There have never been more eyes on women’s sports—particularly women’s basketball. The WNBA offseason is in full swing, with teams handing out core designations and attempting to trade big-name talents . The league’s upcoming CBA negotiations (initiated after the WNBPA exercised their opt-out following this past season) will rightfully garner headlines amidst looming concerns of a potential work stoppage. Meanwhile, a new league, Unrivaled , tipped off January 17. Even the college game is riding the wave of this surging popularity, with players breaking barriers in the world of name, image, and likeness (NIL) and putting up ridiculous scoring numbers . This meteoric rise in visibility has come with significant challenges, too—particularly in a disturbing new incident with the WNBA’s latest sensation, Caitlin Clark, which highlights the shocking lack of player safety protocols throughout women’s basketball. Was this the scare that will be the turning point for the sport, or will it take yet another dangerous encounter involving some of the game’s biggest stars before meaningful change will emerge?   Dangerous Consequences of Growing Popularity The perils of an increased spotlight became alarmingly clear this past weekend, as a Texas man was arrested in Indianapolis (where Clark’s team, the Indiana Fever, plays) after making a series of threatening tweets directed at Clark over the past month. The 55-year-old man allegedly made threats of sexual violence against the young star and drove from Texas to Indiana, where he claimed he would be “sitting behind the bench” to see her and that he was “driving around [her] house 3x a day.” The WNBA Rookie of the Year allegedly had to change her public appearances and travel schedule to ensure her safety. While it was alleged in court this week that police warned the man to stop harassing Clark, it was apparently to no avail. When confronted by the authorities, the man claimed to be in an “imaginary relationship” with the Fever centerpiece. If convicted, the man could face up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Perhaps more shocking than the messages themselves was the reaction of the alleged stalker upon entering the courtroom, yelling, “Guilty as charged,” and, “Throw me the booky!” The presiding judge ultimately decided to hold the man on $50,000 bail, ordering him not to contact Clark and to stay away from Gainbridge Fieldhouse and Hinkle Fieldhouse (the two professional basketball arenas in Indianapolis).   There’s no doubt this incident was terrifying. It was also—unfortunately—far from the first of its kind. UConn sensation Paige Bueckers was subject to similar treatment just a few months ago after a forty-year-old Oregon man traveled to Connecticut “to propose to Bueckers and to get her expelled from UConn.” Bueckers had been in contact with the police after fearing for the safety of friends and family because of the messages she was receiving from her stalker, with the man ultimately receiving a one-year suspended sentence (which includes a three-year probation period where he is barred from the state of Connecticut). In June, Chennedy Carter and her Chicago Sky teammates were harassed by a man outside their team hotel. Another man hurled racial slurs at the Utah women’s basketball team while they were staying in Idaho for March Madness but was never charged . Players and fans alike have been open about the toxic discourse that has sadly accompanied the sport’s exciting growth, including racism and threats both online and in public. The WNBA has also denounced this sort of treatment after the Connecticut Suns’ DiJonai Carrington publicized a threatening email she had received. But the question remains: Are we doing enough to protect these players, and if not, what can be done to generate meaningful change?   Glaring Gaps in Current Protocols This fall, WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert commented on the often-hateful discourse that has surrounded some of the league’s stars, but her inadequate reply was deemed “kind of a fumble” by Carrington and resulted in a strong statement by the WNBPA denouncing the social media attacks on players. Engelbert’s comments might not be the only thing missing the mark, either—despite the league’s groundbreaking 2020 CBA including a joint policy on “Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Assault, and Child Abuse,” the document made no reference to other meaningful safety measures, highlighted by a lack of private air travel (which had been requested by players for years). While the WNBA ultimately relented to demand (and, as evidenced above, a clear need to safeguard athletes) by beginning a full-time charter flight program, it was met with a rocky rollout and—more notably—is absent from the league CBA, which only provides for economy airfare. A lack of a defined charter program in the CBA (which remains in effect while the league negotiates their new agreement with the WNBPA) means that while players enjoy private flights right now, the league could theoretically take that privilege away and reverse course at any time. Similarly, there is no mention of team or player security in the CBA, meaning players are not truly guaranteed protection against being targeted by harassment in the future. This says nothing of women’s basketball players at the college level, who have no CBA to protect their rights and are often exposed to the public through their economic means of travel.   So, where does this leave us? While just one player in a league of 144 (and counting), Clark had a historic first season in the WNBA, becoming the first rookie since Candace Parker in 2008 to make the all-WNBA first team and setting numerous attendance records. Bueckers boasts similar fame, with two million Instagram followers, her own players’ edition shoe, and many projecting her to be selected first overall in the 2025 WNBA Draft. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Clark and Bueckers aren’t just the biggest players on their respective teams—they’re arguably the most prominent athletes in their given leagues right now. If the biggest stars in the sport are not being adequately protected against harassment from dangerous fans, what is being done for players who may be less popular but are just as deserving of safety? A lack of player safeguards—especially to this degree—is something the sport will need to immediately revisit after these harrowing incidents of athlete safety being violated.   Moving Towards Meaningful Change While this may appear to be a bleak outlook, positive change could be fast-approaching. The WNBA allowed Britney Griner to fly on charter flights in 2023 upon her return to the United States, showing some sensitivity to issues where player safety was compromised (in Griner’s case— harassment at the airport). The W’s ongoing CBA negotiations present an ideal chance to solidify such measures. Player protection protocols—including charter flights and robust personal security—must become non-negotiable aspects of the league’s next agreement. The league’s increased viewership has fueled a resurgence of investment into the league, including new training facilities (like the $78 million practice center promised by Clark’s Fever), and owners could feasibly extend this investment into other athlete safety measures.   The newcomer in women’s basketball, Unrivaled, also looms large in terms of redefining player standards. The league is already paying an average salary of over $220,000 to the thirty-six women participating in their inaugural season—a number just below the WNBA’s supermax salary. While Unrivaled is based out of Miami this year (meaning players will not need flights for travel), stars like Angel Reese are already raving about the league’s player-first approach and suggesting changes to their WNBA teams. Despite the lack of travel, Unrivaled’s desire to listen to player needs means the league could easily decide to become the standard for athlete safety in the same manner as they became the standard for player salary—adding in increased protections and allowing players like Reese to leverage their WNBA teams into implementing similar initiatives in CBA negotiations.   Looking Ahead Stars like Clark and Bueckers are not just the faces of their teams; they are among the most prominent athletes in women’s basketball today. Their ordeals serve as a sobering reminder that while the sport’s profile is rising, the systems in place to protect its athletes have yet to catch up. But as investment into women’s game continues to climb—from new training facilities to increased viewership—there is room for optimism that meaningful player protections will follow.   These recent stalking scares must serve as a catalyst for action. Whether through advancements in the WNBA’s upcoming CBA, leadership from emerging leagues like Unrivaled, or a collective shift in how athlete safety is prioritized, the sport stands at a critical juncture. Women’s basketball has come too far to let its biggest stars, and its rising talents, remain unprotected. The time for change is now.   Oliver Canning is a 2L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

