RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel, ruling 2-1, determined Thursday that a once highly touted basketball recruit lacked standing to bring racketeering charges against Adidas for costing him his college eligibility following an NCAA bribery scandal.
Brian Bowen II had some of the most significant programs in college basketball chasing after him following his senior year of high school, where he appeared in the McDonalds All-American game and was rated a five-star college prospect. In 2017, his father accepted $100,000 in bribe money from Adidas executives — who were later prosecuted in a New York criminal court — in return for sending his son to the Adidas-sponsored University of Louisville.
The FBI unraveled the bribery scheme before Bowen could take the court for his first collegiate game. Coach Rick Pitino and athletic director Tom Urich lost their jobs, and Bowen — ranked the 14th best player from his graduating class by ESPN and believed to be a future NBA first-round draft pick — lost his NCAA eligibility.
The small forward brought racketeering charges against Adidas and its executives in South Carolina, claiming that Adidas’ bribery scheme derailed his basketball career and prevented him from career earnings.
Though the panel was sympathetic to Bowen’s story, the majority sided with the determination by a South Carolina federal judge that a loss of NCAA eligibility does not count as an injury to property or business, which is required for a RICO claim.
“We have no doubt that Bowen Sr.’s decision to accept a bribe, and the defendants’ corrupt decision to offer one, upended Bowen’s basketball career and dramatically altered his life,” U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the majority opinion. “But RICO is not the avenue through which Bowen may seek relief.”
Bowen contended that Adidas caused him to suffer cognizable business or property injuries in two other ways than just losing his eligibility, including a loss of benefits that he would have received as a scholarship granted student-athlete.
According to Bowen, that scholarship agreement obligated Louisville to provide him with certain basketball-related benefits, like elite coaching, athletic training, strength and nutrition services and competitive playing time.
The majority disagreed, finding the scholarship agreement entitled Bowen to a full, four-year scholarship covering tuition and fees, books, room and board and miscellaneous expenses but not a promise of becoming a better basketball player. Louisville still offered Bowen a scholarship after kicking him off the team.
“We don’t doubt that, as Bowen contends, the best college basketball recruits choose among the schools vying for their labor based on a comparison of coaching staff, predicted playing time, anticipated training, and the like, rather than by comparing financial aid packages,” Rushing wrote. “None of those enticements, however, are guaranteed in the written agreement.”
Secondly, Bowen contends that the nearly $30,000 in attorney’s fees and costs he and his family incurred trying to restore his NCAA eligibility is an injury sufficient to maintain a RICO claim. The panel's majority disagreed, writing that the legal fees and expenses he incurred attempting to restore his eligibility are not cognizable as he lacks standing.
Much of Bowen’s argument relies on the theory that because the bribery scheme upended his college career, he could not get better and increase his stock as an NBA draft prospect. Bowen based his high expectations for himself on the word of an NBA scout who claimed that Bowen would be drafted in the first round if he developed at Louisville.
“This is not the sort of tangible business loss that supports a RICO cause of action,” Rushing wrote. “Bowen did not have an existing or prospective business relationship with any NBA team.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Robert B. King, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented from the majority opinion, concluding that Bowen’s NCAA eligibility qualifies as a business interest.
“Without NCAA eligibility, a young athlete has absolutely no market for his athletic labor,” King wrote. “It is absurd to say that a person can be left without a market for his labor without sustaining a business or property injury.”
King also found it naive to believe that Bowen was only entitled to his scholarship when it came to him choosing Louisville.
“The panel majority’s fundamental error is its failure to appreciate that Brian’s scholarship was only part of the compensation he received from UofL in exchange for his valuable athletic labor,” King wrote. “Brian has been clear that he did not commit to UofL simply to obtain a scholarship and pursue an academic degree. Rather, he committed to UofL because he would be compensated with, inter alia, elite coaching and immediate playing time that would prepare him for a career in the NBA.”
Bowen’s career in basketball is not over despite the rocky start to post-high school athletics. He has bounced from Australia’s National Basketball League to stints with several NBA G-League affiliates. Bowen featured in 12 NBA games for the Indiana Pacers and most recently played for the Minnesota Timberwolves G-League affiliate, the Iowa Wolves.
Attorneys representing Bowen and Adidas did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Contributor-Test-Post-2024-04-30 April 30, 2024 -
