The collegiate athletic season has officially begun, parallel to expressed concerns by basketball officials concerning poaching of student-athletes. Although they obviously have their own agenda and will benefit from any regulation on players leaving the country, this raises the need to first define terms, so that we may have a clearer discussion.
The bulk of the definitions are found in Republic Act 10676, “An Act Protecting the Amateur Nature of Student-Athletes in the Philippines by Regulating the Residency Requirements and Prohibiting Commercialization of Student-Athletes” of 2015. That mouthful of legislation states that student-athletes are defined by the following terms. They must first be enrolled in any school, and in a minimum full-time curriculum program. They must be in good standing to be eligible to represent the school. This usually means that the students in question have passing grades and no problems with conduct or decorum. Next, they must be part any of the school’s athletic teams or programs and must have the intention of representing the school in inter-school athletic programs or competition.
What are student-athletes entitled to in exchange for training and playing for their schools? First and foremost, they should receive free tuition, school fees and other learning materials, which is often the main motivation for becoming an athletic scholar. They may also receive board and lodging, particularly if they’re from the provinces. Naturally, they should be given uniforms and the necessary equipment for training and playing, as well as all necessary medical treatments and insurance. Also, “a reasonable regular monthly allowance,” which will be standardized by the athletic association that the school is a part of. Lastly, they are entitled to other “reasonable” benefits that would enhance their academic and athletic performance. Often, this includes tutors and so on. However, the law also has further guidelines. The student-athlete must not be commodified and must not play for pay. In theory, a student may actually be a professional athlete, but this would prevent them from representing the school in amateur competition.
At the college level, however, most student-athletes are already adults who are allowed by law to make decisions for themselves. This is a fundamental right, the freedom of enterprise. In 1971, Spencer Haywood went to court when the NBA tried to restrict him from playing professional basketball before the age when he would have graduated from college. US Supreme Court Justice Willlam Douglas interpreted this as restraint of trade, as basketball was seen as the only way Haywood could support his family. The Supreme Court temporarily ruled against the NBA until the matter was settled out of court. The league changed its regulations, and the Haywood exception became known as the “hardship” rule. This paved the way for future players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony and many others to play in the NBA at a younger age.
This is the quandary facing Philippine basketball officials. How do you restrict a student-athlete who is an adult (or has parental consent) from choosing how or where to ply his or her trade and not finish schooling? For close to a century, tens of millions of Filipinos have chosen to work overseas in numerous other professions, since they see this as the only way to provide for their families. A huge number of them are not even college or high school graduates, but took vocational courses to learn a specific skill as their livelihood. How do you reasonably set athletes apart?
There are two other issues at play: compensation and market saturation. Barring injury, you can only be a professional athlete for a limited time, roughly a decade. It makes sense to earn as much as you can in that span. Secondly, can you get a local roster spot which will pay you the highest possible rate? That is the question.
At the very least, the national federation can – and should – negotiate for players to be made available to the Philippine team when needed. (This was a condition set by China for the release of Yao Ming to the NBA.) A similar scenario was a source of friction between Japan Rugby League and the former Philippine Rugby Football Union over a decade ago. National players signed contracts to play in Japan, but were prevented from returning when the Volcanoes needed them. Beyond that, any further restrictions may curtail an athlete’s right to seek the best possible economic situation for themselves.