On December 30, 2024, six Florida State University basketball players filed a lawsuit against their former head coach, Leonard Hamilton, claiming he promised – and later failed – to pay each plaintiff $250,000 in NIL money in exchange for playing basketball at FSU during the 2023-24 season. [1] The allegations, which range from breach of contract to fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement, are supported by detailed evidence tending to show Hamilton knowingly made promises and reassurances throughout the season he never intended to keep. [2] One of the more damaging accounts describes a meeting Hamilton called after learning several players planned to boycott the Duke game because none of them had received their promised payments despite multiple assurances from Hamilton throughout the season. [3] At that meeting, he told the players once again that each would certainly receive the promised $250,000, and, specifically, that the money would come no later than the following week. [4]  Will Cowan, a representative of FSU’s collective Rising Spear, was also present at this meeting, giving Hamilton’s promises just enough credibility for the players to participate in the Duke game, despite texts between players showing they put very little stock into Hamilton’s promise. [5] The complaint makes an alarming observation: unfortunately, broken promises have been a constant in the field of NIL since its inception. [6] It goes on to cite other examples of instances of coaches and collectives promising grand payments, but never following through. It first mentions a situation coming out of University of Nevada Las Vegas, where an unnamed assistant coach orally promised quarterback Matthew Sluka $100,000 to transfer to UNLV for the 2024-25 season. [7] Not only did UNLV fail to pay, but purportedly countered with an offer of $12,000 once the season was well underway. [8] UNLV claims it fulfilled all obligations and did not respond to Sluka’s financial demands to continue playing because they were violations of NCAA bylaws and Nevada law. [9] Sluka responded by quitting mid-season. Unlike in the UNLV dispute, Hamilton only indicated that his “business partners” – and not FSU – was the source of NIL payments. [10]  The complaint also refers to a controversy at the University of Tulsa where several football players claim the former head coach orally promised them tens of thousands of dollars of NIL payments during the 2023-24 season – none of which was paid. [11]  Like the plaintiffs at FSU, the Tulsa players say the promised NIL deals played a role in their decision to play at Tulsa versus other schools. [12] Similarly, in May 2024, Georgia quarterback Jaden Rashada filed a complaint against University of Florida’s head coach Billy Napier and several key players in the UF football program, claiming several varieties of fraudulent conduct. [13] Rashada alleges that, in exchange for flipping his commitment from Miami and thus foregoing a $9.5 million NIL deal, UF boosters and the Gator Collective promised Rashada $13.85 million paid over four years, with a $1 million bonus on Signing Day. [14] Rashada announced his re-commitment to UF from Miami in mid-November of his senior year. Within a month, boosters and collectives at UF began showing signs it would ultimately never pay. On December 6, 2022, the Gator Collective abruptly terminated Rashada’s NIL deal. [15] Within days, another UF collective reinstated the deal, and in a show of sincerity, wired Rashada $150,000. The complaint asserts this was to help Rashada avoid pending litigation from Miami booster John Ruiz. [16] Rashada signed with UF on December 21, but arguably under dubious circumstances: that same day, Coach Napier again promised Rashada $1 million if he signed, and boosters told Rashada that Coach Napier might pull his scholarship offer if he did not sign immediately. [17] But while Rashada held up his end of the bargain, UF never followed through. Rashada announced his decision to flip to Arizona State University in early January 2023. [18] He did not seek or receive any NIL deal, despite being ranked seventh nationally in the class of 2023 college-bound quarterbacks. [19] Thus, unfortunately, broken promises have been a constant in the field of NIL. [20] For litigation purposes, broken promises translate to breach of contract and fraud claims. The basic requirements for successfully alleging breach of contract requires giving enough details so that the claim is plausible on its face. Arguably, each of the above-described instances of failure to pay for NIL deals satisfies this standard. [21] Text messages between players and Cowan clearly show Hamilton’s promise to pay the plaintiffs $250,000 apiece for committing to and playing basketball for FSU during the 2023-24 season. Plaintiffs upheld their end of the bargain, but Hamilton did not. Further, plaintiffs assert Hamilton’s promise played a central role in several players’ decision to play for FSU over other NCAA member schools, and thus, other potential NIL deals. [22] On the other hand, fraud claims require more particularity in a complaint. [23] Even still, the FSU and Rashada complaints easily satisfy the standard with specific details of coaches’ and collectives’ fraudulent conduct. Both complaints also include texts and tweets showing an obvious agreement between the schools and student athletes, followed by meticulous descriptions of the defendants’ shifty behavior. Coaches and collectives bought time by giving student athletes vague promises and payment schedules for their unpaid NIL money when, in fact, there was no intention to follow through. The Gator Collective went so far as to terminate its deal with Rashada without warning and with no proffered reason why. As of now, the student athletes’ only recourse is litigation – an expensive and lengthy process that may cost more than the NIL deal was ultimately worth. Without regulation or repercussions, coaches and collectives have the freedom to lure student athletes into contracts committing to play for their schools, while knowing all along promised payments would never come. Student athletes, particularly those coming right out of high school, are at a great disadvantage in negotiating with NCAA member schools, who are often backed by wealthy alumni and donors. Pat McAfee pledged to donate $1 million to West Virginia’s NIL fund, and Dave Portnoy pledged to donate at least $1 million to Michigan’s NIL fund to find a quarterback. Flashy endorsements and elusive promises to make millions before the age of 21, coupled with the ability to terminate or breach the agreement at whim once the athlete signs a Letter of Intent, only harm athletes. Until regulations are put in place to protect student athletes, broken promises will likely remain a constant in the field of NIL. Keeton Cross is a 3L at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. She can be found on X at @keeton-cross and on LinkedIn (Keeton Cross).   References: [1]  Michael McCann & Eben Novy-Williams, FSU’s Leonard Hamilton Sued Over Alleged Unpaid NIL Promises , Sportico (Dec. 30, 2024), available at https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/fsu-leonard-hamilton-lawsuit-nil-1234822110/   [2]   See   Green v. Hamilton , No. 213598851 (Fla. Leon County Ct., filed Dec. 30, 2024), available at https://www.si.com/college/fsu/florida-state-seminoles-college-basketball/six-former-fsu-basketball-players-file-lawsuit-against-leonard-hamilton-over-lack-of-nil-payments-jalen-warley-darin-green   [3]   See Green , Complaint at ¶ 22. [4]   See id. [5]   See id.  at ¶ 22-23.  [6]   Green, Complaint  at ¶ 3. [7]  Eben Novy-Williams, Welcome to the World of One-Off College Football Labor Strife , Sportico (Sep. 25, 2024), available at https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/unlv-quarterback-matthew-sluka-nil-dispute-college-sports-labor-1234798645/ .  [8]   Id.   [9]   Id.   [10]   See Green , Complaint at ¶ 2. [11]   See id.  at ¶ 3. [12]   Id. [13]   See  Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial, Rashada v. Hathcock,  No. 3:24-cv-219 (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 21, 2024), available at https://static01.nyt.com/athletic/uploads/wp/2024/05/21100446/Rashada-v.-Hathcock-5.21.2024.pdf   [14]   See id.  at ¶¶ 7, 31, 33. [15]   See id.  at ¶ 53. [16]   See id.  at ¶¶ 55-56. [17]   See id.  at ¶¶ 61-64. [18]   See id.  at 66. [19]   See id.  at ¶ 2, 66. [20]   Green, Complaint  at ¶ 3. [21]   See   Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009) [22]   See Green, Complaint at ¶ 50. [23]   Id.

