By Kelly P. Elliott Ph.D., Amanda Siegrist, J.D., and Colleen McGlone, Ph. D., of Coastal Carolina University
Abstract
The role of a compliance officers is vital in ensuring NCAA member institutions uphold regulatory standards, maintain integrity, and avoid costly violations that can impact postseason eligibility and institutional reputation. As a result, hiring the right individual for this role is critical. A growing debate within collegiate athletics questions whether compliance officers should hold a Juris Doctor (JD) degree, given the legal complexities involved. This research evaluates if a legal background is necessary for the tasks assigned to compliance officers working on NCAA member institutions. The researchers completed a content analysis of job descriptions posted on the NCAA Job Market and HigherEd Jobs over a six-month period to assess whether current job expectations align more closely with legal interpretation skills, communication skills, management/operations, or education skills. Previous studies show mixed views on the need for a JD, particularly at the Division II level, where compliance officers often take on broader roles. This study aims to provide guidance for hiring committees and athletic departments by identifying the qualifications that best fit the actual demands of the position, ensuring job descriptions accurately reflect institutional needs.
To JD or Not JD: The Role of Law Degrees in NCAA Compliance
The role of athletics compliance officers is critical in ensuring that National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) member institutions adhere to its regulations, as well as those of the conference, safeguarding both the reputation and integrity of the institution, and the well-being of its student-athletes. Further, the role is pivotal in avoiding costly investigations and the loss of potential revenue for the school as a result of compliance violations, particularly related to post-season play. For example, recently University of Kansas Athletics paid $10 million over a six-year period to defend their men’s basketball program against NCAA violations (Echlin & Zeff, 2023). The athletic department paid four law firms to defend the institution over the duration of the case (Guskey, 2024). The investigation resulted in minor recruiting violations for the institution. The Director of Athletics, Travis Goff, said of the expense, “In short, it was worth it. It doesn’t mean it’s still not painful to recognize the totality of cost that we had to put into this… [but] at the end of the day, there’s a goodwill element to the impact of Kansas basketball. There’s a direct financial implication. You’re talking about years, decades and generations of helping drive enrollment to the University of Kansas” (Echlin & Zeff, 2023, para 21-24). Thus, the importance of ensuring collegiate athletics programs comply with their governing regulations is clear. The compliance officer plays a critical role in this process, making the position and hire one that should be given careful consideration and prudence.
Lost revenue may even extend beyond a single institution when NCAA violations occur. NCAA sanctions can have a broad financial impact beyond just the offending student-athlete or coach. In analyzing the effectiveness of NCAA sanctions, Weston (2011) explains that penalties such as postseason bans can significantly impact a school’s ability to generate revenue from sources like television rights, bowl games, and Final Four appearances. Importantly, the financial consequences extend beyond the sanctioned institution. Because many conferences share revenue among member schools, any loss in earnings by one school can reduce the total distribution available. As a result, fellow conference members also experience financial setbacks due to the diminished shared revenue.
Given the pattern of increased violations and high stakes sanctions (Clark, 2009), institutions may want to consider whether compliance officers should be required to hold a juris doctor (JD) (or in other words, a law degree). Through an analysis of current job postings, industry trends, NCAA divisional compliance guidance, and relevant research, this research evaluates whether a law degree should be considered essential for compliance officers, or if alternative qualifications may suffice. While a law degree may provide compliance officers with a strong foundation in legal reasoning, interpretation of policy, and the ability to navigate the intricate legal landscape of collegiate athletics, the commonly requested skills required for this role may not align. In the authors’ review of recent job postings, commonly sought skills for compliance officer roles include knowledge of the NCAA, knowledge of softwares such as Compliance Assistant and Athletics Recruiting Management System (ARMS), the ability to work independently and multitask, maintain relationships, communicate effectively, and be organized.
While a JD would integrate many of those abilities, a sport management bachelor’s or master’s degree covers many of them too. On the other hand, an understanding of legal analysis and policy interpretation that comes from earning a JD could better equip the compliance officer in decision making, and having a better understanding of the potential legal implications could help avoid lawsuits (McCarthy, 2019). The findings of this research aim to inform universities, athletics departments, and hiring committees as they make decisions regarding the educational requirements and job descriptions for this position, in hopes they can better reflect the true role of their compliance officer. Perhaps the appropriate role of the compliance officer for their institution is one of a communicator and liaison to coaches, boosters, and the student-athletes, rather than that of an interpreter of legislation or a line of legal defense; Afterall, institutions do also employ university counsel, and have access to their respective conference offices as well to provide interpretation support through the NCAA’s Requests/Self-Reports Online (RSRO). Overall, this study is guided by the following research questions:
- What are the relative proportions of Legal, Management/Operation, Controller, and Education skills required across NCAA compliance job descriptions, and how do these proportions vary by division (Division I or Division II)?
