{"id":215,"date":"2005-09-04T09:48:16","date_gmt":"2005-09-04T14:48:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-24T10:33:18","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T15:33:18","slug":"intercollegiate-athletic-corporate-sponsorships-and-the-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/intercollegiate-athletic-corporate-sponsorships-and-the-first-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Intercollegiate Athletic Corporate Sponsorships and the First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Eric Bentley<\/div>\n

Intercollegiate Athletic Corporate Sponsorships and the First Amendment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

In response to the recent escalation of head coaches\u2019 salaries in intercollegiate athletics, and the constant pressure for athletic directors to adhere to shrinking budgets, many athletic directors are turning to corporate sponsorships to increase revenue. Athletic departments can raise money from corporate sponsors in a variety of methods ranging from selling advertising on the outfield fence of the baseball stadium to allowing corporate sponsors to set up an information booth and distribute advertisements on the concourse in the basketball arena. While an athletic director may be eager to welcome with open arms corporate sponsors with open checkbooks, an athletic director may at times be placed in a situation where he or she does not want to allow a corporate sponsorship to a company or organization that could portray a negative image on the athletic department or the university. For example, an athletic director may decide to decline an offer from Hooters, or a local \u201cgentlemen\u2019s club\u201d to become a corporate sponsor for fear that it will negatively impact the family atmosphere and image the athletic department would like to portray. However, an Athletic Director at a state institution must be aware that providing sponsorship opportunities to certain companies while refusing sponsorship opportunities to others could implicate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. This article will attempt to provide an Athletic Director with information regarding lawful distinctions between corporate sponsors in order to avoid infringing on the First Amendment rights of the members of a corporation who are seeking to become a corporate sponsor for a state institution\u2019s athletic department.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

From the outset, it must be noted that this article only applies to state institutions because the First Amendment is not implicated with regard to private institutions. Thus, if a private religious university such as Brigham Young University refuses to allow Budweiser or Coors to become corporate sponsors (since alcohol consumption is contrary to the religious beliefs supported by B.Y.U.), it can lawfully decline such a corporate sponsor without any possible First Amendment implications.<\/p>\n

The first step in analyzing a freedom of speech problem such as whether the athletics department can constitutionally deny a corporate sponsor an opportunity to engage in athletic department promotions is to determine the type of forum in which the intended speech is to take place. See<\/em> Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985)<\/a><\/em>. The 9 th Circuit in Diloreto<\/em> noted that \u201cwhere the government acts in a proprietary capacity to raise money or to facilitate the conduct of its internal business, the Supreme Court generally has found a nonpublic forum, subject only to the requirements of reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality.\u201d Diloreto v. Downey Unified School Dist. Bd. of Educ<\/em> , 196 F.3d 958 (9 th Circuit, 1999), citing<\/em> Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 303-304 (1974)<\/a>. <\/em> The Diloreto <\/em>court held that where a high school offered advertising opportunities to businesses allowing the business to post an advertisement on a sign at the high school baseball field, and where the intent of the school in opening the baseball field to advertising was to raise funds, not to create a forum for unlimited public expression, the forum was a nonpublic forum open for a limited purpose. Id<\/em>. at 966.<\/p>\n

When an athletic department offers corporate sponsorships, it is clearly doing so to raise funds for the athletics department, not to create a forum for unlimited public expression. Thus, when an athletic department solicits and receives a corporate sponsorship such as for the signage at the athletic field or arena, the forum that has been created will likely be found to be a nonpublic forum open for a limited purpose.
\nIn a nonpublic forum open for a limited purpose, restrictions on access \u201ccan be based on subject matter\u2026so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum\u201d and as long as the restrictions discriminate on the basis of content rather than viewpoint. See Id.; Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829 (1995);<\/a><\/em> Lamb’s Chapel,<\/em> 508 U.S. at 392-93<\/a> (1993); Cornelius<\/em> at 806. Thus, before denying an opportunity to a corporate sponsor, an athletic director must ensure that the he or she is making a reasonable distinction based on the purpose of the sponsorship opportunities it is offering, as well as ensuring that he or she is not making a distinction between two corporate sponsors on the basis of a corporation\u2019s viewpoint.<\/p>\n