After almost a year since whispers of TikTok being “banned” first emerged, the thrilling legal and political saga that has followed is now closer to its climax than ever before. In March of 2024, Congress passed a bill requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the platform or face the app being banned in the United States. Of course, litigation ensued, and the case in which TikTok sought to block this measure of Congress was hurriedly argued before the Supreme Court this past Friday- only nine days before the ban is set to take place.   The Court brought forth many questions during oral argument, and a lot was up in the air, but one thing is evident: the Court is slightly leaning toward upholding the ban. With this reality, it’s time to admit it: TikTok could be creeping toward its final days.   Although TikTok wouldn’t literally “go black” on January 19th, the app would be removed from app stores and unable to be updated, potentially making the app glitchy and overrun with security issues. [1]  Even though it's not a guarantee, the possibility of a world without TikTok should definitely be a very real consideration. There would no doubt be fallout across the board, but a ban could have drastic, unparalleled effects in one specific space: the college athletics industry.   In the current era of college athletics, NIL reigns supreme. Since 2021, when college athletes first gained the ability to be paid for their name, image, and likeness, the marketplace as a whole has grown from $917 million to an estimated $1.67 billion for 2024-25. [2]  In order to take part in this thriving marketplace, athletes must focus on building their personal brand. Yes, performing well and making connections in their sport plays a part in brand building, but one avenue stands above all others: social media. Social media is THE dominant factor in allowing student-athletes to utilize their NIL, and social media following numbers are often the supreme criteria in determining whether an athlete receives sponsorships or not.   Even in the grand scheme of social media, one app sticks out. You guessed it: TikTok. No other site or app comes close to TikTok in terms of reach and influence, and it “accounts for as much as 80% of college athlete earnings from their name, image and likeness rights.” [3]  It’s safe to say that without TikTok, hundreds of millions of dollars in NIL money would be left on the table every year.   Additionally, although a ban on TikTok would hurt every athlete who utilizes it, the ones hurt most may be those without an already established massive following. Figures like Livvy Dunne, Shedeur Sanders, and the Cavinder twins already have strong followings and million-dollar NIL deals, so it’s safe to say they could transition to other social media sites fairly easily. It’s the smaller figures, though-those that play non-revenue-generating sports, those with small following, and those in smaller programs-that would suffer tremendous setbacks from this ban, both financially and visibility-wise.   Mia Manson, a pole vaulter at the University of Michigan, is a prime example of what stands to be lost for these athletes if TikTok ceases to exist. She has built her TikTok following exponentially over the past few years, leading to her landing multiple big-time sponsorship deals. If the ban is upheld, Manson said her income will definitely be hit. [4] TikTok has also allowed her to showcase the behind-the-scenes world of a pole vaulter, something that wouldn’t have as much visibility without the app. Because of this, without TikTok, her event and sport overall could lose a lot of attention, which could lead to very real effects like fewer ticket sales and diminished TV viewership.   Another story is that of basketball player Brandon Dwyer. Although Dwyer plays for the smaller program of Florida Gulf Coast University, he has over 1.2 million followers on TikTok. He said that “losing TikTok would be like losing a job.” He said of the ban: “I am really hoping [it] doesn't happen. I may expand to other platforms but TikTok lets me connect with my fans, gain followers, and make some revenue." [5]   These are just a couple of athletes, among thousands of others, who have generated some sort of revenue because of their name, image, and likeness. For these athletes, along with those who have yet to “blow up,” a ban on TikTok would remove the majority of their content, following, and subsequent ability to attract sponsors and generate revenue—hurting the entire world of college athletics.   Of course, there is still so much up in the air surrounding this case. However, with a SCOTUS decision that could come any day now, all that’s left to do is wait and see.     Liam Sitz is a junior at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He’s a political science student, football athlete, and sports information associate. He can be found on Twitter @LiamSitz and Linkedin as Liam Sitz .     References: [1]   https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/politics/takeaways-tiktok-supreme-court/index.html   [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-01-09/a-tiktok-ban-would-harm-college-sports-have-nots [3]  Ibid. [4]  Ibid. [5]   https://www.wptv.com/news/state/content-creators-in-florida-say-tiktok-ban-would-have-impacts-on-careers-finances

Happy New Year! After a quiet end to 2024, 2025 is rolling in in-style, with Sephora Canada and Kristin Juszczyk leading the way. Media remains a hot topic as the Venu Sports venture is abandoned, fueling the already glaring antitrust concerns. Sephora Canada partners with the Toronto Tempo, becoming the first sponsor of the new WNBA expansion franchise. Toronto Sun Designer Kristin Juszczyk and entrepreneur Emma Grede are working with Fanatics to create Off Season, a luxury fashion line. Kristin Juszczyk is the wife of Kyle Juszczyk, fullback for the San Francisco 49ers. Her work gained widespread fame when Taylor Swift wore a custom Kansas City Chiefs jacket designed by Juszczyk. Sportico Disney's ESPN, Fox Corporation and Warner Bros. Discovery cancel plans to launch collective sports streaming service, Venu Sports. Instead, Disney plans to join forces with Fubo TV to create a streaming service that combines Hulu + Live and Fubo TV. Fubo had initiated an antitrust lawsuit against the Venu Sports partners last spring. Fubo has dropped the case, but other media companies are concerned Fubo was bought off by Disney, while the antitrust concerns persist with this new venture. Sportico , WSJ The Golden State Valkyries sign CarMax as one of the team's founding partners. WNBA Women's basketball league Unrivaled partners with Under Armour. Yahoo Sports Redbull Arena to be renamed Sports Illustrated Stadium. The partnership will last for 13 years, and Sports Illustrated Tickets will be the official ticketing partner for all events hosted in the stadium, starting in 2026. This is Sports Illustrated's first ever stadium naming rights partnership. MLS Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy’s tech-infused indoor golf league, TGL, teed off last Tuesday to mostly positive reviews, drawing nearly 1 million viewers. [1] While Tiger did not compete on opening night—he is set to represent the Jupiter Links with five scheduled appearances this season—he attended the event rocking a clean white hoodie and hat from his new brand Sun Day Red.   Tiger and TaylorMade Golf jointly launched Sun Day Red in May 2024. Woods signed with TaylorMade in 2017 after Nike exited the golf equipment market, though he continued to wear Nike apparel through 2023. The creation of Sun Day Red officially marked the end of Woods’ 27-year relationship with Nike.   Sun Day Red pays homage to Tiger’s legendary career, with his most recognizable tradition being wearing red on Sundays. In an interview before the launch, Tiger explained “I’ve worn red. It has just become synonymous with me. That’s who I am. Sun Day Red.” [2] The Sun Day Red logo features a tiger with 15 lines, symbolizing Woods’ 15 major championships.   However, rival sports apparel company PUMA has not embraced the buzz surrounding Sun Day Red. On January 2, 2025, Puma filed a "notice of opposition" with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) arguing that the Sun Day Red’s tiger logo is "too similar" to its iconic Leaping Cat Logo, which PUMA has used since 1969. [3] PUMA’s filing seeks to prevent Sun Day Red from registering its proposed trademark. This is the second trademark dispute against Sun Day Red, following a September 2024 opposition filed by Tigeraire. Sun Day Red’s trademark application was filed in January 2024, and published for opposition in the Trademark Official Gazette on September 3, 2024. After a trademark is published for opposition, third parties have 30 days to oppose the trademark, but extensions can be granted, extending that period up to 6-months. After multiple extensions, PUMA filed its formal opposition earlier this month. In its filing, PUMA asserts that it has “built substantial goodwill in the Leaping Cat Logo.” Puma argues that the similarities of the logos, combined with the closely related natures of the parties’ goods and services—athletic apparel and equipment—is “likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of Applicant’s goods and services.” PUMA’s notice emphasizes that both logos depict “a large feline in a leaping position” and Sun Day Red’s logo lacks “any other distinctive elements, such as wording, that would help distinguish them.”   