- How does the preference for a graduate degree (JD or Master’s) influence the proportion of tasks related to Legal, Management/Operation, Controller, and Education skills in NCAA compliance job descriptions?
In this study, the researchers completed a content analysis of job descriptions for athletics compliance officer roles posted on NCAA Job Market and HigherEd Jobs in the second half of the 2024 calendar year. The purpose of the analysis is to assess the current landscape of the job to gain a better understanding of the required tasks of the individual in the compliance position at an NCAA member institution, while also evaluating the best qualifications needed to match the job requirements. For example, athletics departments may want to consider whether a communications or management degree would be sufficient to complete the stated job functions, if those are actually the job functions being sought. As suggested by McCarthy (2023), the compliance officer role is perhaps more one of communication than interpretation, particularly as it relates to communicating what others are doing and how to best communicate to coaches regarding legislation reminders or new legislation. Conversely, some athletics programs, namely Division I programs, may want to consider adjusting their compliance officer’s assigned tasks to better reflect the critical components of the role as a first line of defense against costly sanctions and seek a candidate with a law degree for that very reason.
Review of Literature
Potuto (2010) provided an analysis of the NCAA’s organizational structure and its interpretation and infractions processes. The author emphasized that the majority of NCAA compliance responsibilities are handled at the campus level by institutional compliance staff—who are often operating with understaffed offices. Specifically referencing student-athlete reinstatement cases, Potuto (2010) indicated, “whether through inability, disinclination, or time pressure, compliance staff do not always do a thorough investigation and/or submitted a full and fully forthcoming reinstatement request” (p. 286).
McCarthy (2019) outlined the interpretation process at a member institution and indicated the compliance role could benefit from a JD, as the education may better prepare them to make confident decisions regarding rule interpretations. Additionally, McCarthy (2019) noted knowing legal implications could help avoid lawsuits. Further, Kihl (2006) indicated, “even with the various organizational rule interpretation infrastructures in place (e.g., databases and self-studies), it is nearly impossible for the NCAA to expect all of its members to hold mirror understandings and approaches in discerning how NCAA and Conference rules should be applied” (p. 7). This warning supports the idea of having a JD requirement given training in rule interpretation might be most appropriate in the position, aligning with the panel discussion from McCarthy (2019).
Grow and Haugh (2021) reviewed the effectiveness of the NCAA as a compliance organization from a corporate compliance perspective. According to Grow and Haugh, “at root, then, the NCAA is a compliance organization–one established to ensure that its membership is not engaged in rule-violating behavior. While a significant body of academic literature analyzes the NCAA and its bylaws, somewhat surprisingly, none of these prior works evaluates the effectiveness of the NCAA in terms of compliance” (p. 3). In a summary of one recommendation from their analysis, the authors propose NCAA compliance personnel need to grasp how rationalizations contribute to wrongdoing within NCAA member schools and how stakeholders use them to reduce moral guilt. Analyzing the NCAA as a compliance organization through the corporate compliance lens suggests the compliance role may be better served by requiring a law degree, given the need for them to make legal interpretations.
Sievert and Fleisher (2015) suggest coaches hire outside legal counsel if they are found in violation of NCAA rules related to oversight of conduct and employment of athletics personnel. According to Sievert and Fleisher (2015) the conflicting interests of the institution and the coach in the NCAA enforcement process may require coaches to have their own legal representation. Hana et al., (2017) recommended the NCAA add legislation related to whistle blower protection. However, in the discussion of the responsibility, future research is necessary to understand the responsibility of the compliance officer on campus. Based on current job requirements and expectations of the position, the compliance officer’s role may involve legal responsibility, which could further warrant the JD requirement to help protect the institution; alternatively, the role may be primarily managerial, focused on coordinating processes established by NCAA regulations.
