UST’s top sports official has expressed reservations over a Senate bill seeking to abolish the UAAP’s two-year residency rule to supposedly “protect and promote the rights” of student athletes.
Fr. Ermito de Sagon, O.P., director of the Institute of Physical Education and Athletics, was doubtful that the proposed Student-Athletes Protection Act could really keep schools from providing unwarranted benefits to lure players.
“I don’t think this bill will solve the problem because any school or university can deny the fact that they are giving excess incentives to their athletes,” he told the Varsitarian.
Sen. Pia Cayetano’s Senate Bill No. 2226 limits incentives to “tuition, board and lodging, uniform and equipment, reasonable living allowance” and similar benefits. The goal is to preserve the amateur nature of collegiate sports.
If passed into law, the measure would outlaw the UAAP’s residency rule, which requires a recruit from another member school to sit out for two seasons unless he gets a clearance from his old school.
“The student-athlete shall be free from any act of restriction or punishment by the old and/or the new school due to his transfer from the former to the latter,” according to SB 2226.
“No residency requirement shall be imposed on a high-school student-athlete transferring to another school or to a college or university.”
De Sagon acknowledged that a two-year residency “might be too long,” saying it already represents “half of [a] student’s college life.” But he noted that the residency rule would not be charged against a student’s playing years. A student athlete is allowed to suit up for five years.
De Sagon said the bill should consider the many reasons athletes move from one school to another.
“Different athletes have different concerns. Sometimes it has something to do with the athlete, or at times it has something to do with the parents. Therefore, we must take into consideration the many possibilities concerning this issue,” he said.
“I don’t think this bill will solve the problem because any school or university can deny the fact that they are giving excess incentives to their athletes.”
The Cayetano bill was approved on third and final reason last June 2. A counterpart bill at the House of Representatives is pending before the Committee on Youth and Sports Development.
Rena Ma. Villa, UAAP legal counsel, said the board could review the residency rule in the future.
“Prospectively, the board is moving towards some revisions [in the residency rule] in the future, but as for the opening for this season of UAAP 77 is concerned, there are not much changes. The board retained most of the rules, particularly on the residency,” Villa said.