As part of its case, PUMA included articles and X posts where users commented on the similarity of the two logos. One comment called the Sun Day Red logo the “skeleton version” of the PUMA logo.   Lastly, the notice claims that the Sun Day Red logo will blur the distinctive quality of PUMA’s famous Leaping Cat Logo and decrease the ability of the Leaping Cat Logo to distinguish PUMA’s products and services from those of others.   PUMA’s opposition highlights both the likelihood of confusion and dilution under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act. To prove these claims, PUMA will rely on evidence of its logo’s fame, the similarity of the logos, the overlapping nature of the goods (apparel and accessories), and consumer perceptions.   Likelihood of Confusion : The new mark is so similar to their existing trademark that consumers might mistakenly believe the products or services come from the same source. One way to gather evidence of confusion is by conducting surveys.   Dilution : For famous trademarks like PUMA’s Leaping Cat Logo, the standard extends to preventing the weakening or “blurring” of the mark’s distinctiveness, even if confusion is unlikely.   If the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board finds merit in PUMA’s arguments, the Sun Day Red trademark application could be denied. TaylorMade told CNBC, "We feel very confident in our trademarks and logos." [4] Sun Day Red could decide to settle with PUMA. Sun Day Red could also consider a new logo; since the brand is relatively new, the effects may be minimal. However, given the early success of the brand, they are more likely to fight it. Below is a screenshot of the two logos from PUMA’s notice. Do you think you would get these two confused? Andrew Gagnon is a 3L at the University of Kansas School of Law where he is a representative in the Student Bar Association and President of the Sports Law Society. He can be found on Twitter @A_Gagnon34 and LinkedIn as Andrew Gagnon .   [1] https://frontofficesports.com/first-tgl-golf-match-draws-nearly-one-million-viewers/   [2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/tiger-woods-sunday-red-brand-apparel-footwear-1235823257   [3] https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91296035&pty=OPP&eno=1   [4] https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10150093-tiger-woods-sun-day-red-brand-logo-challenged-by-puma-in-lawsuit

As the NBA’s February 6 trade deadline approaches, the Heat’s Jimmy Butler declared in a postgame press conference that he was unhappy in Miami, loudly announcing himself as one of the top trade targets in basketball. Despite the denials of Butler’s agent Bernie Lee as well as Heat President Pat Riley’s attempts to thwart transaction rumors, the Miami star’s statement made it clear that he no longer sees a future in the city where he has made two NBA Finals appearances.   The fallout was swift. Following Butler’s comments, the Heat suspended their star seven games for conduct detrimental to the organization, saying in a statement that their star “has shown he no longer wants to be part of this team” and announcing plans to listen to trade offers. At the same time, the NBPA stated that they will be filing a grievance to challenge the suspension on Butler’s behalf. While NBA stars have begun to force their way off of teams more frequently each year, the trade saga of ‘Jimmy Buckets’ seems to be playing out in a way that sharply contrasts Butler’s “no shenanigans” comments from the beginning of the season. So, how did things reach this point between Butler and the Heat, and why does Butler’s purported suspension highlight potential flaws in the grievance process, particularly when trade demands enter the equation?   Heading into the season, it had long been rumored that organizations across the league (including Butler’s Heat) did not feel that the thirty-five-year-old star was worthy of another maximum contract. These concerns over Butler’s declining value meant Miami would potentially try to move on from their star before he had the chance to exercise his player option in 2025-26. Then, in December, ESPN’s Shams Charania announced that the team was listening to offers on Butler, before claiming that the Heat star wanted a trade out of Miami. While speculation ran rampant about which teams might trade for the small forward, Butler stayed quiet, missing five games to illness before appearing for the final two contests to precede his current suspension. In these games, the star’s performance was noticeably subpar, taking only eleven shots across the two contests and leading fans to question his effort and level of engagement. Following the second game (after which Butler commented that he would “probably not” be able to rediscover his love for basketball in Miami), the Heat imposed their suspension, which will cause their star to lose $347,000 for each of the seven games he misses (nearly $2.4 million dollars in total).   This is not the first time Butler has generated friction between himself and his organization. The longtime star was first traded from Chicago to Minnesota after expressing frustration that the Bulls would not give him a maximum contract. Butler’s time in Philadelphia also ended due to contractual disagreements, as the small forward joined Miami via a sign-and-trade after the 76ers opted to pay Tobias Harris instead (leading to another infamous Butler soundbite). Most notably, Butler made headlines in 2018 after an outburst during practice with his Timberwolves teammates that prompted him to leave the facility and sit down with Rachel Nichols for an interview where he requested a trade from Minnesota. In his previous instances of discontent with his team, Butler has gotten his way, with front offices meeting his demands and trying to move on with as little added fanfare as possible. Miami, however, seems determined to take a different path. By standing up to his unhappy star, Pat Riley is showing he may not cede to Butler’s demands and allow top talent to leave the Heat simply due to discontentment.   Despite the impact of the suspension, Butler may not want to bring back his “ Emo Jimmy ” look from a few seasons ago just yet—following the announcement of the Heat star’s punishment, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) announced that they will be filing a grievance on behalf of Butler to challenge the suspension. This was a team-imposed suspension, meaning a grievance in opposition to the punishment can properly be brought before a neutral arbitrator. In addition, the $2.4 million Butler stands to lose as a result of this suspension easily clears the $5,000 minimum for financial impact to the player that is stated in the league CBA as being required for grievance claims. Further, as provided in Article 31 of the CBA , a successful grievance (which must be initiated within thirty days of the incident) would only be able to reduce the financial part of Butler’s suspension, failing to decrease the number of games the star would have to miss. Thus, the Heat star may be able to recoup some of his lost salary but cannot avoid sitting out for seven games.   With this in mind, the Heat will try to argue that their suspension of Butler was proper. The NBA’s uniform player contract (or UPC), like the UPCs of many other professional sports leagues, includes an extremely large definition of what may constitute “conduct detrimental,” and Miami will likely claim that the play and comments of their star failed to match his best efforts and were harmful to the team’s cohesion, thus justifying his suspension.   On the other hand, Butler and the NBPA will try to argue that Butler has played to the best of his ability this season, potentially pointing to injuries, roster construction, and other factors as reasons for the Heat’s reduced success this year (as opposed to Miami’s shortcomings being the result of Butler’s effort or lack thereof). In addition, Butler may try to argue that the “ law of the shop ” applies here—a principle that requires management to be consistent in how they punish unionized employees (like members of the NBPA). Thus, if Miami tolerated similar instances of discontent from other players in the past, the punishment they have given their star may be reduced by the arbitrator.   