In a review of case law related to institutional control, specifically referencing the Freech report on Penn State child sex abuse, Rapp (2015) suggests:
the NCAA requires institutional control but does not provide much guidance for the proper reporting chains within universities. For instance, Penn State is faulted in the Freeh Report for having its Athletics Compliance Officer report via channels other than to the overall University compliance officer. Is a centralized compliance regime now required to exercise proper institutional control? We have no clear guidance, even though providing such guidance would be relatively simple for the NCAA (p. 9).
Pierce et al., (2008) recommended a compliance officer’s involvement in a student-athlete reinstatement case should include documentation, due diligence, Legislative Services database (LSDBi) research, education programs for coaches, and trusting the student-athlete first philosophy. These recommendations may call for further analysis for the education and experience needed for these roles and gaining a better understanding of whether the roles align more with a legal or manager skill set. Additionally, a recent publication from McCarthy (2023) emphasized the pivotal role of a compliance officer in facilitating communication – both by conveying the actions of others and by effectively informing coaches of legislation changes and reminders. From the perspective of those in the compliance role at DI institutions, early research from Greim and Hobbs (2016), indicate that those in the compliance position feel constrained by interruptions from coworkers, conflicting job demands, and inadequate staffing. The authors mention, “ the sheer breadth and depth of the scope of responsibility can be overwhelming” (p. 1).
From a divisional standpoint, Clark and Batista (2009) examined whether institutions with teams that won Bowl Championship Series (BCS) championships were more prone to committing rule violations. Although the research did not include an analysis of the role, education, and experiences needed for the role of the compliance officer, the research may support requiring an employee with a JD at certain levels of NCAA structure due to the pattern of increased violations. For example, member institutions competing in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) division may want to require a JD for the person holding the compliance position due to the higher stakes as demonstrated in the University of Kansas case (Echlin & Zeff, 2023).
At the Division II level, Kaltenbaugh et al., (2013) investigated compliance officers working on campus and found 60% of compliance officers surveyed in their study believed the compliance officer should have a law degree. Respondents in the survey indicated the JD was preferred and often led to the applicant being hired at a higher level in the organization, such as an Associate Athletic Director. However, one consideration with having such a requirement for the role, especially at the DII level, is the other job duties assigned to that position. For example, Elliott & Siegrist (2023) researched perceptions of current DII compliance officers and found many compliance officers are serving roles outside of strictly compliance. Researching job descriptions to better understand the required tasks and functions may provide a clearer picture into the necessary qualifications for the individual serving in the role. If only a few required tasks relate to NCAA rule interpretation and education, it may make more sense for the position to seek an individual with a background in management.
Recent research from Elliott and Siegrist (2023) explored the perceptions of the effectiveness of the one-person compliance department often seen in the organizational structure of NCAA DII member institutions. The results of the research indicated there was a broad range of responsibilities that a sole compliance officer handles on their respective DII campus. Some of these responsibilities included monitoring compliance with NCAA rules, managing eligibility, handling recruitment and financial aid, and conducting educational programs. The authors called for future research to help smaller institutions that may have limited resources to identify practices for hiring compliance administrators, such as pushing for the NCAA to provide training or a certification program for compliance officers that relate to the entire scope of the position, rather than strictly compliance education. In this present research, the focus is on job descriptions and ensuring the job description matches the qualifications needed for the hire. Specifically, whether the nature of the compliance position requires a law degree with the additional education on interpretation or whether an applicant with a Sport Management or Business degree will have the education and skills needed for the job.
It may also be critical to study the tasks required for the compliance role by division as each NCAA division follows a unique purpose for compliance in the division. According to the NCAA website, Division I compliance:
Division I expects its member schools to conduct their athletics programs with integrity and in compliance with conference and NCAA rules and regulations. It is the sole responsibility of each member school to conduct its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. It is also the responsibility of each member school to report all breaches of conduct established by Association bylaws in a timely and cooperative manner. Upon a conclusion that one or more violations occurred, a school shall be subject to disciplinary and corrective actions deemed suitable by the Association on behalf of the entire membership (1).
Related to Division II compliance the NCAA website indicates:
“Division II expects its members to operate their athletics programs with integrity and in a welcoming manner that complies with conference and NCAA rules and regulations. Institutional control is a fundamental principle that supports the educational mission of a college or university and assumes presidential involvement and oversight. Division II considers compliance to be a teamwork approach in which all members of the athletics department and other personnel across campus who are associated with athletics conduct the program with the highest levels of integrity and fairness. To support this commitment, Division II recently increased its expectations when its members adopted a new policy requiring compliance officers to be devoted full-time to compliance duties. In other words, compliance officers at Division II schools can’t also have coaching responsibilities at the school (p. 1).