Making a Reasonable Distinction<\/strong><\/p>\n


\n<\/strong>In Lehman<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether it was reasonable for a city transit system to decide which type of advertising may be displayed in its buses; an issue that arose when a political candidate was not allowed to advertise on the city buses. Lehman<\/em> at 298. The Lehman<\/em> court held that the city’s decision to exclude political advertising from bus signs was reasonable given the city’s desire to generate revenue and the potential for \u201c lurking doubts about favoritism, and sticky administrative problems [that] might arise in parceling out limited space to eager politicians.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 304.
\nAn athletic director\u2019s reason to decline offers from corporate sponsors such as Hooters or a local \u201cgentlemen\u2019s club\u201d may be to keep a family oriented atmosphere at its games, and maintain an environment that is suitable for children. It is likely that making a distinction between a corporate sponsor such as Hooters and a corporate sponsor such as Ford or Coke based on the atmosphere that the corporate sponsor may create would be seen as a reasonable distinction.<\/p>\n

Viewpoint Versus Content Discrimination <\/strong><\/p>\n

However, even assuming that an athletics department\u2019s reason to deny a sponsorship opportunity to a certain corporation is reasonable, it may still violate the First Amendment if doing so discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, rather than content. Diloreto <\/em>at 969, citing Cornelius<\/em> at 811.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the distinction between viewpoint discrimination and content discrimination is not a precise one. Rosenberger<\/em> at 831. The Diloreto <\/em>court attempted to explain the distinction when it stated, \u201c Permissible content-based restrictions exclude speech based on topic, such as politics or religion, regardless of the particular stand the speaker takes on the topic.\u201d Diloreto at 969, citing<\/em> Children of the Rosary, 154 F.3d at 981<\/a><\/em>. The Diloreto<\/em> court further stated, \u201cIn contrast, impermissible viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination in which the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.\u201d Id. citing<\/em>Rosenberger <\/em> at 829.
\nIn Diloreto<\/em>, a businessman was not allowed to buy advertising space at the high school baseball field because his proposed sign listed the text of the Ten Commandments, which was against the school\u2019s policy of not allowing religious advertising. Id. <\/em> at 962. The school district refused to post the sign \u201cbased on (1) concern about running afoul of the Establishment Clause; and (2) disruption, controversy and expensive litigation that might arise from community members seeking to remove the sign or from religious or political statements that others might wish to post.\u201d Id.<\/em> at 963. The Diloreto <\/em>court stated, \u201cWe conclude that the District’s decision not to post Mr. DiLoreto’s sign was pursuant to a permissible, content-based limitation on the forum, and not viewpoint discrimination.\u201d
\nIf an athletic director allows corporate sponsors that promote a family environment to engage in sponsorships, while he or she refuses to allow corporate sponsors that promote an adult oriented environment to engage in the same sponsorships, the athletic director would likely be seen to be engaging in permissible content discrimination rather than viewpoint discrimination. By way of example, the athletics department would not be allowed to refuse to allow Hooters to be a corporate sponsor, while at the same time allow another adult oriented business such as a local \u201cgentlemen\u2019s club\u201d to be a corporate sponsor because doing so would be deciphering between two different businesses that are adult oriented, which would likely be seen as viewpoint discrimination because the decision to exclude Hooters instead of the local \u201cgentlemen\u2019s club\u201d would appear to be based on the particular views or specific stance Hooters takes. Similarly, an athletic director could not allow certain religious organizations such as the local Baptist Church to become a corporate sponsor while refusing to allow other organizations such as an atheist group to become a corporate sponsor because doing so would likely be seen as impermissible viewpoint discrimination.<\/p>\n

However, the Diloreto<\/em> case offers support for an athletic director to refuse to allow a religious organization or an adult oriented business to become corporate sponsors so long as the athletic director refuses to allow all religious organizations and adult oriented businesses to become corporate sponsors because doing so would likely be viewed as permissible content discrimination rather than impermissible viewpoint discrimination.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n


\n<\/strong>Therefore, since an athletic department, through its corporate sponsorships has likely created a nonpublic forum open for a limited purpose, if the distinction the athletic director is making between different corporations is a reasonable distinction that does not amount to viewpoint discrimination, it is likely that the athletic director\u2019s actions of refusing to allow such a corporation to be one of its corporate sponsors would be found to be constitutional.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Submitted by: Eric Bentley<\/div>\n

Intercollegiate Athletic Corporate Sponsorships and the First Amendment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

In response to the recent escalation of head coaches’ salaries in intercollegiate athletics, and the constant pressure for athletic directors to adhere to shrinking budgets, many athletic directors are turning to corporate sponsorships to increase revenue. Athletic departments can raise money from corporate sponsors in a variety of methods ranging from selling advertising on the outfield fence of the baseball stadium to allowing corporate sponsors to set up an information booth and distribute advertisements on the concourse in the basketball arena. While an athletic director may be eager to welcome with open arms corporate sponsors with open checkbooks, an athletic director may at times be placed in a situation where he or she does not want to allow a corporate sponsorship to a company or organization that could portray a negative image on the athletic department or the university. For example, an athletic director may decide to decline an offer from Hooters, or a local “gentlemen’s club” to become a corporate sponsor for fear that it will negatively impact the family atmosphere and image the athletic department would like to portray. However, an Athletic Director at a state institution must be aware that providing sponsorship opportunities to certain companies while refusing sponsorship opportunities to others could implicate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. This article will attempt to provide an Athletic Director with information regarding lawful distinctions between corporate sponsors in order to avoid infringing on the First Amendment rights of the members of a corporation who are seeking to become a corporate sponsor for a state institution’s athletic department. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,295,291,296],"tags":[69,25,8,63],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-3t","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6015,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/sports-marketing-publicity-efforts-in-division-ii-intercollegiate-athletics\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":0},"title":"Sports Marketing & Publicity Efforts in Division II Intercollegiate Athletics","date":"September 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Robert Zullo Corresponding Author: Robert Zullo, PhD Westminster College 319 South Market Street New Wilmington, PA 16172 zullorh@westminster.edu 724-946-6835 Dr. Robert Zullo is an Associate Professor of Business and Sports Management at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, located between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. He is also Program Coordinator for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 3","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/Table-3.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1598,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/outsourced-marketing-in-ncaa-division-i-institutions-the-companies-perspective\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":1},"title":"Outsourced Marketing in NCAA Division I Institutions: The Companies\u2019 Perspective","date":"February 11, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Robert Zullo, Willie Burden, Ming Li ABSTRACT Outsourcing is a crucial tool that allows sport organizations to turn over their noncore processes to external service providers. The outsourced service providers help sport organizations focus on sales efforts to maximize revenue. The purpose of this study was to examine\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 10.08.18 AM","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/Screen-Shot-2014-02-11-at-10.08.18-AM.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":492,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-athlete-participation-in-intercollegiate-athletic-decision-making-inclusion-through-different-domains-of-governance\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":2},"title":"Student-Athlete Participation in Intercollegiate Athletic Decision-Making: Inclusion through Different Domains of Governance","date":"April 2, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Eric Snyder ABSTRACT This investigation focused on literature related to student-athlete involvement and input in intercollegiate athletic governance.\u00a0 The aim was to develop support for understanding and justifying differences in the level of involvement a student-athlete may have when considering multiple areas of governance. Results revealed that the various claims\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7914,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/college-footballs-bottom-line-impact-exploring-the-relationship-of-football-performance-on-athletic-finances-for-division-i-institutions-today\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":3},"title":"College Football\u2019s Bottom-Line Impact: Exploring the Relationship of Football Performance on Athletic Finances for Division I Institutions Today","date":"July 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Spencer D. Wyld1 and David C. Wyld2 1 Walton College of Business, Department of Finance, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA2 Department of Management & Business Administration, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA, USA Corresponding Author:David C. Wyld, DBA47042 Scott DriveHammond, LA 70401dwyld@selu.edu985-789-2127 Spencer D. Wyld, M.B.A., is a doctoral\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Figure1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":324,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/big-league-deals\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":4},"title":"Big League Deals: A Descriptive Study of Sponsorship Levels in Grassroots U.S. Baseball and Softball Programs","date":"October 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Scott Obsniuk and Scott J. Smith - Central Michigan University Abstract Sport sponsorship lets businesses break through cluttered marketplaces, deliver messages effectively, and segment by demographics. Sponsorship also helps grassroots sports organizations enhance services as they strengthen bottom lines. Despite a decade\u2019s marked growth in grassroots sport sponsorship,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/10\/Figure1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":8141,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/servant-leadership-and-the-relationship-to-autonomy-competence-and-relatedness-in-division-i-athletic-departments\/","url_meta":{"origin":215,"position":5},"title":"Servant Leadership and the Relationship to Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in Division I Athletic Departments","date":"February 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: R. Michael Ross, Mark C. Vermillion Department of Sport Management, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA Corresponding Author:R. Michael Ross, EdD1845 Fairmount, Campus Box 127Wichita, KS 67260-0127mike.ross@wichita.edu316-978-5980 R. Michael Ross, EdD, is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Wichita State University in Wichita, KS. His research interests include\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1018,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215\/revisions\/1018"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}