The fact that Butler may be able to recoup his salary, but not his playing time, is a significant factor underlying this grievance dispute (and power dynamics between players and teams more broadly). When Miami’s front office finally decided to shut their star down for his actions and impose a formal punishment, they now face a grievance that could potentially allow Butler to recoup the full amount of his lost salary while still giving him no obligation to play games for the Heat. Allowing grievances for team-imposed suspensions when a star player tries to force a trade seemingly sets a bad precedent for the league that will put teams between a rock and a hard place—requiring organizations to lose out on some of their top talent for a given period of time while also allowing an avenue for that talent to require their team to compensate them for games missed. In other words, teams seem to have limited recourse when a player (as Butler has at several stops in his career) decides they are no longer willing to play for an organization.   On one hand, a team-imposed suspension means the organization will lose out on their talent (while still potentially having to pay them for time missed—essentially incentivizing the bad behavior associated with the trade demand). On the other hand, allowing misconduct to continue without punishment would likely hamper team morale and still allow the offending player to cash game checks—not to mention seemingly assisting future NBPA’s “law of the shop” arguments by setting a precedent of tolerance for disruptive behavior.   This dilemma points to potential shortcomings in the NBA’s grievance structure. The current system often leaves teams in a lose-lose position, balancing organizational integrity with the risk of rewarding insubordination. Allowing players to recover suspension pay—while effectively refusing to play—might embolden trade demands and complicate team dynamics even further.   While it is being reported that Butler will rejoin the Heat following his punishment, this incident is far from resolved. Since the grievance process can take up to a year, fans will have to wait to see the outcome of the challenge to Butler’s suspension. However, the tumultuous nature of the Heat star’s trade saga (as well as the apparent lack of meaningful recourse available to Miami) may suggest that the grievance process of the NBA CBA needs to be restructured to protect organizations in instances where a player grows unhappy and decides they no longer want to be part of a given team. For now, the situation serves as another chapter in the growing tension between player empowerment and team autonomy—a balancing act the league will continue to grapple with in the years ahead.   Oliver Canning is a 2L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

One of the best aspects of sports in our society is the connection a professional or college team can have with its respective city and fans. In an era fraught with political division, it’s always nice to see people in a particular town or religion come together in unison to support their favorite team as one. A great example of this in recent years is the bond the Padres have formed with the city of San Diego and the “Friar Faithful” as termed by the great play-by-play broadcaster Don Orsillo.   While the Padres have been in San Diego for over 50 years now, the city’s support of the team is clearly at an all-time high. The reasons for this are multifaceted. Yes, the departure of the Chargers for Los Angeles left the Padres as the only major professional franchise in the city. Yes, Petco Park is an amazing setting to watch a baseball game. And yes, the team is in the midst of its most successful five-year run in club history. But the overarching reason for why San Diego has become a baseball town is the late Peter Seidler’s investment into not only the on-field product but the overall fan experience.   Seidler became the chairman and largest stakeholder in the Padres in 2020 after being part of the group that purchased the team in 2012. Tragically, Seidler died in November 2023 at the age of 63 after a months-long illness. Since his passing, control over the San Diego Padres has now come into question.   This week, Sheel Seidler, the widow of Peter Seidler, filed a lawsuit against her husband's brothers for control of the franchise. In the complaint filed in Texas state probate court, Sheel claims that Bob and Matt Seidler committed "breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud" as trustees of the Seidler Trust that controls the franchise. She alleges that the brothers have "irreconcilable conflicts of interest" and sold assets of the trust to themselves at "far below-market prices" in an effort to gain control of the team.   Moreover, the complaint accuses the Seidler brothers of pursuing an initiative to sell the Padres and maybe even relocate the franchise. This inflammatory and potentially hyperbolic language is common in legal complaints and is likely included to invoke support of the Padre fanbase that still reveres the life and legacy of Peter. Sheel further stated that she was frequently involved in team business while her husband owned the team, including input on daily operations, management hirings and free-agent signings. Given the fans obviously appreciated Peter’s aggressive spending in his final years, they would be more apt to favor Sheel over the brothers clearly portrayed as the “bad guys” looking to line their own pockets and even relocate the team, something that might strike a chord with San Diegans in light of the Chargers and even Clippers departures from the city. On the other hand, The Peter Seidler Trust headed by the brothers issued a statement asserting the lawsuit is "entirely without merit." "Peter had a clear estate plan," said the statement. "The plan specifically named three of his nine siblings, with whom he had worked closely for many decades, as successor trustees of his trust and Peter himself prohibited Sheel from ever serving as trustee."The statement went on to declare that Sheel Seidler agreed in a sworn document that "she had no right to be or to designate the Control Person" and would not interfere with the process to choose someone for that role.” It will be interesting to see how this suit develops and whether a solution can be reached between the two sides. Oftentimes however, these inter-family fights for control over sports franchises ultimately lead to a sale of the team. We saw this most recently in Baltimore where the Angelos family feud over the Orioles led to last year’s sale of the club after Peter Angelos passed away. It's obviously too early to know whether a sale of the Padres is imminent. But earlier this offseason, the Pohlad family announced their intentions to sell the Minnesota Twins following 40 years of ownership. Reports have recently surfaced that a potential sale to a new group could be completed by Opening Day, highlighting the intense demand for MLB franchises despite amid diminishing regional TV revenues for smaller to middle market clubs.   The Padres are currently valued at $2.03 billion, the 15th-most valuable MLB club, according to Sportico. Forbes has the team's value at $1.78 billion. It’s worth noting that MLB took over production and distribution of Padres games in 2023 after Diamond Sports Group, the parent company of Bally Sports, failed to pay the team. Given San Diego is one of the smaller media markets in MLB and pales in comparison to Los Angeles and San Francisco, it's uncertain whether the team can continue to carry the unprecedented payroll levels they have maintained in recent years. The good news is that the Padres ranked third in overall attendance last season, as over 3.3 million fans flocked to Petco Park to watch the Padres reach 93 wins for only the second time in franchise history. Since Peter Seidler took over control of the club in 2020, attendance is up over 39% from 2019 levels. This likely makes up for some of the TV revenue lost from Diamond. How much is unknown to the general public. How all of affects this the Padres pursuit of Roki Sasaki or ability to retain impending free agents such as Dylan Cease or Luis Arraez remains to be seen. Hopefully, whoever is in control of the Padres moving forward keeps the team’s great fans at the center of their focus. It would be a shame to see San Diego’s fervor for their Friars be diminished in any way.   Brendan Bell is a 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

The proposed settlement in House v. NCAA represents a transformative shift in collegiate athletics, introducing sweeping changes to athlete compensation and the operation of athletic programs.  Although the settlement aims to bring stability to college athletics in the NIL era, several of its key components raise new questions that are likely to spark additional litigation.  If Judge Wilken approves the settlement at the fairness hearing scheduled for April 7, 2025, the following issues will likely be focal points for future legal disputes. The Legality of a Cap on Revenue-Sharing The proposed settlement permits Division I schools to allocate up to 22% of the average annual athletic department revenue of a “Power Five” school directly to their respective athletes.  In 2025, this figure is projected to be approximately $22 million. Payments counting toward this cap include Alston awards (up to $2.5 million), scholarship awards exceeding limits previously set by NCAA Division I rules (up to $2.5 million), and any direct payments or personal benefits provided by the school to athletes or their families beyond what NCAA rules historically allowed.  However, excluded from the cap are NIL payments from third parties, including those facilitated by the school acting as a marketing agent for the athlete.  Still, as detailed below, third-party payments from certain parties (mainly, collectives and boosters) must qualify as “true NIL” to be exempt. Disputes are almost certain to arise over whether specific payments meet the above criteria (and thus count toward the cap).  For instance, questions may emerge about whether an athlete received payments from a legitimate third party—which would not count toward the cap—or from an entity posing as a third party but effectively controlled or operated by the school, in which case the payment would count toward the cap. In addition to challenges to individual payments, the cap itself will likely face legal scrutiny as an unlawful restraint on compensation, particularly because it was not collectively bargained.  Although the NCAA has sought legislative protection from Congress against future antitrust lawsuits, those efforts have largely been unsuccessful.  A successful challenge to the cap in future litigation would bring athletes closer to being classified as employees, paving the way for collective bargaining agreements to replace the framework established by the House settlement. Applicability of Title IX Title IX requires schools to provide equal opportunities for men and women in their athletic programs.  In short, schools subject to Title IX must allocate scholarships and other benefits to male and female athletes in proportion to their participation in athletics.  While subject to future legal challenges, Title IX is unlikely to bar the payment of back-damages to athletes who opt into the settlement, because the parties have released Title IX claims regarding such damages.  However, what is less clear is whether Title IX will apply to future payments under the prospective revenue-sharing framework established by the proposed settlement.   Some legal experts argue that revenue-sharing payments made directly from a school to an athlete fall outside the scope of Title IX, particularly when structured as compensation for a license to use the athlete’s NIL.  Others maintain that any payments made by an athletic department to its athletes constitute financial assistance and therefore must comply with Title IX.  In light of the uncertainty, schools will continue to take different approaches based on their own risk tolerance.  Some will opt to distribute revenue evenly between men’s and women’s sports (or proportionally, based on participation rates), while others may allocate a majority of the funds to revenue-generating sports, which typically include football and men’s basketball.  However, as NCAA President Charlie Baker has noted , either approach could prompt litigation—whether from athletes in revenue-generating sports claiming an unfair share of the revenue split, or from female athletes alleging that the school’s unequal revenue distribution violates Title IX. Without clear guidance from the Department of Education or its Office for Civil Rights, the question of whether and to what extent Title IX applies to revenue sharing will likely be decided by future litigation. Defining the Scope of “Associated Entities or Individuals” Under the proposed settlement, all third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 must be reported.  However, NIL agreements involving “associated entities or individuals,” regardless of value, are subject to a fair-market-value (FMV) assessment to determine whether the compensation qualifies as “true NIL.”  Consequently, determining whether an individual or entity qualifies as an “associated entity or individual” is critical, as it triggers the FMV assessment.  Litigation is likely to play a key role in clarifying the scope of “associated entities or individuals.”  While collectives and boosters clearly fall under the definition of “associated entities or individuals,” the term’s full scope is uncertain.  For instance, the settlement’s definition includes any individual or entity that “has assisted in the recruitment or retention of prospective or current student-athletes.”  But what qualifies as “assist[ing] in the recruitment or retention of prospective or current student-athletes”?  Could a supportive tweet about a player bring an individual within this definition?  Although the settlement broadly defines associated entities and individuals, schools—led by their collectives and boosters—are likely to explore creative strategies to funnel money to athletes through sources that fall outside this definition, thereby avoiding the FMV assessment.  Efforts to test these boundaries will almost certainly lead to further litigation. 4.     Assessing Fair-Market Value As explained above, the proposed settlement makes third-party NIL agreements involving “associated entities or individuals” subject to a fair-market-value (FMV) assessment.  Specifically, the settlement empowers the NCAA to prohibit payments from such individuals or entities unless the payments serve “a valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit, with compensation at rates and terms commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value who are not current or prospective student-athletes at the [school].”  This requirement will apply to any agreement signed after the settlement receives final approval, and to existing qualifying agreements that include payments made on or after July 1, 2025. Determining the FMV of an athlete is inherently challenging due to the numerous factors—many of them intangible—that influence an athlete’s marketability.  The NCAA has indicated that it will hire Deloitte to evaluate the FMV of athletes’ third-party NIL agreements.  However, as prominent sports attorney Tom Mars has pointed out on X (@TomMarsLaw), Deloitte itself has acknowledged that calculating “the potential [return on investment] for brands investing in student-athletes through NIL is speculative.” The NCAA may leverage new technologies to refine its FMV assessments, such as Opendorse’s recently launched platform , which uses a formula considering factors like an athlete’s association, division, conference, school, sport, position, accolades, existing deals, social media following, and more.  But even with these technological advancements, accurately assigning a dollar value to individual athletes remains a complex and subjective process.  As a result, collectives and/or boosters are likely to challenge any NCAA decision to prohibit a third-party NIL agreement on the grounds that it exceeds a particular athlete’s FMV.  Notably, the first step to any such challenge would be appealing the NCAA’s decision to a neutral arbitrator selected by the parties in House prior to final approval of the settlement. Conclusion The proposed settlement in House introduces significant changes to athlete compensation in collegiate sports, particularly through its revenue-sharing framework.  However, this arrangement will likely lead to legal disputes, especially over the cap on revenue-sharing and the application of Title IX.  Defining “associated entities or individuals” for reporting purposes and determining the fair-market value of NIL agreements will also be key points of litigation.  Assuming the settlement is approved, these future legal battles resulting from the settlement’s implementation could reshape (yet again) how collegiate athletes are compensated. Alec McNiff, an attorney licensed in California, is an Associate at a global law firm.  He earned his J.D. from University of Michigan Law School and holds a business degree from University of Southern California.  Follow him on LinkedIn or on X (@Alec_McNiff).