The different expectations for compliance posted for each division, for example the “teamwork approach” referenced in the Division II descriptions seems to support the need to include an analysis of the tasks required for the role by division.
Method
Data Selection
This study analyzed job descriptions posted on the NCAA Job Market and HigherEdJobs.com between July and December 2024. A total of 64 job descriptions were collected across two divisions of NCAA institutions: 52 Division I and 12 Division II. Table 1 below lists the sub-divisions for each Division I institutions included in the study as well as the number of athletic staff listed as working in a compliance role on the Division I athletic department website. The collected data included job descriptions from a range of higher education institutions that were publicly available on these platforms within the defined time period.
Table 1.
Institution Description
| Institution | Division | Sub-Division | Number of Compliance Staff | |
| 1 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 5 | |
| 2 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 5 | |
| 3 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 6 | |
| 5 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 6 | |
| 6 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 7 | |
| 7 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 2 | |
| 8 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 5 | |
| 9 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 4 | |
| 10 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 3 | |
| 11 | 1 | FBS Power 5 | 1 | |
| 12 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 3 | |
| 13 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 3 | |
| 14 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 4 | |
| 15 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 2 | |
| 16 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 3 | |
| 17 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 3 | |
| 18 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 3 | |
| 19 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 2 | |
| 20 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 4 | |
| 21 | 1 | FBS Group of 5 | 4 | |
| 22 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 23 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 24 | 1 | FCS | 4 | |
| 25 | 1 | FCS | 3 | |
| 26 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 27 | 1 | FCS | 4 | |
| 28 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 29 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 30 | 1 | FCS | 3 | |
| 31 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 32 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 33 | 1 | FCS | 4 | |
| 34 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 35 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 36 | 1 | FCS | 4 | |
| 37 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 38 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 39 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 40 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 41 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 42 | 1 | FCS | 1 | |
| 43 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 44 | 1 | FCS | 2 | |
| 45 | 1 | No-Football | 3 | |
| 46 | 2 | |||
| 47 | 2 | |||
| 48 | 2 | |||
| 49 | 2 | |||
| 50 | 2 | |||
| 51 | 2 | |||
| 52 | 2 | |||
| 53 | 2 | |||
| 54 | 2 | |||
| 55 | 2 | |||
| 56 | ||||
Content Analysis
A content analysis methodology was used to examine the qualifications and tasks outlined in the job descriptions. Each job description was systematically reviewed, and specific tasks associated with the compliance role were categorized into four distinct skill sets: Legal Skills, Management/Operation Skills, Controller Skills, and Education Skills. Table 1 below indicates the number of tasks categorized in each skill set.
Table 2.
Number of tasks coded in each skill set category.
| Skill Set | DI | DII | Total |
| Legal Skills | 99 | 22 | 121 |
| Management/Operation Skills | 260 | 119 | 379 |
| Controller Skills | 35 | 4 | 39 |
| Education Skills | 77 | 22 | 99 |
A summary of each skill category and examples of tasks that are included into each category are included below.
- Legal Skills: Tasks related to compliance violations, regulatory interpretation, policy development, appeals/waivers, and research.
- Example 1: “Gather and review facts and case precedents to determine whether to file waivers.”
- Example 2: “Initiate investigations and self-report violations to the NCAA.”
- Management/Operation Skills: Tasks related to strategic and organizational oversight, logistical coordination of processes, liaison roles, and supervision.
- Example 1: “Approve complimentary tickets for student-athletes at home and away games using ARMS.”
- Example 2: “Monitor institutional camps and clinics and ensure necessary paperwork is completed.”
- Controller Skills: Tasks related to record keeping, verification of tasks, and compiling/submitting reports.
- Example 1: “Maintain student-athlete files/records.”
- Example 2: “Provide necessary information for required compliance audits.”
- Education Skills: Tasks related to creating educational materials and presenting compliance information.
- Example 1: “Create/present educational materials related to compliance and student-athlete services.”
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for each skill set (Legal, Management/Operation, Controller, and Education) to determine the proportion of tasks related to each skill category across the different divisions. The proportion of tasks for each skill set within each division was calculated by dividing the number of tasks for a given skill by the total number of tasks for each division.
For RQ 2, a Z-test was conducted to assess whether there were any statistically significant differences in the proportion of skill sets required for job descriptions that included a supervision component or preferred a graduate degree. The Z-test was used to compare the proportions of tasks for each skill set across the different categories (supervision component versus no supervision component, and preference for graduate degree versus no preference). The results of these comparisons provided insight into whether the inclusion of specific qualifications (such as supervision or advanced degrees) influenced the skill set requirements for compliance positions.
All data was organized and stored in a secure database for analysis. The content analysis was performed manually, with each task coded according to the predefined skill categories. Discrepancies between coders were resolved through discussion to ensure consistency and reliability in the coding process.
Results
In total, the researchers collected and analyzed 52 NCAA DI job descriptions and 12 NCAA DII job descriptions. To answer RQ 1, the analysis of job descriptions revealed notable differences in the proportions of tasks related to each skill category across NCAA Division I and Division II compliance positions. In Division I compliance positions, the largest proportion of tasks was associated with Management/Operation Skills, comprising an average of 55% of the total tasks. This category includes tasks related to strategic oversight, organizational coordination, and process execution. The next most prominent skill set in DI was Legal Skills, which accounted for 22% of the tasks, reflecting the importance of legal knowledge in the compliance process, particularly in tasks such as rule interpretation and violation investigation. Education Skills, which involve creating and presenting compliance-related materials, made up 17% of the tasks, indicating a significant but secondary role in education and training. Finally, Controller Skills, which involve record-keeping and reporting, comprised only 6% of the tasks, suggesting that tasks related to monitoring and documentation were less emphasized in DI compliance roles.
In Division II, the distribution of tasks shifted slightly. Management/Operation Skills again comprised the largest proportion of tasks, making up 68% of the total tasks. This is notably higher than in DI, suggesting that DII compliance officers may have an even stronger focus on coordinating processes and managing logistics within their institutions. Legal Skills represented 14% of the tasks, a decrease compared to DI, which could reflect fewer instances of complex rule interpretation and enforcement at the DII level. Education Skills remained consistent across both divisions, accounting for 17% of the tasks. The smallest proportion of tasks in DII compliance roles was devoted to Controller Skills, with just 1%, indicating a significantly reduced focus on record-keeping and documentation compared to DI. Table 3 and Table 4 below include the proportion of job tasks for each job description included in the study. Further Table 5 includes the average proportions of job tasks for NCAA DI institutions for each description compared by subdivision.
Table 3.
Proportion of job tasks for each skill category – Division I Institutions
| Division I | ||||
| Institution | Legal | Management | Controller | Education |
| 1 | 11% | 67% | 11% | 11% |
| 2 | 45% | 45% | 0% | 9% |
| 3 | 0% | 56% | 33% | 11% |
| 4 | 15% | 38% | 23% | 23% |
| 5 | 9% | 64% | 0% | 27% |
| 6 | 5% | 75% | 10% | 10% |
| 7 | 11% | 44% | 33% | 11% |
| 8 | 14% | 57% | 14% | 14% |
| 9 | 18% | 47% | 18% | 18% |
| 10 | 38% | 50% | 13% | 0% |
| 11 | 35% | 30% | 13% | 22% |
| 12 | 13% | 80% | 0% | 7% |
| 13 | 25% | 25% | 17% | 33% |
| 14 | 33% | 56% | 11% | 0% |
| 15 | 33% | 56% | 0% | 11% |
| 16 | 13% | 63% | 0% | 25% |
| 17 | 0% | 77% | 8% | 15% |
| 18 | 20% | 40% | 20% | 20% |
| 19 | 12% | 58% | 8% | 23% |
| 20 | 0% | 92% | 0% | 8% |
| 21 | 11% | 89% | 0% | 0% |
| 22 | 40% | 60% | 0% | 0% |
| 23 | 75% | 25% | 0% | 0% |
| 24 | 8% | 85% | 0% | 8% |
| 25 | 9% | 73% | 9% | 9% |
| 26 | 15% | 46% | 8% | 31% |
| 27 | 33% | 44% | 0% | 22% |
| 28 | 0% | 50% | 0% | 50% |
| 29 | 14% | 57% | 0% | 29% |
| 30 | 19% | 75% | 0% | 6% |
| 31 | 33% | 33% | 0% | 33% |
| 32 | 25% | 50% | 0% | 25% |
| 33 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| 34 | 57% | 29% | 0% | 14% |
| 35 | 10% | 80% | 0% | 10% |
| 36 | 18% | 64% | 9% | 9% |
| 37 | 67% | 25% | 0% | 8% |
| 38 | 18% | 64% | 0% | 18% |
| 39 | 33% | 33% | 0% | 33% |
| 40 | 47% | 24% | 12% | 18% |
| 41 | 25% | 50% | 0% | 25% |
| 42 | 33% | 56% | 0% | 11% |
| 43 | 50% | 33% | 0% | 17% |
| 44 | 17% | 67% | 0% | 17% |
| 45 | 0% | 50% | 0% | 50% |
Table 4.
Proportion of job tasks for each skill category – Division II Institutions
| Division II | ||||
| Institution | Legal | Management | Controller | Education |
| 46 | 12% | 73% | 6% | 9% |
| 47 | 12% | 71% | 2% | 16% |
| 48 | 10% | 70% | 0% | 20% |
| 49 | 16% | 66% | 3% | 16% |
| 50 | 0% | 91% | 0% | 9% |
| 51 | 13% | 88% | 0% | 0% |
| 52 | 25% | 50% | 0% | 25% |
| 53 | 20% | 67% | 0% | 13% |
| 54 | 0% | 40% | 0% | 60% |
| 55 | 33% | 67% | 0% | 0% |
Table 5.
Average Proportion of job tasks for each skill category – Division I Subdivisions
| Task Category | Power 5 | Group of 5 | FCS |
| Legal | 28% | 29% | 18% |
| Management | 58% | 49% | 56% |
| Controller | 0% | 4% | 9% |
| Education | 14% | 18% | 17% |
Note: only one no-football institution included in the study. The institution is not represented in Table 5.
For Research Question 2 (RQ2), which explores how the preference for a graduate degree influences the proportion of tasks related to Legal, Management/Operation, Controller, and Education skills in NCAA compliance job descriptions, the results show no significant difference in the proportion of these skills between jobs requiring a supervising role and those that do not. Specifically, the analysis yielded the following results for each skill category, legal skills (z = -.76, p = .45), management/organization skills (z = -0.53, p = .59), controller skills (z = -0.76, p = .45), and education skills (z = -0.10, p = .92).
The researchers also included an analysis comparing the proportion of tasks for compliance officers between those job descriptions that included a supervisor component compared to those job descriptions that did not include the supervisor component. The results indicate that the presence or absence of a supervision component does not significantly influence the distribution of tasks in various skill categories. The analysis yielded the following results for each skill category: legal skills (z = -0.19, p = .85), management skills (z = -1.15, p = .25), controller (z = -0.19, p = .85), and education skills (z = -0.77, p = .44).
Discussion
The analysis of NCAA compliance officer job descriptions and the role of a JD in the qualifications for these positions reveals a complex relationship between legal expertise and the actual tasks required in the role. While a law degree undoubtedly provides a strong foundation in legal reasoning, policy interpretation, and navigating the intricate legal landscape of collegiate athletics, it does not necessarily align with the most commonly sought-after skills for compliance officer positions.
Job postings frequently emphasize the importance of knowledge of the NCAA, proficiency with software such as Compliance Assistant and ARMS, the ability to work independently and multitask, strong organizational skills, effective communication, and relationship-building capabilities. These skills are integral to the role but are not exclusive to those with a JD. In fact, a sport management degree, whether at the bachelor’s or master’s level, often encompasses many of these qualifications as well.
The review of current job postings suggests that institutions may not need to require or even prefer a JD when hiring for compliance officer roles if the postings accurately reflect the role’s responsibilities. Instead, the focus should be on finding candidates who possess the necessary operational, communication, and organizational skills that align with the institution’s specific needs from this role. It may be more effective to recruit candidates with degrees in business, sport management, or related fields, as these can be sufficient to handle the key responsibilities of the role. Athletics departments should be cautious about hiring overqualified individuals, as a JD might not only lead to dissatisfaction by the hired employee, but it could also introduce unintended behaviors within the department. For instance, an individual with legal training in a role that does not require much of it, may take on more tasks or push for unnecessary changes to processes that may not be sustainable or suited for the day-to-day functions of a compliance officer working on an NCAA member institution campus, especially at the DII level.
Conversely, a JD can offer significant advantages, particularly in tasks that require legal analysis and policy interpretation. This expertise allows compliance officers to make more informed decisions and better understand the potential legal implications of NCAA regulations, ultimately helping to avoid costly lawsuits and sanctions. For institutions and athletics departments that view compliance as a critical line of defense against legal or regulatory challenges, the addition of a JD to the compliance officer’s qualifications may be particularly valuable. This is particularly relevant for high-profile programs, such as those in Division I conferences like the Big Ten, where the legal complexities and potential consequences of non-compliance are more pronounced.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021), student-athletes can now receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) without jeopardizing their amateur status. Building on this shift, a 2024 settlement, being referred to as the “House Settlement” has been preliminarily approved and would resolve ongoing antitrust lawsuits challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on NIL-related compensation (Sullivan, 2025; Edelman, 2025). When finalized, the settlement would allow schools to directly pay student-athletes and redefine the traditional concept of amateurism. Together, Alston and the House settlement signal a fundamental transformation of college sports, expanding universities’ legal exposure and complicating compliance requirements. Thus, institutions will face new challenges related to Title IX, employment classification, and collective bargaining, causing athletics departments to adapt. As compliance officers are expected to navigate increasingly complicated regulatory risks, their role is perhaps becoming more legally intensive than in the past. While not all duties require formal legal training, a law degree provides critical skills that could be essential as college sport continues to evolve.
Ultimately, institutions should carefully tailor their job descriptions and hiring criteria to reflect the unique needs of their athletics programs. A compliance officer may be more of a coordinator and liaison, guiding coaches, boosters, and athletes through NCAA regulations, rather than a legal expert or defender of institutional practices. However, for high-profile athletics programs, and those grappling with the impact of the new NIL regulations, having a compliance officer with a JD as a first line of legal defense might prove to be fruitful. Still, larger institutions have their respective university counsels as a resource, and often carry a staff of associate athletic directors to provide oversight on the various departments within an athletics program, likely lessening the burden of broad compliance solely on one employee.
In conclusion, while a JD can be beneficial for NCAA compliance officers, institutions should not be overly prescriptive in their hiring practices and should write job descriptions and postings that accurately reflect the needs and structure of their programs. A strategic review of job descriptions, institutional needs, and the specific tasks required for compliance roles will help ensure that the best candidates are hired without unnecessarily narrowing the pool or overloading the position with overqualified personnel.
Practical Implications
Institutions should carefully tailor job descriptions to align with the actual tasks and skills required for the role. This includes focusing on the core competencies needed for compliance, such as knowledge of NCAA regulations, software proficiency, communication abilities, and organizational skills, rather than unnecessarily emphasizing a JD. Doing so will ensure that the pool of applicants is not limited and that institutions are considering a broader range of candidates with diverse backgrounds and the skills necessary to be successful in the role. Hiring candidates with a JD for roles that do not require intensive legal analysis or policy interpretation could lead to dissatisfaction and high turnover.
Institutions should also consider fostering collaboration between the compliance officer and other departments, such as university legal counsel and NCAA conference offices, to ensure that compliance issues are handled appropriately. By not requiring a JD for every compliance officer role, institutions can create a more integrated system where legal professionals can support compliance officers as needed, ensuring that legal expertise is available without overburdening the compliance officer with tasks outside the intended scope of the position.
While a JD may not be necessary for every compliance officer role, athletics departments—especially at the Division I level—may benefit from having a compliance officer with legal training, particularly when the program faces significant legal risks or regulatory scrutiny. This is especially true for high-profile programs, where the consequences of non-compliance could be severe financially. It may also be more practical for the individual serving in the role to report directly to the president and have additional tasks outside of the athletic department that require legal skills. This structure allows the employee to use their legal expertise while also giving the employee the opportunity to serve in a compliance function for the athletic department. Institutions, conferences, and even the NCAA governing body may find it beneficial to be clearer in defining the role of the compliance officer within athletics departments. If the position is intended to serve as a liaison between the NCAA and the institution, managing day-to-day compliance tasks, then a business or sport management background may be sufficient. However, if the role is envisioned as a more legal-centric one, focused on interpreting and applying complex regulations, a JD may be more appropriate. Clarifying the primary function of the role will help institutions recruit candidates with the most relevant qualifications.
Conclusion and Limitations
Despite the insights provided, there are several limitations to this study. First, the research is based on a review of job postings, which may not fully capture the evolving nature of the compliance officer role within athletics departments. Job descriptions can vary significantly between institutions, and the tasks listed in postings may not represent the complete scope of responsibilities or expectations that arise in practice. Additionally, the study does not account for variations in institutional size, resources, or specific compliance challenges that may influence the skills needed for the role. Second, the study focused solely on job descriptions and did not include interviews or feedback from current compliance officers, athletics directors, or other stakeholders who directly interact with compliance officers. These perspectives could offer valuable insights into the real-world requirements of the position.
Finally, the study did not explore how the qualifications of compliance officers may impact outcomes such as the effectiveness of compliance programs, the frequency of violations, or the ability to navigate complex NCAA regulations. Future research could investigate these relationships to further understand the value of various qualifications in achieving successful compliance outcomes. Future research could also explore how many compliance officers do hold a JD and whether there are less violations as compared to programs employing a compliance officer without a JD.
In conclusion, while a JD can be beneficial for NCAA compliance officers, institutions should not be overly prescriptive in their hiring practices. A strategic review of job descriptions, institutional needs, and the specific tasks required for compliance roles will help ensure that the best candidates are hired without unnecessarily narrowing the pool or overloading the position with overqualified personnel. By balancing legal expertise with operational and education skills, institutions can better meet the demands of compliance while fostering a more sustainable and effective workforce.
Editor Note: This research was completed prior to the final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement on June 6, 2025
References
Clark, Robert S. and Batista, Paul J. (2009) “Do BCS National Championships Lead to
Recruiting Violations? A Trend Analysis of NCAA Division I (FBS) Infractions,” Journal of Applied Sport Management: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1.
Echlin, G., & Zeff, S. (2023, December 27). KU spent $10 million to defend its basketball
program against NCAA violations. KCUR. https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-12-27/ku-spent-10-million-to-defend-its-basketball-program-against-ncaa-violations
Edelman, M., & Carrier, M. A. (2025). Of labor, antitrust, and why the proposed House
settlement will not solve the NCAA’s problem. Fordham Law Review, 93(5), 1573. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol93/iss5/4
Elliott, K. &Siegrist, A. (2023). Perception of the Effectiveness of a One-Person Compliance
Department in Small College Athletics: Division II Compliance Operations. Sports Innovation Journal (Vol. 1) (pp. 85 – 103).
Greim, R., & Hobbs, M. (2016). Sources and impact of stress for division I athletics compliance officers. Journal of NCAA Compliance, 1-7.
Grow, Nathaniel, & Haugh, Todd. (2021). Assessing the NCAA as compliance organization. Wisconsin Law Review, 2021(4), 787-852.
Hana, C., Levine, J., & Moorman, A.C. (2017). College athletics whistle blower protection. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 27, p. 209-226.
House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 9,
2020).
Kaltenbaugh, L.; Parsons, J. & Winters, B. (2013). A preliminary Investigation of NCAA
Division II Compliance Officers. The Sport Journal.
Kihl, L. A. (2006). What’s morality got to do with it? An examination of compliance officers’ approaches to rule interpretations. Journal of College and Character, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1534
Lagesse, D. (2002, March 18). Troubleshooting. U.S. News & World Report. Business Source
Alumni Edition.
McCarthy, C. (2023). Effectively communicate, implement compliance changes. College
Athletics and the Law., 20(5), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/catl.31207
McCarthy, C. (2019, December 16). Gain a better understanding of how to apply NCAA
interpretations philosophy, process. College Athletics and the Law. https://doi.org/10.1002/catl.30672
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (N.D.). Division II compliance. NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/24/division-ii-compliance.aspx
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (N.D.). Division I compliance. NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/11/division-i-compliance.aspx
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021).
Pierce, D., Kaburakis, A., & Fielding, L. (2008). Compliance officers’ guide to navigating NCAA student-athlete reinstatement cases involving amateurism violations. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, p. 87 – 106.
Potuto, J. R., (2010). The NCAA rules adoption, interpretation, enforcement, and infractions processes: The laws that regulate them and the nature of court review. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 12(2), 257-334. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol12/iss2/2
Sievert, J.P., & Fleischer, D.O. (2015). Meet NCAA rules-compliance standards by implementing 5 steps for DI head coaches. College Athletics and the Law, 12(2), p. 1-3.
Sullivan, B. (2025). Landmark day for college sports as judge holds final hearing on major
NCAA settlement. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5354232/paying-college-athletes-ncaa-legal-settlement.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (2024, July 26). House v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW. Settlement agreement filed.
Weston, M. A. (2011). NCAA sanctions: assigning blame where it belongs. Boston College Law Review, 52(2), 551-584.
