아마추어 스포츠 규제의 법적 문제 (The Legal Problems of the Regulation on Amateur Sports)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국법정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법과정책연구 / 16권 / 4호 / 149 ~ 167페이지
· 저자명 : 김상태

초록

정부에 의한 아마추어 스포츠 규제가 어떠한 이유에 의해 허용되는 것인지, 어떠한 내용의 규제가 허용되는 것인지의 문제의 배후에는 아마추어 스포츠는 어떻게 존재하여야 하는가 하는, 스포츠법학 또는 스포츠윤리학상의 근원적인 과제가 가로놓여 있다고 생각된다.
이와 관련하여 Brentwood 판결은 해당 사례에서 쟁점이 되었던 문제 외에, 몇 가지 중요문제와 복합적으로 관련되어 있는 상당히 흥미로운 판결로서, 국가행위론에 관한 중요사례이기도 하다. 이 판결에서는 국가행위의 존재를 인정하는 판단이 곧 헌법위반이라는 실체적 결론으로 직결되지는 않는다는 점, 개인상대의 권유행위가 표현의 자유로서 보장되는지 여부와 그 범위, 그리고 아마추어 스포츠 규제의 필요성 및 합리성 등의 문제를 다루고 있다.
뿐만 아니라 이 사례에서는 절차적 적정절차보장의 존재방식도 문제가 되어 있다. 또한 ‘연방최고법원에 의한 국가행위의 인정 → 연방지방법원의 실체판단에 관한 재검토 → 연방최고법원의 실체 판단에 의한 원고 패소’라는 소송과정을 밟은 이 사례는 소송당사자의 절차 보장이나 소송경제라는 소송제도론상의 문제도 포함하고 있다.
이 논문에서는 Brentwood 사건을 소재로 삼아 특히 아마추어 스포츠 규제를 둘러싼 법적 문제를 중심으로 고찰하고자 한다.

영어초록

A private organization can be considered a state actor if there is sufficient entwinement between the state and the organization, such as here where the majority of members are public schools, and the leadership and governing body is made up of public school officials acting within their official capacity.
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association is a not-for-profit membership corporation organized to regulate interscholastic sport among private and public high school in Tennessee. There is no other authority regulating athletic competition, and a school’s team can only play against the team of another member school. The association has a legislative arm, and a control board, and the voting membership is limited to high school principals, assistant principals and superintendents elected b y the member schools. Member schools pay dues, but the bulk of the funding comes from the member team’s athletic tournaments, many held at public arenas rented by the association. Ever since the association was incorporated, Tennessee’s State Board of Education has acknowledged the associations functions in providing standards, rules and regulations for interscholastic competition. It even adopted a rule expressly designating the association as the organization to supervise and regulate athletics.
The dissent feels that you can not find state action based on “entwinement” alone, for there to be a state actor, but rather, the private actor needs to be performing a public function, created coerced or encouraged by the government or acting in a symbiotic relationship with the government. The dissent focuses on the fact that schools are not required to join, the state does not fund the association, nor does it offer discounts to use state venues, does not provide a tax exemption and no TN law authorizes the association. In addition, the stat has never had any involvement in the particular action being taken by the association in this case. Moreover, the association does not nothing traditionally or exclusively reserved for the state.
The Constitution usually applies to only state actors, but there are certain instances where private organizations must be treated as state actors. State action may be found if, and only if, there is such a “close nexus between the State and the challenged action” that seemingly private behavior “may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” The court does not look to one factor, but a totality of the circumstances when determining if there is such a close nexus.

참고자료

· 없음