The demand for digital content—whether on social media or streaming platforms—combined with the name, image, and likeness (NIL) era, where athletes actively monetize their personal brands, is reshaping how sports content is created and distributed.   Last year, women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins partnered with UNINTERRUPTED, 4.4 Forty Media, and State Farm to produce On the Rise: JuJu Watkins , a six-part documentary giving viewers a behind the scenes look of her rise to stardom. The series aired partially on NBC and is available on Peacock. NBC posted the first episode on YouTube which has surpassed 270,000 views alone.   Similarly, Amazon paid $1 million to LSU to produce The Money Game , an NIL-focused documentary featuring athletes like Jayden Daniels, Angel Reese, Flau’jae Johnson, and Livvy Dunne. Each athlete received individual NIL contracts, in addition to Amazon’s payment for exclusive production rights.   However, these examples represent more than individual NIL deals, they signal a broader shift in brand advertising strategy. Much like how major studios exclusively licensed their films to Netflix or Hulu, and then these streaming platforms began producing their own content, athletic brands are now developing in-house production studios to tell stories on their own.   Historically, brands relied on product placement, event sponsorships, and traditional advertising campaigns. But these methods are no longer as effective as they once were. Everybody skips YouTube ads, scrolls through their phones during commercial breaks, or pay for ad-free streaming. Why? Because traditional ads interrupt the content audiences actually want to consume.   Today, these brands are building entertainment studios to produce original series, films, and content that engage consumers directly. This in a way parallels the streaming revolution and highlights the value of creating and controlling content. These projects are not simply long-form product placements, though brand visibility is almost certain. Rather, they seek to tell authentic, premium stories that reflect the values and ethos of the brand.   Dick’s Sporting Goods recently launched its in-house production studio, Cookie Jar & A Dream Studios, following a decade of producing feature-length films and documentaries. These films earned the company two Emmy Awards. Notably, We Could Be King  documented the merger of two rival Philadelphia high schools due to the district budget crisis, while The Turnaround  highlighted Phillies superfan Jon McCann’s who helped turn the team’s 2023 season around. Most recently, the brand released Big Dreams: The Little League World Series 2024  in partnership with Imagine Entertainment and MLB Studios.   Under Armour is following suit, launching LAB96 Studios in October. Under Armour hit its peak in 2015, competing neck and neck with Nike, but has struggled in recent years. LAB96 represents part of its comeback strategy. UA believes its new in-house studio will help deliver athlete stories in “fresh, episodic, and cinematic ways.” Lab96 Studios has already announced partnerships with Overtime to create a series featuring IMG Academy’s football team and with SMAC Entertainment following St. Frances Academy’s women’s flag football team. Under Armour is also investing in building a film and podcast studio at their headquarters in Baltimore.   As brands expand into this longer form content, they must navigate the same legal framework as traditional studios. These productions, though meant to educate and entertain, are still subject to advertising and consumer protection laws, including the Federal Trade Commission’s Endorsement Guides, which mandate clear disclosure of sponsorships, product placements, and endorsements.   Other key considerations include: Intellectual Property Rights:  Contracts with creative talent, NIL, licensing agreements, and ownership of original footage. Permitting:  Securing authorization for shoots in public or private spaces. Insurance: Obtaining specialized film insurance and also covering production-specific risks such as IP infringement or equipment damage. Union Compliance:  Meeting compensation and working condition requirements under SAG-AFTRA, WGA, DGA, and Teamsters agreements. Distribution and Licensing:  Negotiating streaming, broadcast, and territorial rights with distributors. International Compliance:  Adhering to varying censorship and disclosure laws across global markets. Expect more athletic brands to establish in-house studios as this model redefines how sports narratives are shared. The benefits extend beyond marketing as these projects give the brands and athletes creative control, offer another source of revenue, and build unique connections with audiences that a commercial or ad simply cannot do. The association of a brand with a heartwarming story is enough to change customers’ minds and give a brand a chance, even if the product is not heavily featured.   In a rapidly evolving media landscape, the most successful brands may not just sponsor stories—they’ll create the means to tell them.   Andrew Gagnon is a licensed attorney in KS practicing labor law. He can be found on Twitter @A_Gagnon34 and LinkedIn as  Andrew Gagnon .

When NASCAR teams filed sweeping antitrust lawsuits in 2024, led by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, with support from the Race Team Alliance (RTA), they didn’t just challenge a sport’s business model. They put the entire franchise league power dynamic on trial. At stake is control over the economic engine of stock-car racing: the teams that build and race the cars, or the sanctioning body that owns the brand, the schedule, and the broadcast rights. These lawsuits, now moving forward in federal court, spotlight a deeper question: how much authority can a governing body exert over the independent entities that make its product possible? NASCAR’s centralized control over media, sponsorships, and competition rules has long been a point of tension. Now, it’s a matter of legal scrutiny. The Road to the Lawsuit In October 2024, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR, alleging that the sanctioning body’s control over media rights, sponsorships, and competition rules violates federal law by restraining trade and monopolizing the market for premier stock-car racing. The RTA, while not a named plaintiff, has long voiced similar concerns, and in 2025, it formally aligned itself with the suit’s objectives, submitting declarations and supporting the plaintiffs’ claims in court.  This shift marked a turning point. What began as a targeted legal challenge now reflects the grievances of nearly the entire Cup Series grid. NASCAR responded in April 2025 with a counterclaim accusing the teams of collusion and attempting to form a cartel. But in October, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell dismissed that counterclaim, allowing the teams’ Section 2 monopolization claims to proceed toward trial, now scheduled for December 1, 2025 ( ESPN , Oct. 31, 2025 ). According to   Fox Sports , NASCAR President Steve Phelps said the organization is “trying our hardest to settle” the dispute, emphasizing that the sanctioning body wants to “keep this family together.” But as litigation proceeds, the “family” looks more fractured than ever. - This quote confirms that teams within the RTA are supporting the lawsuit, and that NASCAR is trying to negotiate with them, not fight them all in court. What Teams Are Fighting For At its core, the lawsuit is about economics. Teams argue that NASCAR’s central control of media revenue leaves them with too little to sustain operations, forcing a near-total dependence on corporate sponsorship. According to financial disclosures cited in the filings, Cup Series teams receive less than 25% of total industry revenue; a stark contrast to the 40–50% shares seen in the NFL and NBA. A key structural issue is NASCAR’s charter system, implemented in 2016. The system grants 36 teams guaranteed starting spots in races, functioning like franchise licenses; but without the equity value or permanence of true ownership. The RTA contends that the limited, revocable nature of these charters keeps teams economically dependent on NASCAR, restricting their ability to negotiate media or sponsorship deals independently. That imbalance, combined with rising operational costs and shrinking sponsor budgets, has left even major organizations in the red. ESPN  reporting revealed that some teams are losing upward of $10 million annually, a figure that underscores just how strained the current model has become. The RTA’s core argument is that NASCAR’s monopoly over commercial rights, including TV and streaming deals, locks them out of the profits their performance drives. Legal Stakes: The American Needle Parallel While no U.S. sports league has faced this level of antitrust scrutiny in years, the case echoes a landmark precedent: American Needle v. NFL  (2010). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that NFL teams could not claim “single-entity” protection when jointly licensing merchandise, opening the door for antitrust liability when leagues suppress team-level competition. NASCAR, like the NFL, has long operated as a centralized commercial entity. But unlike the NFL, its teams aren’t franchise owners; they’re effectively contractors. That distinction could make this lawsuit even more volatile. If the court determines NASCAR wields monopoly power over essential commercial markets (broadcasting, sponsorships, and licensing), the ruling could reshape how every major sports league negotiates media deals. Inside the Fallout The lawsuit has already reshaped the sport’s internal politics. The Drivers Advisory Council — a separate but influential body — released a statement calling for “unity and progress,” while cautioning that litigation risks “long-term damage to the ecosystem of the sport” ( Motorsport.com , Oct. 2025 ). NASCAR’s leadership, meanwhile, has sought to calm the storm. At the Phoenix race weekend, Phelps told Autoweek  that the sanctioning body was “fully committed to finding a long-term, sustainable business model for all stakeholders.” Still, behind the diplomacy lies an existential fight. For teams, this is about securing a fair share of a multibillion-dollar ecosystem. For NASCAR, it’s about defending the structure that gives it unparalleled control and arguably, its brand identity. What Comes Next With discovery underway and settlement talks reportedly active, the next several months could determine whether this becomes one of the most consequential sports law cases in decades or a negotiated truce. Either way, the lawsuit has already forced a reckoning: NASCAR’s business model, once seen as immutable, is now under the legal microscope. And if the teams succeed, or even force major concessions, it could set a precedent reaching far beyond Daytona. Every league that centralizes its commercial rights, from the PGA Tour to Formula 1, will be watching closely to see whether the courts decide that tradition and efficiency justify monopoly power, or that it’s time for a new balance between leagues and the teams that make them possible. Oliver Stevens 1L, Hofstra Law Linkedin

On a Saturday morning in October 2025, Dallas Mavericks guard Brandon Williams was on his way through  Terminal C of Dallas Fort Worth’s International Airport. As his suitcase traveled through TSA screening, it was flagged  by an agent, who identified a container that held something an incident report later described as “a green leafy substance.” The contents tested positive for THC and turned out to be marijuana. Williams claimed  that his manager was the one who packed his bag (and was thus responsible for the misstep), but the young guard was nonetheless arrested at the airport and charged with possession of less than two ounces of marijuana, an offense that is a misdemeanor in the state of Texas.   If this were a different era, Williams’ story may have ended  with a considerable suspension passed down by the league, a weighty fine, and an undeniable public relations crisis. Instead, the Mavericks player’s October 26 arrest only magnified a growing disconnect within professional sports: the tension between progressive league policies and a shifting patchwork of restrictive federal and state regulations.   From the perspective of the National Basketball Association (NBA), Williams’ alleged possession is a non-issue—at least officially. In 2023, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and the league were able to come to terms  on a new seven-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). One of the agreement’s most significant adjustments involved the removal  of marijuana from the league’s list of banned substances. The NBA has now formally  stopped randomized testing for cannabis, a move that effectively decriminalizes use  for its players.             Under the new CBA, marijuana is treated  much like alcohol. The only true path that the league has towards intervention  would be if a player were to show signs of addiction and dependency or if the individual were believed to be under the influence while acting in an official league or team capacity. The NBA’s policy shift is in line with broader societal acceptance  and a growing understanding that marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug. The change also brings the league in line  with other major sports leagues. For example, the NHL no longer punishes  players for positive marijuana tests, instead referring athletes whose readings contain “abnormally high levels” of THC to substance abuse programs. The MLB also removed  cannabis from their banned list in 2019, with the NFL now significantly limiting  their respective testing window to a two-week timeframe during training camp, having also replaced suspensions with fines.   However, these progressive policies are an idealistic bubble that bursts the moment a player steps into the wrong jurisdiction. While the NBA may not punish Williams for his marijuana possession , the state of Texas certainly can. Use of recreational marijuana remains  illegal in Texas, with the charges  faced by Williams (possession of less than two ounces) being a Class B misdemeanor carrying a potential penalty of 180 days in prison and a fine of up to $2,000. These potential punishments highlight the essence of the professional sports weed paradox: what may be permissible for an athlete in their capacity as an employee is still criminal  as a visitor or resident of the state of Texas.   The arrest  of the Mavericks guard itself was a product of this very jurisdictional clash. The TSA agent who originally spotted the marijuana container is a federal employee . Under federal law, cannabis is still  a Schedule I controlled substance, and U.S. airports are under federal jurisdiction. While TSA agents are primarily tasked with security and not drug enforcement, they have a standing policy  to notify local law enforcement when illegal drugs like Williams’ “green leafy substance” are discovered. Once the police were called, Texas state law took over, and Williams was placed into custody.   Brandon Williams’ situation differs significantly from the cautionary tales of the previous generation. One needs to look no further than Ricky Williams, the former Miami Dolphins running back and 1998 Heisman Trophy winner whose career in the NFL was repeatedly derailed  by punishments for positive cannabis tests. These infractions culminated in a one-year suspension  for the running back, forcing him to miss the entire 2006 season. At the time of Ricky Williams’ violation, professional sports leagues were functioning  under a framework that was punitive and harsh. While leagues today have moved  on, the law in many places has not.   Modern athletes face a stark geographic disparity  when it comes to marijuana regulation. More than 80% of teams across the four major American professional leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL) currently  play in locations where recreational or medical marijuana has been legalized. Players are now able to legally purchase cannabis in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Portland, creating a confusing legal minefield for players who travel constantly.   Texas is amongst a handful of states (including Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) that are home to major professional sports teams but do not have any broad laws legalizing  marijuana use. Thus, a player for the Mavericks is often governed by a set of laws that is entirely different from a player on the Sacramento Kings or Brooklyn Nets, simply based on the home address of their team.   The fallout following the arrest of Williams underscores that such situations may be the new normal for leagues around the country. The Mavericks declined  to comment on the legal matter faced by their guard, instead listing Williams as “questionable” for their next game due to “personal reasons,” which was the same designation  causing the guard to miss fixtures prior to his arrest becoming public. Notably, there was no league-issued suspension or team-issued condemnation reprimanding  Williams for his actions. Instead, all parties involved seemed to want to resolve the situation as quickly and quietly as possible.   The incident serves as a clear warning message to other players: changes to league policy will not grant immunity from the law. The NBA’s new rules  surrounding marijuana serve to protect players from their employer, not from the police. Individual athletes must now come to terms with an additional layer of personal responsibility, navigating not only the playbook of their team but also the contradictory and complex landscape of the twenty-nine-plus other cities they visit each season.   While Brandon Williams’ legal trouble is minor in the grand scheme of the criminal justice system (especially amidst headlines about FBI investigations  and federal charges ), it makes the perfect illustration for the awkward transition phase now faced by American marijuana policy. The world of sports has, in many ways, crossed the finish line, now viewing cannabis as an issue of personal choice  or wellness rather than athletic integrity. However, until alignment  between state and federal laws is reached, players will continue to be at risk of getting caught in a sticky gray area , with potential legal traps waiting at their next airport security checkpoint.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

Playing History Tyon Grant-Foster is no stranger to NCAA men’s basketball. Grant-Foster began his collegiate basketball career as a member of the class of 2018, playing two seasons at Indian Hills Community College (a non-NCAA institution) before transferring to Kansas for the 2020-2021 season. Following his stint at Kansas, Grant-Foster transferred to DePaul. During DePaul’s first game of the season, he collapsed. Grant-Foster’s next 16 months were full of medical testing and multiple heart surgeries, ultimately leading to a diagnosis of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.  Grant-Foster returned to the court for the 2023-2024 season playing for the Grand Canyon University Antelopes in Phoenix, Arizona. In his first season with the Lopes, he led the team to the NCAA tournament and its first tournament win over Saint Mary’s. Grant-Foster was the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) player of the year and averaged 14.8 points per game. He returned for the 2024-2025 season where he again led the Lopes to the NCAA tournament before transferring to Gonzaga for the 2025-2026 season.  NCAA Eligibility In NCAA athletics, athletes have five years to play four seasons of collegiate sports. Unfortunately, his life-saving heart surgery ate up a year of eligibility. Grant-Foster requested an eligibility waiver that would allow him to play at Gonzaga for the 2025-2026 season. The NCAA denied his waiver request. Gonzaga appealed and requested reconsideration, which was denied. Grant-Foster then filed suit in Spokane County Superior Court requesting a preliminary injunction that would allow him to play for the 2025-2026 season.  From the Basketball Court to the Courtroom On Wednesday, October 22 the NCAA filed a notice of removal, which was 24-hours before Grant-Foster’s preliminary injunction hearing. Grant-Foster’s attorneys timely filed a motion to remand. On Friday, October 24, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted Grant-Foster’s motion to remand. The Court stated that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the NCAA did not identify a single federal issue in the complaint. Thus, the injunction hearing was set to be heard in Spokane County Superior Court on Monday, October 27 with Judge Marla Polin.  In a 2.5 hour-long hearing on the preliminary injunction, Grant-Foster’s lawyers argued that Grant-Foster was being discriminated against by the NCAA because of his disability. Washington Court Rule 65  states that to prevail on a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff must show that (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party her or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the applicant’s claim that notice should not be required. Grant-Fosters attorneys argued that he is a member of a protected class, and that the NCAA cannot discriminate against him. In Washington state, it is unlawful for any person or institution operating a place of public accommodation — including public and private colleges — to discriminate based on the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability. In addition to the arguments that the NCAA was discriminating against Grant-Foster because of his disability, Grant-Foster’s main argument surrounded the blanket waiver allowing junior college athletes to have an extra year of eligibility if their eligibility was set to expire at the end of the 2024-2025 season. This was based on the decision from a District Court in Tennessee that granted quarterback Diego Pavia a preliminary injunction that allowed him to play a sixth season of college football.  The Verdict is In On the day of the injunction hearing, Gonzaga was set to play an exhibition game against Eastern Oregon. Judge Polin found that Grant-Foster is a member of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against because of his disability. She also said that Grant-Foster would be harmed if he did not play for Gonzaga this season, thus granting him an injunction. One hour after the hearing, Grant-Foster went straight from the courthouse to the Kennel, and started in the Bulldog’s exhibition game.  Shelby Stevens is a civil litigation attorney and is a graduate of Gonzaga University School of Law. She was most recently the Pacific Northwest law school representative for the Conduct Detrimental law student board from 2024-2025.

The announcement was meant to be a lucrative and symbolic planting of the flag. La Liga, the top fútbol league in Spain, was bringing a regular season match to the United States, with European giants FC Barcelona set  to face Villareal CF—not in Spain, but under the bright lights of Miami’s Hard Rock Stadium.   While it was not the first  attempt the league had made to cross the Atlantic, this time felt different. With strong backing  from a U.S.-based promoter named Relevent (controlled by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross) and La Liga president Javier Tebas, the move seemed all but destined to finally break into the coveted American market. This was a push that would help La Liga to chase  the global commercial dominance of the English Premier League (EPL) and assist Spanish football in connecting with a larger fanbase worldwide.   Instead, the game blew up in spectacular fashion.   On October 22, just weeks before tickets to the match were scheduled to go on sale, La Liga suddenly cancelled  the game. Relevent said  the official reason for cancellation was the “current uncertainty in Spain,” which meant it was impossible to stage such a huge event properly. To say that it was “uncertainty” would be a huge understatement. The plan was not just muddled  by logistics—it had also ignited a firestorm of opposition that exposed deep-seated discontent within Spanish football more broadly. Outraged players, protesting fans, and the league’s biggest powerhouse, Real Madrid, all united  to block the Miami game, but the impact of their efforts may be felt throughout Spain (and the sport in general) for months or even years to come.   Scheduling Issues Create a Powerful First Opponent Before the internal revolt in Spain reached its peak, La Liga’s Miami plan faced another significant (and uniquely American) problem: college football. The proposed December 20   date for the match would coincide  with the same weekend as the first round of the new twelve-team College Football Playoff (CFP). Hard Rock Stadium is also home to the University of Miami Hurricanes, who are having a strong season that would possibly get them a home playoff game—a development that would have put them in a direct scheduling conflict  with La Liga.   This hypothetical conflict  initiated a rapid scramble, with Hard Rock Stadium officials quickly concocting a framework to host an unprecedented doubleheader: a morning international match between Barcelona and Villareal (with a proposed 10:15 a.m. EST kickoff time to align with the Spanish time difference) and a potential Miami Hurricanes CFP contest later that very same night.   Quite understandably, the CFP was less than thrilled with this idea. It was reported  that they asked the university to find an alternative location, with Orlando’s Camping World Stadium being considered as a potential solution. While straightforward solutions existed, this logistical mess was the first sign of trouble for the La Liga match, demonstrating the sheer complication of shoehorning a high-profile European league fixture into a packed American sporting calendar. Despite these issues, the scheduling conflict would soon become far less relevant . While officials in Miami were trying to figure out turf management, executives in La Liga were attempting to curtail a brewing full-blown mutiny  over 4,000 miles away.   