Barry University Failed to Monitor its Federal Work Study Program in Men’s Soccer
Background
On April 16, 2019, the NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions issued its Public Infractions Report on Barry University. Over a three-year period between 2015 and 2018, thirteen men’s soccer student-athletes logged excessive work-study hours leading to compensation for work that was never performed. In total, the men’s soccer student-athletes received approximately $30,500.00 in impermissible benefits. Due to the length of the violations and the amount of the impermissible benefits received by the student-athletes, the COI determined that Barry failed to monitor its work-study program.
The Committee found that Barry failed to monitor its athletic programs in four areas:
(1) The assistant coaches who supervised the work-study program did not properly monitor the hours logged by the student-athletes;
(2) The head coach did not monitor the assistant coaches’ oversight of the work-study program;
(3) The athletics department did not implement monitoring systems to ensure proper oversight of the coaches who oversaw the work-study program; and
(4) The institution did not monitor the attendance at training sessions related to employment.
Takeaways
The Committee specifically noted that one assistant coach and the head coach were aware that at least one student-athlete had logged incorrect hours. Despite the assistant coach telling the student-athlete to correct the error and the head coach instructing the assistant coach not to approve the hours, the assistant coach never followed up to ensure that the student-athlete corrected the error in logged hours and the head coach failed to follow up with the assistant coach to make sure the student-athlete’s time sheet was not approved.
Simply identifying that an NCAA issue might or does exist is insufficient to discharge an employee’s commitment to compliance. When faced with a potential NCAA violation, a coach should ask follow-up questions to gain a better understanding of the situation. The Committee went out of its way to note that the assistant coach nor the head coach ever followed up on the information it received. For head coaches, this is important because footnote 5 of the Public Infractions Report states that the enforcement staff discussed bringing a head coach responsibility charge, but ultimately decided against it because the head coach demonstrated that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.
The proactive education initiatives of the institution also contributed to the failure to monitor charge because the staff members and student-athletes indicated they received insufficient training regarding the program. The Committee noted that attendance at training sessions were voluntary leading to a lack of understanding about the work-study program. Barry could have prevented the underlying violations had it required attendance at these training sessions requiring all attendees to sign-in.
The complete public infractions report can be found at: