From NCAA athlete to NCAA investigator and lawyer, Tim Nevius has over a decade of experience in college sports. Following his baseball career at the University of Dayton, Nevius graduated first in his law school class before joining the NCAA as an investigator. In that role, he helped lead some of the NCAA’s highest-profile enforcement cases and conducted investigations at college campuses across the country. As a liaison to the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, Nevius also worked with athletes from every Division I conference on NCAA legislation and policy considerations affecting athletes.
After five years at the NCAA, Nevius earned an LL.M. with honors from Columbia Law School and went on to form a college sports practice at Winston & Strawn in New York. As co-chair of that practice, Nevius helped initiate and lead a federal antitrust lawsuit on behalf of Division I athletes to challenge NCAA rules that prohibit compensation in the multibillion-dollar college sports industry. He also advised high school, college, and Olympic athletes and their families on a variety of eligibility issues, including NCAA transfer cases, scholarship reductions, drug appeals, and waiver requests.
Nevius parlayed that passion into Nevius Legal, an Advocate for College Athletes. We sought him out for the exclusive interview that follows.
Question: Tell us about your practice
Answer: I run the only law firm in the country dedicated exclusively to representing college athletes. I work on eligibility cases of all kinds and fight for solutions on behalf of college athletes, which is critical for them due to the absence of any independent representation in a system that doesn’t always put their interests first. I also run a non-profit dedicated to reform (the College Athlete Advocacy Initiative) and work with lawmakers and other advocates to drive policy change for the best interest of the athletes.
Q: How did you get attracted to this practice area?
A: I was a college baseball player at the University of Dayton and following law school, I wanted to stay involved in sports. I got hired at the NCAA in 2007 and was quickly assigned to some high-profile enforcement cases. After five years as an investigator, my perspective on the business of college sports really started to shift and I became a bit disillusioned by the vast inequities at play. After taking a year to earn an LL.M. at Columbia law, I joined Jeffrey Kessler’s practice at Winston & Strawn in New York. Shortly after that, I helped initiate and lead what is now known as the Alston litigation to challenge NCAA compensation rules. At Winston, I took a lot of calls from parents and athletes who sought legal help and I realized there was a high demand for advice related to athlete eligibility matters. So, in 2018, I started my practice and have been working almost non-stop since then.
Q: How would you grade the NCAA with regards to its creation of a solution to the transfer issue and its subsequent tweaks?
A: Poor. The rules should have changed years ago, and many athletes have suffered consequences as a result of the refusal to change sooner. Just two years ago athletes could be denied a release, which not only prevented their ability to seek an opportunity at a new school, but also prevented them from receiving financial aid at the next school, which was simply unconscionable. Division II still uses that rule and I had a case last year in which a DII school’s refusal to grant a release was one of the more shameful displays I’ve seen by an athletics department. Now we have the portal, which is an improvement, but preventing athletes in some sports from immediate eligibility is just indefensible and the waiver process has become a bit of a circus. It needs to change right away.
Q: If you could change one thing about the NCAA, what would it be?
A: The slow and unwieldy bureaucracy that inhibits progress, even when desire exists for change. There are so many competing interests and an unhealthy amount of politics that get in the way of timely and meaningful reform. Unfortunately, the consequences of that system usually fall on the athletes. It’s also disappointing when the NCAA engages in half-truths as a strategy for defending the crumbling facade of amateurism. Fortunately, most people are finally starting to see through that messaging, which is bad news for the NCAA. It’s credibility has plummeted and it’s very hard to trust the system to take action on its own, especially for the interests of the athletes. That’s why we see the states and congress taking more and more interest. The NCAA only changes when forced to do so, although sometimes they would have the public believe otherwise.
Q: What is your relationship like with colleges and universities?
A: Very Good. Some universities come to me directly to work with their athletes. Several others have covered my legal fees, which provides representation for the athletes that they might not otherwise be able to afford I’ve worked closely with athletic departments and compliance directors on various cases and waivers with great success. I always appreciate the collaboration and team effort to reach the best result for the athletes. Most people understand that I’m an advocate for the athletes, first and foremost, and most of them are too. However, there are times when the interests of the University conflict with those of the athletes and we have to work together to find a resolution. Usually, it’s very amicable but sometimes can become contentious when the athletes aren’t getting a fair shake.
Q: What are the hot issues you are encountering with regard to drugs, both performance-enhancing and recreational?
A: Last year, I saw an uptick in the number of drug appeals that came my way. I’ve worked on a number of cases now and all of them involved performance-enhancing substances, rather than recreational drugs. Last summer, we won two separate appeals for Power Five football athletes. One was related to an over-the-counter supplement containing a banned substance and the other was a clenbuterol contamination case. Both were great victories for us given the nature of the cases and the very low rate at which appeals are typically overturned. You’ll never hear who the players are though because we were able to secure the wins before the season started and they were back on the field before anyone knew they had positive tests.
Q: How has COVID-19 changed your practice? How do you view the NCAA’s decision to add another year of eligibility for seniors in spring sports?
A: Oddly, the pandemic hasn’t changed my practice much and I’m busier than ever, but the effects of eligibility and scholarship decisions have yet to be fully seen. I would expect to see an uptick in transfer cases in the next few weeks and possibly some financial aid issues, which I am working on with at least two athletes. The eligibility granted to athletes in spring sports was absolutely the right decision and I’m thankful most universities are honoring their scholarship commitments so their athletes can not only continue to compete, but also earn a degree, which is the most important goal.