Players, Protests, and Manipulation: The Spanish Revolt Backlash to the game’s announcement in Spain was swift and severe, demonstrating  an open rebellion against the leadership of the league. First, the Spanish Footballer’s Association (AFE) announced their opposition to the proposed plan, citing  La Liga’s “lack of transparency, dialogue, and coherence.” This press release served as a call to action—across La Liga, coordinated protests began. At the beginning of each match, players from both teams stood at a standstill for fifteen seconds after the opening whistle of the game, marking  a powerful, silent, and unmistakable show of outward dissent towards the Miami plan. Fans attending the matches also reportedly chanted in opposition of the proposed game.   The players had clear grievances  about the match, feeling as though it distorted the league’s integrity. Moving a Villareal “home” game to a neutral continent was seen by many as a move that was egregious and unfair. Some, such as Real Madrid netminder Thibaut Courtois, called these concerns out directly, stating  that the move would “totally alter[] the competition.” Another crucial concern was player welfare, as Barcelona’s own Frenkie de Jong criticized  the plan’s imposition of additional transcontinental travel, fearing that it would contribute to increased player fatigue—a result that would be “not good for the players.”   The situation escalated even further after La Liga was accused of trying to censor the protests, reportedly  requesting that league broadcast partners avoid showing the fifteen-second mutinies. These instructions were largely successful, as several matches featured cuts to wide-angle shots of the stadium exterior or center circle, views that deliberately avoided images of the twenty-two players standing motionless. However, this move clearly backfired, sparking strong accusations of authoritarian control and further criticism  from prominent players like Courtois. Fan groups, including the association for the main Spanish supporters (FASFE), joined  fan groups from Villareal and Barcelona (amongst other clubs) to unambiguously articulate their opposition to La Liga’s international plans.   Real Madrid’s Power Play These collective actions by fans and players created a public relations crisis for La Liga, but perhaps their most formidable opposition was working diligently behind the scenes. Led by club president Florentino Perez, Real Madrid also stood  in opposition to the move to Miami. While Madrid was strongly against the match, seeing  the game as an “unacceptable precedent,” their discontentment was also part of a far larger power struggle between Perez and La Liga’s Tebas.   To block the match, Real Madrid filed  two official complaints with the Higher Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes, or CSD) of Spain, asking the government to grant them injunctive relief. In their request, Perez and Madrid argued  that La Liga did not have the right to take a domestic regular-season game overseas and that allowing them to do so would damage the league’s integrity as well as that of the competition.   Madrid’s statements extended far beyond mere bad press, contributing directly to the “uncertainty in Spain” referenced by Relevent. This was a direct political and legal threat from the most powerful member of La Liga. After Real Madrid sent a formal petition to the government for them to intervene and block the move, the entire Miami project found itself on shaky legal footing.   A Chaotic Collapse Despite this backdrop, the announcement to cancel the game still created shockwaves within La Liga, leaving many in the league stunned. The news was released with an embarrassing and chaotic sadness, surprising even the clubs and coaches that were directly involved. Team staffers and executives for Villareal were notified  of the news during halftime of their Champions League match against Manchester City. The haphazard way the league chose to inform Villareal lead their coach, Marcelino, to blast  the timing of the news in his post-game press conference.   The same confusion also played out in Barcelona, where the head coach, Hansi Flick, was told of the news soon after leaving a post-game presser of his own. More concerningly, the change of heart left FC Barcelona president Joan Laporta looking completely blindsided. Just hours before the match was officially cancelled, he had defiantly  told the press that despite the arguments of Real Madrid, he would be in Miami on December 20 to watch his team play.   While La Liga and Tebas released a statement  detailing their regrets about the “missed opportunity,” the damage had already been done. The Hard Rock Stadium game was dead  before it even arrived. In the end, it wasn’t dethroned by a scheduling conflict with the CFP but by a civil war within La Liga’s own ranks. The dream of a Spanish league match on American soil is likely far from over, as the financial incentives  for the league are too astronomical to ignore. However, the debacle in Miami will serve as an embarrassing  and costly lesson for Javier Tebas and La Liga: global expansion cannot be confused with a dictatorship .    Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

A Florida jury has delivered  a $50 million verdict for golf icon Jack Nicklaus in his defamation lawsuit against Nicklaus Companies, LLC, and other related entities. The landmark verdict, following  nearly four hours of deliberation in a Palm Beach County courtroom, finally brings the 85-year-old legend professional and personal vindication after a long, arduous legal process.   The Fuss Surrounding Nicklaus’ Name, Reputation, and LIV Golf Accusations The origin of this lawsuit stems  from a complicated business and legal past between Nicklaus himself and the company bearing his name. Nicklaus and businessman Howard Milstein originally formed  Nicklaus Cos. as a branding and licensing company, but issues  began to develop over company control and noncompete agreements, and image and likeness rights and licenses.   Nicklaus’ noncompete clause binding him to the company was nearing its expiration in 2022 when Nicklaus Cos. filed  a lawsuit against him in New York, alleging that Nicklaus had breached several contractual obligations through engagement with Saudi backers related to LIV Golf, a Saudi-funded league rivalling the PGA Tour and shaking the very foundation of the professional golf industry. In May 2023, Nicklaus responded  by filing a different suit in Florida, where he claimed that the statements made in the New York lawsuit were defamatory and false. The supposed lies told by Nicklaus Cos. were : (1) That Nicklaus was of impaired capacity to conduct his own business matters due to potential dementia and limited mental capacity; (2) That Nicklaus had entered into or considered a clandestine $750 million deal with LIV Golf; and (3) That Nicklaus Cos. had to intervene in order to rescue Nicklaus from the aforementioned interests.   Ultimately, Nicklaus and his legal team successfully argued  this false narrative was intended to cast doubt on Nicklaus’ loyalty to the PGA Tour, tarnish his reputation, and shift public perception of his character ahead of future disputes about his ability to use his name, image, and likeness independently. Verdict and Legal Ramifications In reaching their decision, the jury ultimately found that Nicklaus Cos. had engaged in false publication of statements that were damaging to Nicklaus’ reputation, exposing  him to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust, or contempt,” thus satisfying the threshold for defamation under Florida law. The fact that Nicklaus was awarded  the full $50 million sought underscores the strong harm the jury found him to have suffered. Notably, the jury declined  to assign personal liability to Milstein or other individuals, as they found that the company’s actions could not be verifiably traced back to a direct participant in publishing the defamatory statements about Nicklaus.   The decision is a resounding victory for Nicklaus after years of business and legal tension over control of his name and legacy. Prior rulings included a July 2024 arbitration in Florida, where Nicklaus was found  to no longer be restricted by his Nicklaus Cos. noncompete clause—a decision allowing him to resume independent golf course design work. Further, a New York judge in early 2025 held  that Nicklaus was entitled to his own name and image but the Nicklaus Cos. could maintain trademark rights in their name. Significance of the Case and What’s Next This ruling is a rare victory for a prominent plaintiff who makes defamation claims, particularly in a situation where the public figure is  85 years old. It is notoriously difficult to prove defamation under US law, most notably for public figures, due to the “actual malice” standard , which requires demonstrating that false information was distributed in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth of the matter.   This win goes far beyond dollar signs for Nicklaus. The court’s decision may also help him to solidify his grasp over the ways his name and legacy are able to be used going forward. The jury’s verdict sends a message that even when an individual shares their name with a prominent corporate entity, the person behind the name can push back on diminishing or distorted narratives under the right circumstances.   The decision may not be the last we hear about this case, as the defendants are highly likely to appeal. It’s also worth mentioning that to collect or enforce a $50 million judgment  can be a lengthy legal process in its own right, even in a matter involving a high-profile company like Nicklaus Cos. The fight  over licensing, trademarks, and the use of the Nicklaus name rages on in a number of courts. Despite the threat of ongoing litigation, Jack Nicklaus’ Florida win is a strong victory for reputation rights and personal control over his own name. It is an especially important ruling  in a world where sports, branding, and corporations are increasingly intertwined.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

Professional wrestler Andrade El Idolo was released from World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in September 2025 following multiple reported wellness policy violations. He returned to rival promotion All Elite Wrestling (AEW) on the October 1 edition of their weekly television program Dynamite . However, he has yet to be seen again on television. Wrestling Observer’s Bryan Alvarez confirmed that WWE sent legal notice to AEW asserting that Andrade remains subject to a one-year non-compete clause because he was terminated “for cause.” AEW President Tony Khan has since declined to comment substantively on Andrade’s contractual status, stating only that he has “a ton of respect” for the wrestler and is “excited to see what’s next for him.” Reports indicate that Andrade is currently consulting with legal counsel and may challenge WWE’s enforcement of the clause. Under WWE’s updated TKO-era contracts, performers fired for cause or breach of contract are now subject to a one-year non-compete restriction. This is in stark contrast to WWE’s longstanding practice of imposing 90-day paid non-competes, during which released wrestlers would receive compensation. The new clause reportedly states that upon termination for breach, the wrestler “shall not work, appear, or perform in any capacity” for any wrestling, sports entertainment, or mixed martial arts organization in the United States for up to one year. Alvarez emphasized that while the clause has existed in some older contracts, it is now “standard” across all new TKO deals. Fightful Select corroborated these reports but noted that “if fought in court, this would almost certainly be thrown out.” Non-compete agreements in the United States generally require fair compensation during the restrictive period. Michael Morales, a legal analyst interviewed by Lucha Libre Online , explained that while non-competes lasting six months to two years are considered reasonable under Connecticut, Florida, and federal law, they must be accompanied by payment. “You can’t have a non-compete without compensation,” Morales stated. “Otherwise, it’s technically slavery, and slavery isn’t legal in the U.S. or anywhere else.” He clarified the distinction between a suspension (where the contract remains active, but the employee is temporarily barred from work) and a non-compete (where the contract has ended but the individual is restricted from working elsewhere). In Andrade’s case, if WWE terminated his contract and is now preventing him from working without providing compensation, the arrangement likely violates basic employment law principles. Connecticut law, the jurisdiction where WWE is headquartered, requires that non-compete agreements be reasonable in duration and geographic scope, as well as protect legitimate business interests. Courts in the state assess whether the restriction imposes an excessive restraint on the employee’s ability to earn a living. An unpaid one-year ban on a professional wrestler pursuing his occupation would almost certainly fail this test. WWE’s classification of wrestlers as independent contractors rather than employees creates a vulnerability for enforcement of the non-compete clause. WWE has maintained this classification for decades, despite exclusive contracts that restrict wrestlers from working for other promotions, mandatory appearance schedules, and extensive control over performance and character development. All of these are considered hallmarks of an employment relationship. The IRS uses a common-law test focused on the degree of control the company exercises over the worker. Factors such as exclusive contracts, company-dictated schedules, and prohibition on outside work strongly suggest employee status. This classification becomes particularly problematic when WWE attempts to enforce restrictive covenants. WWE cannot credibly maintain both that its wrestlers are independent contractors and that it can unilaterally prevent them from working for a full year after termination. WWE has attempted to enforce aggressive non-compete clauses before and lost. In 2005, Brock Lesnar filed a lawsuit in federal court in Connecticut seeking a declaration that his non-compete agreement with WWE was unenforceable. After Lesnar’s departure from WWE in 2004, the company attempted to enforce a non-compete that would have prevented him from working in professional wrestling or mixed martial arts until June 2010, effectively a six-year restriction. Lesnar argued that the restriction was not reasonably tailored to protect WWE’s legitimate business interests and imposed an excessive restraint on his ability to support himself and his family. WWE ultimately settled the case in 2006, allowing Lesnar to return to professional wrestling with New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW) and begin his professional mixed martial arts career. The Andrade case presents a similar scenario. If WWE seeks to enforce a one-year unpaid restriction, Andrade’s legal team will likely argue, as Lesnar did, that the clause is overly broad, oppressive, and inequitable under Connecticut law. While the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed rule banning most non-compete agreements was struck down in 2024 and the agency has since withdrawn its appeal, the FTC has signaled that it will continue to pursue enforcement actions against unfair non-compete practices on a case-by-case basis. In September 2025, the FTC filed a complaint against a pet cremation company for imposing one-year nationwide non-competes on nearly all employees regardless of position, similar to WWE’s approach. The FTC’s continued focus on non-competes in low- and mid-wage industries suggests that aggressive restrictions in the entertainment sector could draw regulatory scrutiny, particularly when imposed on workers classified as independent contractors who lack traditional employee protections. For the wrestling industry, the Andrade case could establish important precedent. If Andrade successfully challenges WWE’s clause, it may embolden other wrestlers to contest similar restrictions and could pressure WWE to reconsider its contract practices. However, if WWE prevails, it could signal a shift toward greater corporate control over talent mobility in professional wrestling. WWE’s attempt to enforce a one-year non-compete against Andrade El Idolo represents a notable escalation in the company’s contractual control over talent. While TKO’s corporate restructuring may have emboldened WWE to standardize such aggressive clauses, the legal foundation for enforcement is questionable. Non-compete agreements require fair compensation, must be reasonable in scope and duration, and cannot impose excessive restraints on an individual’s livelihood. If Andrade proceeds with litigation, this case could reshape how wrestling contracts are structured and force a long-overdue reckoning with WWE’s classification of its performers. Calvin Holle is a 3L at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.  He can be found on LinkedIn and X .

The Timeline of Expansion  The women’s rugby movement started with the first match ever recorded in Cardiff Arms Park, Wales in 1917. This match was played by two all women teams as a charity fundraiser for troops during World War I. At that time, women participating in traditionally male sports was frowned upon, so the movement fizzled out once troops returned from the war.   There was a resurgence of women’s rugby in the 1970s and 80s when women began to seriously challenge gender roles in male dominated fields. The Women’s Ruby Union was formed in 1983 and the United Kingdom and France both created their own teams. The Women’s Rugby World Cup was played in 1991, although the match was not officially recognized by the union. Nevertheless, the match gained incredible worldwide recognition.   The 1990s and the early 2000s proved to be groundbreaking for the sport. The International Rugby Board in 1994 officially instituted the Women’s Rugby World Cup which gave the match the credibility it deserved. In 1996, the Women’s Six Nations Championship put extremely talented women rugby players from England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales on an international stage, igniting more interest in the sport. The surge continued in the Rio Olympics in 2016 when Australia and New Zealand faced off in a 7v7 match. Australia defeated New Zealand in a close 24-17 match to win the first ever gold medal for women’s rugby in the Olympics. After this event, approximately 16.83 million people were added to the fanbase nationwide. When the Olympics hosted the women’s rugby matches again, this time in France of 2024, about 66,000 fans attended which is the largest attendance a match has ever seen.   The United States joined the movement in 2024 when the Women’s Elite Rugby professional league was founded. The Women’s Rugby World Cup will now feature a total of 16 teams.   The “Ilona Maher Effect” Ilona Maher is an American superstar on and off the rugby pitch. Maher won a bronze medal for Team USA in the Olympics and is a fierce professional rugby player for the Bristol Bears. Maher partnered with Alan Bernsten to compete on Dancing with the Stars where they came in 2 nd place. Maher has a huge social media following and several major brand deals with L'Oréal, Paula’s Choice, Secret, and Adidas. Maher is currently working with Adidas to create a women’s shoe to wear on the rugby pitch. Maher also announced a partnership with Barbie to create a doll that showcases her physique and represents female athletes in toys. The doll will be available to purchase some time in 2026.   Maher’s message is to break social barriers in male dominated sports by embracing yourself and to be confident in your body. Maher is unapologetic about being herself with her signature bright red lipstick look in her videos and appearances. Maher believes that a woman can show strength and follow her passion without sacrificing her femininity.   This is a strong message for any female athlete in a traditionally male sport because of the mistaken belief that a woman showing strength and a woman having femininity are mutually exclusive. Maher and other female athletes continue to instill confidence in female athletes to play that sport because showing strength and confidence does not decrease your femininity.   The “Ilona Maher effect” is a term used to describe Maher’s spark in breaking the gender barriers in sports traditionally played by men. Glossier in 2022 became the official makeup brand for the WNBA. Kim Kardashian’s brand SKIMS jumped on board as well to provide clothing for the NBA and WNBA teams. In 2024, the F1 Academy was created for female race car drivers. Charlotte Tilbury chose the F1 Academy to be their first ever global sports sponsorship where the brand provided a car, suit, helmet, and a makeup team for the athletes. It is exciting to see brands supporting women that play many kinds of sports.

After an arbitration ruling by distinguished sports attorney and former NBA executive Jeffrey Mishkin, Los Angeles Clippers forward Derrick Jones Jr. will have to pay his former agent Aaron Turner of Verus Sports a 4% commission ($1.2 million) on the three-year, $30 million contract Jones signed with the Clippers in July of 2024 during the NBA offseason. The 2020 NBA Slam Dunk Contest winner had a career year statistically  for the Dallas Mavericks in the 2023-24 NBA season in which Jones was a key piece in helping the Mavericks reach the 2024 NBA Finals, starting in 66 games out of the 76 games he played in, averaging 8.6 points and shooting 34.3% from three-point land which were all career highs for Jones at that point. Jones’ career year with the Mavericks in 2023-24 earned him a hefty pay raise for the contract he signed with the Clippers up from the one-year $2.7 million veteran’s minimum contract he signed with the Mavericks in the 2023 NBA offseason. But at dispute in this case was whether Jones owed any of the $30 million contract to his former agent that Jones says he directly negotiated with the Clippers last year. Jones signed a Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC) with Turner back in 2016. Specifically, paragraph 6 of the SPAC states that a player or agent can terminate the agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all provided that “effective 15 days after written notice of termination is given to the other party.” Allegedly , on June 21, 2024, after the Mavericks had lost to the Boston Celtics in the 2024 NBA Finals, the Mavericks offered Jones, through his agent Turner, a three-year, $27 million contract. Jones was unhappy with this offer as he expected a higher figure. Jones testified that Turner told him his market would be somewhere around the area of a four-year, $45 million contract. Turner denies making such a statement to Jones. With Jones being dissatisfied with Turner’s representation, Jones sent Turner an email on June 26, 2024, saying he was terminating their SPAC. Two days later Jones asked Turner to waive the 15-day notice, but Tuner declined. Even though the SPAC was still operative, Jones at that point was without Turner’s representation negotiating for him and bringing him team offers. Jones was talking to other agents during the 2024 playoffs, ultimately signing with Klutch Sports Group. Eventually contract talks with the Mavericks fell through, but   the Clippers offered Jones a three-year, $30 million contract. With the Clippers making this same offer to another player, time was of the essence; both players were told that the first to accept the offer would receive it. Jones testified that the Clippers came directly to him with the offer and that although the NBPA was on the phone with Jones “for help,” Jones negotiated the deal himself. Jones ended up accepting this offer from the Clippers and signed with them on July 9, 2024. Turner was represented by prominent sports attorney Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal, and through Heitner, Turner made convincing key arguments that swayed Mishkin to rule in his favor. First, Turner argued that the SPAC was operative when Jones signed with the Clippers, entitling him to his commission. The termination notice was sent to Turner on June 26, 2024, and was effective July 11, 2024. Jones signed with the Clippers on July 9, 2024, 13 days after the termination notice was sent which would fall within the 15-day notice period.   The SPAC remained in force on July 9, 2024, when Jones signed with the Clippers. Second, Turner contends that his negotiations with the Mavericks were instrumental in securing Jones’ three-year, $30 million contract with the Clippers. Although being $3 million more, Turner argued that the Clippers offer was essentially equivalent to the three-year, $27 million offer the Mavericks made to Jones. Turner accounted for California state taxes and cost of living compared to Texas which has no state income tax. Additionally, Turner argued that although he did not represent Jones in any negotiations after June 26, 2024, Jones still benefitted from and used, Tuner’s assistance, advice, and counseling in his negotiations with the Clippers. Specifically, Turner’s negotiations with the Mavericks and Turner’s work to determine Jones’ value in the NBA free agency market. Jones, represented by Drew Tulumello and Zachary Schreiber of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Andrew Latack of Klutch Sports Group, offered several counterarguments. Jones argued that exigent circumstances justified shortening the 15-day notice requirement. Jones asserted that he should not be penalized due to the Mavericks making it all the way to the NBA Finals which ran so close to the start of free agency, a schedule which was out of Jones’ control. Jones also asserted that the notice period is meant to protect the player and not the agent. Jones’ other main argument was that Turner is not entitled to his commission because Turner did not engage in any discussions or conduct “individual compensation negotiations” with the Clippers on Jones’ behalf. According to Jones, “NBPA jurisprudence is clear that an agent is only entitled to a commission on an executed contract that he actually negotiates.” Because Turner did not negotiate and actually execute the contract Jones signed with the Clippers, he is not entitled to compensation as Jones allegedly negotiated the Clippers contract he signed himself. In siding with Turner, Mishkin decided that the termination of the SPAC was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Therefore, the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into the contract with the Clippers. Mishkin also was not persuaded by Jones’ argument that exigent circumstances existed to warrant shortening the 15-day window. Even though the Mavericks made a deep playoff run in 2024 which prevented Jones from making decisions regarding his representation earlier, Jones still could have fired Turner earlier. Mishkin brought up Jones’ own testimony that by 2023, he had grown dissatisfied with Turner’s representation and contemplated firing him. Mishkin also highlighted that Jones’ argument is further undermined by his testimony that he was communicating with other agents during the playoffs. Mishkin also disagreed with Jones’ narrow view of agent services. Conducting individual compensation negotiations with NBA teams is one of several duties described as “contract services” under the SPAC. Mishkin went on to say that “Jones’s unduly narrow view of compensable services would lead to the absurd result that an agent who diligently assists, advises and counsels a player and represents the player in negotiations would not be entitled to any compensation if the player was offered a contract directly by a club and no negotiation over the terms of the contract took place.” Mishkin stated that so long as an agent is fulfilling his duties under the terms of the SPAC, whether the agent or the player is the one to receive the offer from the NBA team that the player accepts and signs with is not dispositive of an agent’s entitlement to compensation. And here, Mishkin found that Turner contractually performed his duties. In conclusion, Mishkin was convinced that Turner diligently represented Jones and continued to follow his obligations even after Jones notified him that he was terminating their SPAC. Mishkin stated that while it was Jones’ absolute right to terminate the relationship with Turner, under the express terms of the SPAC that termination was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Because the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into his contract with the Clippers, Turner is entitled to a fee of 4% of that contract under the SPAC. Jones could petition a federal court to vacate Mishkin’s decision and arbitration award, but it is highly unlikely that a judge would overturn Miskin’s arbitration award. When it comes to arbitration awards in professional sports, there is precedent  stating that, “Arbitration awards are generally presumed valid, review is ‘extremely deferential,’ and vacatur is appropriate only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” Considering Mishkin’s broad experience on sports law and NBA related legal matters, it’s hard to see a judge vacating his arbitration award in favor of Turner. This player-agent dispute highlights the regulations and rules that NBA players and NBA agents must follow under the NBPA SPAC, which governs the legal relationship between a player and his agent. Specifically, this dispute shows the commissions that agents are righteously owed when properly performing services under the SPAC. Further, this dispute highlights the arbitration process as the method for resolving  any and all disputes in SPAC’s between player agents and individual players as an NBPA SPAC contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Romen Richardson is a 3L at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC. Romen is currently the President of Howard Law’s Sports & Entertainment Law Students Association (SELSA). Romen aspires to be a prominent sports & entertainment attorney after graduating law school, and also hopes to one day be an NBA Agent. You can follow Romen here on LinkedIn .

Where it Began Women’s flag football has been around since the 1970s, but it has never really gained much traction until now. The amount of recognition flag football has received has grown exponentially within the last few years.   Growth in Schools Florida was the first state to recognize girls flag football as a high school sport about 20 years ago. Since then, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Arkansas, Alabama, and California have all followed suit.   The sport saw its biggest surge starting in 2020 when the NAIA came together with the NFL to officially recognize flag football as a collegiate sport. By 2023, almost half a million girls between the ages of 6-17 played a season of flag football across the country. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics declared women’s flag football as an emerging sport in 2020 and expects it to be an invitational sport for the 2025-26 season. The NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics to add women’s flag football to the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women Program across all divisions.   Global Recognition Women’s flag football was played for the first time at The World Games in 2022 where 16 teams across the world, including Team USA, were able to compete and raise awareness on a global stage. After the successful debut, flag football returned to the World Games in 2025 with over 100 countries having a flag football team. Flag football will also be included for the first time in the 2028 Olympics hosted in Los Angeles. With these additions, flag football athletes will have more opportunities to perform at the highest levels as the sport continues to grow rapidly across the globe.   NIL Deals As popularity continues to grow for women’s flag football, standout athletes in the sport are earning NIL deals with major brands. Among the stars in flag football, Janasia Wilson, Diana Flores, and Ashlea Klam are forerunners in receiving deals for flag football.   Janasia Wilson, a talented athlete from Irvington High School, signed the first Nike deal for girl’s flag football. Dazed Studio ran a campaign for the reintroduction of one of Nike’s sneakers called the “Field General” where Nike athletes were selected based on being a leader in their prospective sport. Wilson was chosen along with Colin Kaepernick and Kayvon Thibodeaux to showcase the sneaker. Wilson also appeared on a Nike advertisement with NFL star Josh Allen, amongst other athletes, to showcase the sport. Wilson continues to raise awareness for flag football through Nike and represent her hometown Irvington.   Diana Flores is the team captain and quarterback for the Mexican national team. Flores won two national college championships and then went on to win the world flag football championship in the 2022 World Games. Flores continued to make headlines when she accepted the first flag football Global Ambassador position for Under Armour. In this role, Flores will be able to showcase her own skills and bring the sport to other countries which is a huge step for flag football.   Ashlea Klam, is a talented wide receiver for the U.S. National Team and Keiser University. Klam helped the U.S. National Team win the IFAF Women’s Flag Football World Championship in 2024. Klam has signed a few deals including the data-based analytics platform called scoutSMART and the head gear brand SYZMIK. The scoutSMART platform takes player data and analyzes the level of play a coach can expect from an athlete. With this deal, women’s flag football is now part of their database. In addition, Klam can be seen wearing her SYZMIK headband to prevent or lessen the impact of head injuries while playing. Lastly, Klam was named a Global Ambassador for the Houston Texans where she further promotes the sport.    The Future is Female Women’s flag football continues to expand throughout the country and globally. With major advocates such as the NFL and major brands like Nike and Under Armour, women have the stage to gain the recognition they deserve. As this expansion continues, more women will be able to have the opportunity to compete at the high school level, collegiate level, and even professionally. Funding will be more available as schools continue to add flag football programs and popularity continues to soar. Women’s flag football is certainly here to stay.

One of the better developments in college baseball over the last few years is the proliferation of coaching staffs and the advent of a third paid assistant coach. For decades, NCAA Division I staffs had been limited to a full-time head coach and two full-time assistant coaches while also customarily adding a volunteer position. This volunteer position came with no benefits, often no housing, and usually offered only limited money via a program's offseason camps and/or clinics.   As a result, numerous volunteer coaches, filed suit in November 2022 under the caption Smart v. NCAA , alleging that NCAA rules and member‑school practices restrained competition in violation of the Sherman Act by effectively fixing their compensation at zero, The coaches, through their representation, showed the court that the NCAA, by forcing programs to hire ‘unpaid’ assistants, tested these principles, while also creating hardships for aspiring young coaches looking to break into the coaching industry.   In response to mounting pressure and litigation, the NCAA rescinded the volunteer‑coach classification policy in 2023 with the effective date being July of that year. The settlement class covers volunteer coaches who held these positions between November 29, 2018 and July 1, 2023. This class is estimated at approximately 1,000 members and distribution among class members is based on a formula taking into account years of service and institutional affiliation. Judge William Shubb (E.D. Cal.) had given preliminary approval of the settlement earlier in the year and later held a fairness hearing to evaluate whether final approval was warranted.   Accordingly, the court recently granted approval to the settlement. Under the agreement, the NCAA will pay approximately $49.25 million in aggregate. Of the total $49.25 million, about $32 million to $33 million is allocated to class member payments. The remainder covers attorneys’ fees, costs for the claims administrator, economists, and a modest contingency fund. Some commentary indicates that each coach may receive an average of around $36,000, though in practice payments will vary (some coaches at larger institutions or with longer tenures may receive higher awards). The plaintiffs’ counsel reportedly invested over 7,400 hours in the case and intend to seek fees of around $16.4 million (i.e. ~33.3% of the fund).   Judge Shubb, in granting approval, recognized both the strengths and uncertainties of the NCAA’s defense and noted that the settlement captures over 90% of the claimed damages—a favorable recovery in an antitrust class setting. From the NCAA’s vantage point, settling obviates the risk of a full trial loss (with potential treble damage exposure under Section 4 of the Clayton Act) and avoids further reputational and financial exposure. The NCAA continues to deny liability, asserting that the volunteer‑coach bylaw did not violate antitrust law and instead created opportunities for coaches. While the outcome of this case is obviously good news in and of itself for coaches and college baseball as a whole, the fact that more coaches now have the opportunity to pursue their “dream job” of coaching the sport at the Division I level is significant. In the past, the scarcity of paid positions likely swayed qualified rising coaches away from the profession. With the advent third paid assistant as well as other support staff positions being more prevalent across the country, coaches who may have pursued other careers may be more likely to stay in college baseball.   It’s no secret that the changing landscape of college athletics has led many prominent coaches to retire earlier than some may have expected. We’ve recently seen Hall of Fame caliber coaches like Nick Saban, Mike Jay Wright, Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Tony Bennett, and Bruce Pearl step away from their respective jobs. It would be naïve to believe the heightened demands of NIL, the transfer portal, and roster retention played no role in those retirements. Therefore, removing another “barrier” like the lack of compensation for up-and-coming coaches is a necessary step to ensure we continue to see the most qualified individuals running programs across all of college sports.   Brendan Bell is a 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law and  can be found on X @_bbell5

In August 2025 , Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores scored a significant procedural victory in his discrimination lawsuit against three of the National Football League’s (NFL) teams (Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District denied the NFL’s request to compel arbitration and found that the NFL’s arbitration process contains serious flaws, including that it permit s  commissioner Roger Goodell to serve as the arbitrator. This landmark decision opposes the NFL’s standard procedures of funneling employee disputes into private arbitration.    A History of The Claims:  In February 2022,  a fter being terminated as the head coach of the Miami Dolphins, Brian Flores filed a lawsuit against the NFL for alleged racial discrimination in the NFL’s hiring process. Though Miami went 24-25 in his most recently concluded season,   Flores was still relieved of his position a s head coach . After termination, Flores applied to the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans for the same position previously held with Miami.   Although Flores possesses a long history of successful coaching and has fourteen years  of experience , he was denied the position by all three teams in 2022. Flores coached with the  New England Patriots   in several different positions from 2008 to 2018, where he helped coach the team to four Super Bowl Championships and worked with the legendary Bill Belichick.   Flores has been open in stating how the NFL is racially segregated in certain aspects. He has called attention to the fact that, out of its thirty-two owners, none are Black. Flores also stated his belief that the interviews he received with other teams were to satisfy the NFL’s  Rooney Rule . This mandates that every team “ must interview   a minority candidate for head coach, general manager, and top assistant coach positions.” The NFL implemented these rules in   2003 in   an effort to increase diversity amongst the high positions within the NFL.   An Eye-opening Text:  Prior to his interview with the Giants, Flores received a text from Bill Belichick. The following is how the conversation is described within the lawsuit through screenshots. “Sounds like you have landed – congrats!!” Belichick texted to Flores. “Did you hear something I didn’t hear?” Flores replied. Belichick responded, “Giants?!?!?!” Flores responded, “I interview on Thursday. I think I have a shot at it.” “Got it – I hear from Buffalo & NYG that you are their guy,” Belichick replied. Later, seeking clarification, Flores texted, “Coach, are you talking to Brian Flores or Brian Daboll? “Just making sure.” “Sorry… I doubled-checked & I misread the text. I think they are naming Daboll. I’m sorry about that. BB” After this confusing conversation, Flores then conducted his interview a few days later with a full understanding that he has minimal odds of being offered this position. The NFL’s Push for Arbitration: The NFL moved to compel arbitration, noting this standard in coaching contracts.   In 2023,  District Court Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that Flores’s claims against the Dolphins, as well as claims brought by co-plaintiffs and former coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton against their former employers (the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans) must be pursued through arbitration based on the coaches’ contracts.    However, Flores did not have contracts with the Broncos, Giants, and Texans. Caproni ruled that Flores could proceed with his claims through trial rather than arbitration. This was further upheld by the Second Circuit in August 2025. The Second Circuit expressed its dissatisfaction with the NFL’s arbitration provision. The court stated that this provision  “ contractually provides for no independent arbitral forum, no bilateral dispute resolution, and no procedure. Instead, it offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence by forcing claims to be decided by the NFL's principal executive officer.” The Second Circuit criticized the NFL’s arbitration as an “ arbitration in name only.” Should the Second Circuit’s Reasoning be Applied to the Miami Case? In September 2025, Flores and his co-plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit requesting reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision to arbitrate their claims against the teams they specifically worked for. They argue that the recent ruling in August, which allows claims against the Giants, Broncos, and Texans to proceed in court, should also apply to their remaining claims based on the reasoning the Second Circuit stated. Flores stated that the prior ruling  “ constitutes definitive controlling law.” The Fight for Change: Flores is hoping to lead a change within the NFL in terms of racial discrimination. “ The people  who make the decisions and the people who are working – the players, 70% are Black, and the people who are making decisions, the majority are White… what we are trying to do with this lawsuit is really create change. I think that people talk about it. We implement a policy here, a policy there. I’m not looking for fluff policies.” After filing this  lawsuit, Flores expressed that he understands the risk of losing the coaching career he loves. However, he insists it would be worth the loss for generations to come if he could succeed in challenging this systemic racism. Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .