Friday, May 9, 2003 | 11:05 a.m.
It's easy to measure the impact of the foreign players on NCAA tennis. All you need to do is look at the rosters and the rankings.
On the other hand, it's a lot more difficult to prove what many college coaches are saying, at least behind closed doors: That some of the imports, maybe even a majority, are accepting money for playing in off-season professional tournaments that should make them ineligible per NCAA rules.
"Sure, they're accepting money," said Justin Gimelstob, a former All-American at UCLA who has won $1.6 million since turning pro in 1996. "I'm 100 percent sure, and it's not just my perception. That's just the way it is."
He's not alone in making those accusations. You can add the coach of the nation's top-ranked team to those who believe some foreign-born college players are abusing a system which allows them to be reimbursed for their expenses in pro tournaments, but not to be compensated for performance.
"I've been in the same room as college kids who have taken the paycheck," said Craig Tiley, coach of the 26-0 Illinois men's team.
Yet, since the NCAA began tracking violations in 1996, there hasn't been a single penalty handed down to foreign-born tennis players for accepting illegal money. If anything, the NCAA seems to be relaxing its stance.
"Why do we care whether they get a few dollars?" said Christine Grant, former women's athletic director at Iowa and chairman of the NCAA Subcommittee on Amateurism and Agents, in February 2000.
"The NCAA Division I membership studied the deregulation of amateurism for prospective student-athletes over a 3-year period. That is where Dr. Grant's comments came from," said Bill Saum, the NCAA's Director of Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities.
"There were those in the membership that beleived prospective student-athletes should be permitted to accept money and sign contracts as long as they returned to amateur behavior upon enrollment in college. This belief was not supported by the majority of the membership."
Wilson Campbell, a former tennis coach at Northeast Louisiana (now Louisiana-Monroe), blamed the NCAA for its permissive attitude regarding tennis eligibility in a guest editorial for an NCAA newsletter.
Campbell's research led him to believe that an opposing player, ranked among the top 100 on the women's pro tour, was paid for having played in the Australian Open.
"I even obtained a copy of the canceled check," he said. "It was very clear. The canceled check clearly demonstrated that she was a professional.
"In her case, they said she didn't get the money, that it went to her tennis association. So it looked more like a tournament expense and not money that she had won. It utterly amazed that when the NCAA applied their rules ... they said she was eligible."
Saum said the NCAA doesn't debate there is a problem.
"International student-athletes present a special challenge as the system they compete in is based on a club system rather than a high school system. We recognize numerous international student-athletes are most likely professional," he said.
"We have stepped up our oversight of these issues in recent years and believe we are better informed than we have ever been. Having said that, we have a long way to go.
"One of the biggest challenges we face is that our coaches continue to recruit these prospective student-athletes."
In February 2002, Saum issued a memo on tennis and swimming amateurism issues in response to a November 2000 anonymous letter that outlined possible violations involving men's tennis student-athletes.
The charge was that tennis players were earning money in offseason professional tournaments, that these student-athletes were not only being compensated for transportation, food and lodging expenses (which is legal), but were also being paid based on their performance (which is not).
As a result, the United States Tennis Association developed an entry form whereby players must declare they are competing as a professional or an amateur. Any player competing as an amateur cannot be paid for a place finish, and is eligible only to receive an expense stipend.
The problem, Saum wrote, is that this process for reimbursement can only be verified for domestic and ATP tournaments.
"The NCAA is aware that not all international tournaments use this process."
Saum said it is the responsibility of each member school to perform the eligibility checks on its athletes.
The ATP website shows that many of the top programs on the West Coast have players who have obtained ATP computer rankings. And many of those have prize money listed alongside their names. But that doesn't necessarily mean the player accepted the money.
"When we fill in the draw, we don't know if a player is (playing as) a pro or not," said Greg Ferko, an ATP Tour spokesman. "We can't deduct the money. We have a set formula for the way money is distributed in a 32-player draw. That's the money you see."
Part of the problem, according to Campbell and others, is ignorance of the eligibility rules.
"The NCAA reviews these cases on a regular basis," Campbell said, "but the players do not understand the rules. In many cases, they probably didn't know they were breaking the rules."
But there are those in college tennis who wonder if the amateurism rules are no longer relevant.
Richard Osborne, associate editor of Inside Tennis magazine, believes that the money being discussed is inconsequential.
"The kids you are talking about are not the kind of kids who are reaching the quarterfinals (in pro tournaments)," he said.
Billy Martin, longtime coach of the powerhouse UCLA men's program, agrees, and takes exception to coaches who make anonymous charges.
"Our administration is as critical as any," Martin said. "Our athletic department doesn't want men's tennis to have (a violation) that would hurt basketball and football and the other revenue-making sports.
"But complaining anonymously ..."
Martin said these charges have resulted in a lot more paperwork for the coaches who recruit foreign players. But he wonders if the NCAA is making the schools jump through hoops for what he says is pocket change.
"The amount of money you're talking about doesn't even cover their expenses," Martin said. "It's laughable to say there's a widespread problem. These coaches are crying over spilled milk.
"They are going after the same players we are, and then to say that kid shouldn't be in college tennis? That's hypocritical."
But Campbell is in the other camp. He said if the NCAA wasn't so lenient, the issue would resolve itself.
"It should be obvious to anyone that these rulings by the NCAA make a mockery of the amateur status rule," he said.
"It is easy to see why the NCAA has a major credibility problem."
archive
