§ 131.005.Defenses

Three sets of defences, and the first is what keeps the chapter tethered to the present.

Subsection (a) applies to both causes of action. It is a defence that, at the time of the violation, the rule was not a current rule of the national association, or had been substantially changed by it.

That is the necessary corrective to the 1987 freeze. The adoption provision fixes the rulebook at a date; this ensures liability does not attach to a rule the association has since abandoned or rewritten.

So the chapter reaches only rules that were in force in 1987 and remain substantially in force. Given how far collegiate athletics regulation has moved, that is a considerably narrower field than the adoption provision suggests.

Subsections (b) and (c) protect the insiders, and the lists are parallel. For the conference’s claim: employees of the national association, of the regional association, of a member institution, and students at a member institution. For the institution’s claim: the same, keyed to that institution and its conference.

The exclusion of students is the significant one. An athlete who accepted an improper benefit has violated a rule and contributed to discipline — and is defended by this section.

The chapter aims outward at boosters and agents, not inward at the people the program is composed of.

The employee exclusion has the same logic. A coach who broke rules is answerable to their employer through employment law and to the association through its own processes, not through a damages claim by the institution that employed them.