While the current CBA between MLB and the MLBPA doesn’t expire until December 2026, it’s not too early to look ahead to some of the issues that will undoubtedly shape the negotiations between the two sides. Given the tenor of the last round of bargaining combined with the game’s history of lockouts and strikes, it would be naïve to expect a smooth and swift process this time around. However, while the focus will be directed at the tension between MLB and the MLBPA, there might be just as much to sort out between the commissioner’s office and the collective owners across the sport.   While MLB’s total league revenue figures continue to grow each year, that revenue is not shared equally across each of the 30 franchises. The reality of revenue and payroll inequity is nothing new in the game and it’s no secret that teams like the Yankees and Dodgers have far more resources available than the Pirates and Rays. This is especially relevant given MLB’s lack of a salary cap compared to the other major professional sports. While the commissioner’s office and each of the respective owners will continue to push for some form of a salary cap in future CBA negotiations, there’s little reason to believe the MLBPA will ever concede such a momentous action.   Nonetheless, recent developments in the sports media landscape could prove to be a major source of contention among baseball’s 30 owners.    In today's media environment, television networks have been facing an accelerated rate of cord-cutting in recent years as consumers opt for streaming services. Despite maintaining stable ratings, as live sports often do, regional sports networks (RSNs) have felt the brunt of the shift away from cable. Chief among these RSNs is Diamond Sports Group, the parent company of FanDuel Sports (formerly Bally Sports), which just two years ago carried the rights to nearly half of the MLB clubs. In March 2023, Diamond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, casting doubt on the company's ability to broadcast games moving forward. Eventually, Diamond emerged from bankruptcy and will continue to broadcast games for a handful of teams in 2025, but the lengthy saga created a lot of discussion about the future of how fans consume MLB.   I’ve written for multiple years now that one of MLB’s goals is to create more a national product that would address the local blackout problem through in-market streaming. MLB.tv is a great product that many leagues are envious of. However, without control of broadcast rights, many fans have been “blacked out” from watching certain games. Progress has been made on this front over the last couple years, but the issue is far from obsolete as we head into 2025.   To that point, Rob Manfred formally announced earlier this offseason that MLB plans to create national packages for major streaming companies to bid on in 2028, the year that the league’s national television deals with ESPN, Fox and Turner are set to expire. To do so, the commissioner needs as many of its teams’ local media rights available as possible by then to bundle them together for potential platforms. Manfred ultimately wants the league office to take over teams’ local media rights — the traditional, linear TV rights, as well as the in-market, direct-to-consumer streaming rights, both of which currently belong to the individual clubs.   The league already has some of their team’s rights in hand as they are already handling the broadcasts for a handful of clubs in 2025. Moreover, the deals for the aforementioned teams returning to Diamond Sports were designed around the goal of being available to MLB three years down the road. As of now, close to two-thirds of the league’s teams appear to have their rights available come 2028, if not more. However, just because the rights may be available, and some owners would likely be on board with combining the rights of all the teams doesn’t mean every owner will happily turn over theirs. Achieving the changes the commissioner seeks is a difficult task because the worth of media rights varies greatly from small markets to large.   According to Morningstar, the Dodgers make an average of over $300 million per year from their local TV deal with Charter Communications’ Spectrum. The Yankees took home $143 million  from its YES platform in 2022. By contrast, several clubs generate less than even $70 million annually from their respective deals. Therefore, why would teams like the Dodgers or Yankees agree to share TV revenues with teams like the Pirates or Rays?   Of the four major professional sports in America, local television deals provide MLB franchises with the highest percentage of their overall revenue on an annual basis (approximately 25%). The nature of the 162-game season provides an unmatched volume of content for television providers to fill programming from early spring all the way into the fall. So, while ticket sales, sponsorships, concessions, and even the national television revenues provide significant revenue streams, the local television deal plays a big role in separating the financial “haves” from “have nots” in baseball. In an interview on Sirius XM’s MLB Network Radio, Manfred implored that “it’s important to recognize that our clubs should and do act in their economic self-interest.” “If you want to make a change, you’ve got to demonstrate to people that what you’re offering to them is better for them” Manfred continued. “I do think there are a combination of things that for even the very biggest teams, we can demonstrate that for the good of the game over the long haul, it’s better for everybody and better for them.” One of the ways Manfred can demonstrate this is by showing that the plan will make MLB games more accessible for fans, thereby expanding the reach of the sport across the country and the world at-large. Hypothetically, getting more eyeballs on the product creates avenues to unlock a wider audience and appeal to new demographics that baseball hasn’t unlocked to this point. Therefore, a potential short term financial set back could prove to be offset by long term gains of more invested fans in MLB. However, Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner has already hinted that he isn’t fully on board with handing over his team’s rights. “W e’ve had discussions with Rob in the past,” Steinbrenner said earlier this offseason when asked about Manfred’s plan. “He knows my take, which is that at the very least, it needs to be an optional thing, but I’m gonna leave it at that. But we’ve got a good board of directors at the YES Network, and we’ve got a good network, and we’re doing pretty good right now.”   Whether or not Steinbrenner is speaking on behalf of every big market club’s owners remains to be seen, but conventional wisdom suggests that Steve Cohen, Mark Walter, or Tom Ricketts won’t be too eager to give up the financial windfall that comes from their respective TV deals. It will be fascinating to see how the tenor of these conversations play out either behind closed doors or potentially through the media as 2026 nears.     So, while the upcoming CBA might very well feature intense bargaining between the owners and the players, don’t discount the tension that will undoubtedly be present between the owners and the owners. Hopefully, a solution that benefits all parties can be reached over the coming years. At the end of the day, the number one goal for MLB and the owners should be to act in the best interest of the game and its fans. Without the fans, baseball is far from an $11 billion dollar industry. Brendan Bell is a 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

Image Source: IFovdtv.Com Streaming services like Netflix are expanding their offerings, including live sporting events. A question I've been asked multiple times (surprisingly more than expected) is how these services are able to broadcast such games. A common misconception is that the individual teams license their games. However, that is not the case. To fully understand this, what intellectual property is and how it is relevant to sports must be discussed. Intellectual property includes trademarks, patents, and copyrights. For this discussion, we'll focus on copyrights. To summarily define the term, a copyright is a form of protection created by law that protects original works of authorship that are fixed in tangible form from being used without permission/authorization by individuals or entitles besides the original author(s). Worth noting, a work is considered fixed in tangible form when it is captured in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for a short time. Copyrights protect things such as books, songs, movies, photographs, and yes, even sports broadcasts. Typically, a broadcast is copyrighted after it airs, as live events don't exist in a tangible form beforehand without something like a script (a whole different conversation). However, an interesting scenario arises in cases such as broadcasts, as in some cases, the companies that film and distribute the media don’t ultimately own the rights. There are three potential explanations for this. One possibility is that teams assign all broadcast rights to their respective leagues. Assignment means granting another entity permanent control over intellectual property, allowing them to use and distribute it as they see fit. This is permissible as these rights can be assigned. Assignment transfers permanent ownership, whereas a license grants temporary usage rights. In this scenario, the League would be the outright owner of the rights and free to license, distribute, or do what they please with the media. This seems to be the case in the NFL and NBA. An assignment is different from a license, which is a temporary right to use, manipulate, and distribute the media within reason/as the licensor sees fit. In the case of a license, technically, the leagues and broadcast networks are not the owners of the rights but instead have the right to use it and distribute it. This seems to be the case in the MLB. Another perspective/scenario of this, however, could be that the broadcasts are “work-for-hire.” A work-for-hire is produced when the artistic product was made by an individual, however, the product was specifically commissioned or was otherwise created in the scope of an employee’s duties. In such cases, the commissioner of the work would be the owner of the rights to the product. (In these cases, the commissioners would be the leagues, not Adam Silver (NBA), Roger Goodell (NFL), or Rob Manfred (MLB) in their individual capacities. In this alternative scenario, the league then licenses the rights to the teams to use for highlights and other content associated with the team’s own pre- and post-game coverage. Now, whether this is the case would ultimately depend on an in-depth review of the agreements between the teams and leagues. Turning now to examples in professional sports, the MLB seems to be a league that does not already have the license to broadcast every team’s games and is pushing to get those rights. The MLB’s broadcast structure is different than that of the NBA and MLB in that the MLB is an expansive network of regional broadcast networks. For example, the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) is the broadcast network carrying Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles games. This network is team owned, being owned 77% by the Orioles, and 23% by the Nationals. MASN is a network that then distributes the games to various cable and network providers that carry the channel (and therefor the games). In some cases, these regional networks can be owned by larger companies, such as NBC Sports Philadelphia, which is owned largely by Comcast, the ultimate owner of the NBC network, and a minority interest owned by the Philadelphia Phillies. The MLB may carry a few games here and there, but that at best implies licensing for individual games, rather than a team giving full season rights to the League. In any event, the teams are the owners of the rights to these broadcasts and then license them out to other networks and distributors. The NFL broadcasts are likely copyrighted material belonging to the League itself as the rights were likely assigned by the individual teams in connection with joining the League. Worth noting is that the NFL owns the rights to regular and post-season games, not preseason, nor pregame post-game coverage per se. Individual teams also have the right to produce their own pre- and post-game coverage, as seen most recently with the Pittsburgh Steelers and KDKA-TV’s recent media deal that runs through 2027. The NFL has the rights to negotiate it’s tv rights and these rights affect ALL teams. Games are still broadcast regionally across the country; however, the League licensed the rights to the broadcast to the regional markets depending on market analytics (i.e. the East-Coast playing the Bills-Patriots game while the West-Coast watched the 49’ers play the Dolphins (even though it was played in Miami). As it relates to the regular and postseason game coverage, the NFL licenses the rights to networks such as Amazon, Fox, Disney (which owns ESPN and ABC), Comcast (which owns NBC), Netflix, and even Nickelodeon. For example, in 2022, the NFL and Amazon struck a licensing agreement where Amazon would have exclusive license to broadcast all Thursday Night Football games for 10 years, beginning in 2023, a deal that is worth approximately $10 billion dollars. This makes the argument of assignment of certain rights all the more compelling. The NBA is no different, the NBA licensed the rights to its games to Disney, Comcast, and Amazon for 11 years, a deal worth $76 billion dollars. Being able to make such agreements strongly implies but is not indicative of the existence of an assignment. There is a one-off argument that could be made that the broadcasts of these games are work-for-hire commissioned by the Leagues, as the League “hires” these teams to perform and compete. In such an instance, the Leagues are the owners of the copyrights to the broadcast. However, the more likely scenario is that the teams own their rights, but by way of a collective bargaining or some other agreement to be involved with the Leagues, certain rights had to be assigned to the Leagues and the Leagues, with full rights, license to other networks and distributors. Of course, this is speculative and in order to truly know, one would need to see the paperwork, but still, it’s something that makes you think! While things such a broadcast may seem so simple and direct, there are a lot of moving pieces that come to making such a production possible. As new streaming platforms emerge, existing licensing agreements may face challenges. It remains to be seen whether these platforms can enter the market or if incumbents will maintain dominance.   Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment based in NYC. He can be contacted on LinkedIn  and X (formerly Twitter) .

Navigating NIL Demands and Revenue Sharing in College Athletics Athletic programs across the country are grappling with growing NIL-related demands and the looming implementation of the revenue sharing model expected to take effect next year following final approval of the House settlement.  Concerns of big donor burnout have pushed programs to solicit donations directly from fans and experiment with innovative solutions to fund NIL, such as Tennessee’s “ talent fee ” applied to season tickets and South Carolina’s subscription-based membership  for exclusive access to Gamecock content.   Universities are already adjusting budgets in anticipation of the new revenue-sharing landscape.  One option for savings could come through reducing the amount of funds allocated to a school’s coaching staff—particularly the compensation to its head football coach.  In recent years, coaching compensation has ballooned, with some athletic departments dedicating nearly 20%  of their annual revenue to coaching salaries and benefits.    Last season, former Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh boldly advocated  for reduced coaching salaries so players could receive a greater share of the revenue.  That sentiment came to fruition last week when Oklahoma State restructured  the contract of long-time football coach Mike Gundy to redistribute the savings to players as revenue sharing.  In a similar vein, Virginia Tech athletic director Whit Babcock recently signaled  a shift in focus, prioritizing resources for athletes over inflated coaching pay.   The Cost of Retaining and Replacing Head Coaches   Increased NIL-related expenses could also increase the tolerance for underperforming head coaches.  While retaining an elite head coach certainly consumes a significant portion of an athletic department’s budget, firing one without cause can be financially crippling.  Historically, frustrated programs have paid exorbitant buyouts  to terminate contracts prematurely when a coach failed to meet the expectations of the program or its fanbase.  The cost of such buyouts—which do not even include the expense of hiring a new head coach—can quickly drain an athletic department’s resources.   As of the end of the 2024 regular season, schools had paid over $36 million in buyout fees to fire 15 head coaches.  But buyouts for high-profile coaches on the hot seat at premier programs, such as Ryan Day at Ohio State ( $37 million ) or Mike Norvell at FSU ( $63 million ), climb into the tens of millions.  Staring down the financial demands necessary to build and retain a competitive roster in the NIL-era, athletic departments and their donors will likely be less willing to absorb these hefty buyouts.   Mitigation Clauses in Coaching Contracts   For programs that elect to terminate a head coach despite the financial burden of doing so, including a robust mitigation clause in coaching contracts can be an important and effective way to limit excess liability.   Under basic principles of contract law, a non-breaching party has a “duty to mitigate” damages, meaning the non-breaching party must make reasonable efforts to minimize the losses suffered from a breach.  Put more simply, a terminated coach must make reasonable efforts to try to find a comparable job, and the payments from that job will reduce the amount the coach’s former program owes.  Despite this general rule, ambiguity surrounding mitigation requirements can lead to disputes.  Universities can protect themselves from unnecessary disputes by including a comprehensive mitigation clause in coaching contracts that defines the respective parties’ obligations and ensures enforceability.    A well-crafted mitigation clause should include, at a minimum, the following key elements:   Clear obligation to mitigate : explicitly state that the non-breaching party has an obligation to reduce his damages, and that the right to receive any liquidated damages under the contract is contingent on his fulfilling that obligation.   Reasonableness standard : state that the actions taken to mitigate should be reasonable, preventing either party from being required to take excessive or impractical steps.   Definition of “comparable employment” : specify what constitutes comparable employment and provide examples of acceptable mitigation actions.   Notification requirement : require the non-breaching party to promptly notify the breaching party upon acceptance of new employment, including compensation details.   Offset provision : clarify that the breaching party’s obligations will be reduced by any compensation the non-breaching party receives from a future employer as a result of his mitigation efforts.   Even the most carefully drafted mitigation clause can be difficult to enforce in practice.  As a result, programs may alternatively consider negotiating a reduced amount of liquidated damages to be paid to the coach in the event of termination without cause, in exchange for waiving the obligation to mitigate damages.  Regardless of the chosen approach, it is crucial for schools to take proactive steps to safeguard their financial interests.   As athletic programs navigate the financial pressures of the NIL-era, strategic approaches to budgeting and contract management, including detailed mitigation clauses or negotiated reductions of liquidated damages, will play a pivotal role in safeguarding their financial health.   Alec McNiff, an attorney licensed to practice in California, is an Associate at a global law firm.  He earned his J.D. from University of Michigan Law School and holds a business degree from University of Southern California.  (Twitter: @Alec_McNiff)

Attention New Yorkers - it's time to hang up those American football jerseys for the season (sorry Jets and Giants fans, you know it's true) and break out the football kits. The first ever soccer-specific stadium in NYC is being built in Willets Point, Queens. And NYCFC isn't the only team using the off-season to pursue new stadium sponsors - the Astros replace long-time sponsor Minute Maid. Houston Astros sign 15-year exclusive stadium naming rights deal with Daikin. Coca-Cola's Minute Maid was the prior sponsor. Financial terms have not been disclosed. Sportico Michael Jordan to become Courtside Ventures' newest investor. Sportico Philadelphia Flyers sign Chevrolet as helmet sponsor. Chevy will also receive signage inside the Wells Fargo Center, and a car display on the concourse outside the arena. NHL NYCFC signs stadium naming rights deal with Etihad Airways. Etihad Park will be NYC's first ever soccer-specific stadium. NYCFC currently plays its home games at Yankee Stadium. The stadium will be entirely privately financed, and will be fully electric. NYCFC Giannis Antetokounmpo launches VC fund Build Your Legacy Ventures. The fund will focus on sports, entertainment and technology, and has already invested in women's 3-on-3 basketball league Unrivaled. ESPN Formula 1 to add General Motors / Cadillac team in 2026. F1 Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .