming the college releases them.

This makes me think about employment contracts and the enforceability of post-employment provisions; e.g., an accountant who works for one accounting firm may not work for another accounting firm if the firm is specified as a direct competitor, and excluded from employment, often for a period of 12 months.  That provision is enforceable in Michigan, not enforceable in California, at least as I understand it.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind a University's ability to prevent a scholarship athlete from a fifth year at another college, given that the athlete has already given the University four years of his/her life and has graduated.  haven't they completed their obligation?  Why should a college have any say at all over the fifth year?

[Mick]

I've been recently thinking about scholarships, what they mean for both sides and the nature of the athlete/institution contract.  I'm particularly curious as to how the contracts are regarded as employment contracts.

An athlete signs with a college, and receives a scholarship for four years.  They may be granted a fifth year in the event of a redshirt.  Regardless, an athlete has to sit out a year if they decide to transfer.  But with these graduate transfer rules, as long as a student-athlete graduates in four years, they can go wherever they wish, presuming the college releases them.

This makes me think about employment contracts and the enforceability of post-employment provisions; e.g., an accountant who works for one accounting firm may not work for another accounting firm if the firm is specified as a direct competitor, and excluded from employment, often for a period of 12 months.  That provision is enforceable in Michigan, not enforceable in California, at least as I understand it.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind a University's ability to prevent a scholarship athlete from a fifth year at another college, given that the athlete has already given the University four years of his/her life and has graduated.  haven't they completed their obligation?  Why should a college have any say at all over the fifth year?