A fact from 1971 Howard Bison men's soccer team appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
The current version of the article's assertion that "an NCAA rule that limited schools from admitting older international players with athletic experience in their home countries ... was later found to be unconstitutional" appears to be an error. Generally, only government laws and regulations can be unconstitutional, and the Constitution does not limit the rules that a private organization like the NCAA can adopt / enforce. The claimed rationale that the NCAA rule "penalized international students for participating in amateur leagues that American students were able to play in" sounds like a constitutional equal protection claim, but private organizations are not subject to constitutional guaranties of equal protection. Although the source cited in the footnote makes the same claim, there is no citation to a court decision or anything like that. I suspect this assertion is simply incorrect. Maybe the NCAA rule was found to be illegal under some federal statute or something. But somebody ought to look into this and cite to some appropriate source, like a court decision in standard citation form. In my view the article would benefit from such a correction / clarification. N'Awlins Contrarian03:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N'Awlins Contrarian Good question. If you'd like to read the case, it's 367 F.Supp. 926 (D.D.C. 1973). Judge Gesell finds that In order to state a claim under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiffs must establish that NCAA's decisions constitute state or federal action. The NCAA is a voluntary, non-profit association composed of approximately 664 colleges, universities and other institutions of learning, 45 athletic conferences, and some 60 associate or affiliated organizations. Its influence and activities are felt nationally. Approximately fifty percent of the institutional members are state supported and the membership includes the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard Academies ... Under all of these circumstances, while Howard is not itself a governmental institution, its athletic affairs and related educational policies are affected by the concerted action of the many state and federal institutions that participate as NCAA members in the promulgation and enforcement of the Association's rules, regulations and procedures. This involvement by state and federal institutions is pervasive and bears directly upon the subject matter of the complaint. The actions of these institutions, in short, caused the alleged injuries. Thus, government action is clearly shown and the Court has jurisdiction. And regarding the rule specifically, later in the opinion he finds, While the NCAA is properly concerned with preventing older players coming from abroad on the pretext of educational objectives and dominating championship competition because of age and prior sports activity, it was not demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that there are not other less restrictive means available for accomplishing these objectives. The flat age restriction, stated in the vague terms of the rule's reference to any team or individual participation in athletic competition, results in an arbitrary discrimination against aliens. So yes, in this case the NCAA's rule was found to be state action and struck down as a denial of equal protection. Alyo(chat·edits)20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
