ILNews

NCAA championship ticket distribution not a lottery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s ticket-distribution plan for championship games doesn’t constitute a “lottery” under Indiana law, the Indiana Supreme Court decided Thursday. The issue was before the justices as certified questions from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tom George and others who were unsuccessful in purchasing tickets to the 2009 Division I Men’s Final Four basketball tournament sued the NCAA. George and others had submitted offers to the NCAA to purchase tickets, which included $300 for a pair of tickets and a nonrefundable handling fee of $6 per ticket. Up to 10 offers could be submitted, but only the purchase price of the tickets would be refunded if buyers weren’t chosen. Demand far outweighed supply.

The plaintiffs argued this system constitutes a lottery under Indiana law. U.S. District Judge William Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the suit, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Later, the same panel of 7th Circuit judges vacated its prior decision and asked the Indiana justices to consider three certified questions. The only question relevant to Thursday’s decision is whether the NCAA’s method of allocating tickets is considered a lottery under state law.

In Tom George, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 94S00-1010-CQ-544, the justices noted the statute in question – Indiana Code 35-45-5-3 – doesn’t define “lottery,” so they relied on the definition explained in Tinder v. Music Operating Inc., 237 Ind. 33, 142 N.E.2d 610, 614 (1957), and decided that the term means “a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance among those who provided or promised to provide consideration.”

Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Frank Sullivan cited Lesher v. Baltimore Football Club, 496 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), in which a similar system was used to allocate tickets to Indianapolis Colts football games once the team relocated from Baltimore. In that case, however, the handling fees were returned if applicants didn’t receive tickets. The state Supreme Court had summarily affirmed the lower court that the ticket-distribution process wasn’t a lottery.

“In cases like this and Lesher, the critical fact is that no market for tickets exists until the event coordinator issues the tickets in the first place, so, as a matter of law, the face value of the tickets equals the fair-market value of the tickets on the primary market,” wrote Justice Sullivan. “The speculative nature of the secondary market makes it an inappropriate consideration in determining the presence of a prize in this case.”

They held it would stretch the definition of “lottery” beyond what the General Assembly intended if the court held that the athletic association’s ticket-distribution plan is a proscribed lottery under I.C. 35-45-5-3.

“We note, however, that our holding would not prevent a prosecutor or plaintiff from attacking a similarly structured scheme that is merely a ruse for a traditional lottery. Barring such a ruse, we conclude that where an event coordinator creates the primary market for event tickets, the fair-market value of the tickets is equal to their face value. In this case, there was no ‘prize’ and hence no ‘lottery’ because at the time applicants submitted to the NCAA their offers to purchase tickets, the market value equaled the face value of the tickets,” wrote the justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT