STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5346

August 3, 1978

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Rules of the Michigan High School Athletic Association

A rule of the Michigan High School Athletic Association prohibiting football coaches from working with more than three players at one time is not binding upon boards of education. The rule may be enforced, however, by a local board of education if the board adopts the rule as its own rule.

Honorable Gray M. Owen

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to the validity of a rule of the Michigan High School Athletic Association which prohibits a football coach from working with more than three players at one time except during football season as defined by the rules.

In OAG, 1977-1978, No 4795, p ___ (August 11, 1977), it was noted that the Michigan High School Athletic Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as MHSAA, is a private nonprofit corporation. It was further noted that the Michigan Supreme Court had determined in Richards v Birmingham School District, 348 Mich 490 (1957), that interscholastic athletics are part of the governmental education function vested in school districts by law and, therefore, this governmental function could not be delegated to a private corporation.

This does not, however, preclude MHSAA, which is a private nonprofit corporation, from adopting such rules as it deems appropriate to further its corporate objects and purpose. The question thus presented is whether MHSAA has the authority to adopt the rule and make it binding upon boards of education of school districts. A similar question was involved in Bunger v Iowa High School Athletic Association, 197 NW2d 555 (Iowa, 1972). In Bunger, the Iowa Supreme Court considered an eligibility rule which the Iowa Association had adopted and which plaintiff Bunger had violated. The local board of education itself had not adopted the rule, but school officials declared plaintiff ineligible for violating the Association rule. The court enjoined enforcement of the rule on the ground that the local school board could not redelegate its rule-making authority to the Association. As the board of education had not adopted the rule, it could not enforce the rule.

The School Code of 1976, 1976 PA 451, MCLA 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq, makes no provision for the state-wide regulation of interscholastic athletics. Absent such a provision, supervision and control of interscholastic athletics is the responsibility of the board of education of each local school district. See, e.g., 1976 PA 451, supra, Secs. 1261 and 1300 and Richards v Birmingham School District, supra. Nothing prevents a board of education from joining MHSAA and voluntarily adopting the MHSAA rule as its own. A board may not, however, abdicate its own responsibilities to MHSAA. If a board of education desires the MHSAA rules to be applicable to its schools, the board itself may adopt identical rules. The board may then, of course, enforce its own rules. OAG, No 4795, supra.

It is, therefore, my opinion that the MHSAA rule prohibiting football coaches from working with more than three players at one time, except during football season, is not binding upon boards of education. The rule may be enforced by a local board of education, however, if the board has adopted the MHSAA rule as its own.

Frank J. Kelley