Athletics Directors are Demanding an Answer to New York's Fishing Investigation of Illegal Kickbacks

Two months ago, it was splashed all over the front page headlines that the New York Attorney General's office had issued subpoenas and records requests to 41 Division I college athletic programs, questioning whether athletics personnel got kickbacks or promises of cash or other perks for steering students to a particular lender. Earlier this year, Florida-based student loan provider University Financial Services (UFS) was found to have offered kickbacks to the athletics director at Division II Dowling in New York. This prompted the NY AG's office to investigate all of the larger athletics programs across the country that have an advertising/sponsorship relationship with UFS.

USA Today's Steve Wieberg reported yesterday that the targets of the investigation have not heard anything from the AG's office. The athletics directors are demanding answers (and rightfully so):

"There was a big media splash. It was a big push by the attorney general. And then, you get nothing else," says Central Florida athletics director Keith Tribble, who insists his department has done nothing wrong and wants public confirmation of that. "We would like to have some closure to it, to (have them) say basically there's nothing to this."

At Louisville, "There's no doubt we're sitting on an island," AD Tom Jurich says. "… I'm not speaking for 41 schools, but I would imagine everyone would like some clarification on this."

It's not surprising that nothing showed up from this investigation. It was highly questionable right from the start. First, the basis for investigating all of these programs across the country is simply that the athletics director at Dowling in New York was receiving illegal kickbacks from a student loan provider that also served as a sponsor for the Dowling athletics program. That one instance does not provide any reasonable basis whatsoever to believe that the athletics director at any of these programs is or has been receiving unlawful kickbacks. Second, even if a correlation did exist, what legitimate purpose is served by issuing these subpoenas? If the athletics director of one of these programs was in fact receiving unlawful kickbacks, is it reasonable to think that he would actually produce a "smoking gun" document evidencing an unlawful kickback arrangement?

Posted in: