Despite winning seven of their last ten games as of the morning of June 15, the Oakland Athletics still sit at an abysmal 19 – 51 on the season, only one game better than the equally awful Kansas City Royals (although the A’s do have the worst run differential in Major League Baseball at -195). As crazy as it may sound, the poor performance is intentional – not by the players, but by the ownership of the team. The thought process, again, as crazy as it may sound, is that by putting a losing team on the field, John Fisher and the ownership team could help shoehorn a move of the team to Las Vegas for financial reasons. Fans are (rightfully) angry at this decision given that Fisher has spent years running the team on a stingy payroll,[1] ranking 27th out of 30 Major League Baseball teams in spending since the 2016 season and never ranking higher than 23rd, while also trading away some of the team’s top young talent. After striking out (pun not intended) numerous times when trying to obtain public funding with the city of Oakland for a new stadium,[2] Fisher and ownership set their sights on Las Vegas. Not even a reverse-boycott, where 27,659 fans of the Oakland Athletics packed the stadium and chanted for Fisher to sell the team (among other less kind words),[3] could make the ownership stop to think about the ramifications of moving the team See relevant tweet from @BenRossTweets The move to Las Vegas has been seemingly imminent since ownership signed a deal earlier this year to purchase a 49-acre site just west of the Las Vegas Strip to build a new stadium.[3] An aggressive timeline for the building was set: ground would be broken in 2024, with the first season of playing as the Las Vegas A’s to be 2027.[5] Even with a contract for the land needed to build the stadium in place, there were still several pieces that ownership would need to figure out before they could fully commit to the move – the purchase and sale agreement with the land was surely peppered with closing conditions that would need to be satisfied before the ownership group would close on the land. (The closing conditions ultimately will not matter as the team backed out of this contract in favor of an agreement with Bally’s Corporation to lease the land it owns for the stadium given that ownership was once again having issues obtaining local funding, this time in Las Vegas instead of Oakland).[6] With the stadium set to cost approximately $1.5 billion, ownership asked for public funding from the Nevada Legislature in the amount of approximately $395 million (just under the $500 million the team was initially expected to ask for before working out the Bally’s arrangement).[7] Public funding is by no means guaranteed, and it is often hotly debated as cities and their residents question whether they should take on increased taxes in order to help pay for a billionaire’s (Fisher is estimated at a net worth of 2.2 billion) new stadium, but it has increasingly become the norm for professional sports teams looking to upgrade their stadiums. Sports are big business, and big business often gets what it wants through a combination of money and lobbying power. Ownership did, however, hit an initial snag as the Nevada Legislature reportedly was only willing to fund up to $195 million in transferable tax credits for funding the construction of the stadium.[8] Among financial issues, per Michael Colbruno, the team also needed to work through a transportation mobility study and parking study in order to ensure that the stadium would be feasible from a planning perspective. See relevant tweet from @MikeOpera Despite the hurdles faced in the Nevada Legislature, and the general hostility of fans of the OAKLAND Athletics, ownership scored a major win this week as the Nevada Legislature approved $380 million in funding for a new Major League Baseball ballpark in Las Vegas.[9][10] The next two steps, signing of the bill into law by Nevada’s Governor, Joe Lombardo, and approval of major league owners, is all but guaranteed at this point. Interestingly enough, to appease the concerns of local taxpayers, ownership guaranteed an annual value of $2 million in community benefits from the stadium.[11] The term "community benefits" is a bit of a loose term without any real definition, but here’s to hoping that the new stadium makes good on its promise of being a good steward in its community, even if it may be the bane of fans being left behind in Oakland. Grant Williamson is a graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law - J.D., Class of 2019. He can be found on Twitter @GrantWilli33. Sources: [1] John Fisher is redefining sports owner malpractice as he spitefully tries to move his Oakland A's to Las Vegas - CBSSports.com. Fisher was also the only owner of a Major League Baseball team NOT to pay minor leaguers during the cancelled 2020 season, only deciding to pay the players once public disfavor reached a breaking point. Id. [2] The Las Vegas A's? The latest on potential move from Oakland - ESPN. [3] Oakland to Las Vegas: A's move could be held up over request for nearly $400M in public funding, per report - CBSSports.com. [4] The Oakland A's plan to move to Las Vegas : NPR. [5] Id. [6] Bally's Corporation - Bally's, GLPI And The Oakland Athletics Reach Transformational Agreement Enabling State-of-the-Art Ballpark On The Las Vegas Strip (ballys.com). [7] Oakland A’s ask for $400m in public money as move to Las Vegas nears | Oakland Athletics | The Guardian. [8] A’s Deal Is Dependent on Funding | The Nevada Independent. [9] Las Vegas legislature passes bill to build A's new stadium - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com). [10] Funding will be split between $180 million in tax credits and $120 million in county bonds. See Oakland A's take another step toward Las Vegas with $380 million public funding approval from Senate, Assembly - CBSSports.com. [11] Las Vegas legislature passes bill to build A's new stadium - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com).

The PGA Tour and LIV Golf have filed a Joint Notice of Dismissal with prejudice in the Northern DIstrict of California. The filing brings an end to nearly a year of hotly contested litigation between the two parties, who have more recently been mired in discovery-related disputes in the Ninth Circuit. The filing comes on the heels of a bombshell announcement by PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan and Saudi Public Investment Fund Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan last week that the parties have come to terms on an initial framework agreement that would see the PIF and PGA Tour contribute their assets into a new entity. Most notable about today's dismissal is that it is filed with prejudice. This means that all litigation and all claims between the two parties - both now and in the future - are effectively terminated. "In the future" means that even if the PGA Tour and PIF partnership is voted down by the PGA Tour's Policy Board or blocked by the Department of Justice, the lawsuits cannot be refiled, and the PGA Tour and LIV would essentially be forced to co-exist. The parties likely did not have an appetite for negotiating the framework of an industry-altering agreement with the constant threat of litigation restarting at any moment looming over their heads. Despite today's filing, the PGA Tour and PIF/LIV saga might be a long way from over. The parties will now focus their efforts on structuring their partnership in a way that earns approval from both the PGA Tour's Policy Board and the Department of Justice. Although it is safe to assume that Jay Monahan, Jimmy Dunne, and Ed Herlihy (negotiators of the deal) will vote in favor of the partnership, the sentiment of the other eight members of the Policy Board - which includes Rory McIlroy and 4 other players - is less than clear. Additionally, several members of Congress have expressed concerns with the proposal to date, and the DOJ had a head start in its antitrust investigation. However, even if the partnership does not clear those hurdles, the lawsuits between the two parties are effectively over. John Nucci is the Chief Golf Law Correspondent for Conduct Detrimental and a Corporate Associate Attorney in New York. He can be reached on Twitter at @JNucci23 or by email at [email protected]

Today marks the start of the 123rd U.S. Open Championship on the North Course of the Los Angeles Country Club. The best golfers in the world will battle for the largest purse in the event’s history. This year’s purse is a momentous $20 million, up from $17.5 million in 2022, leaving the winner walking away with $3.6 million on Sunday. The U.S. Open is unlike any other major sporting event, allowing the dreamers a chance to play. The "open" part of the U.S. Open means that anyone can try and qualify to play in the event. This year, a record 10,187 golfers submitted an entry to play, and after several stages of qualifying, only 156 will tee it up. CEO of USGA, Mike Whan, highlights the tournament's uniqueness saying "You know, nobody comes to you six months before the Super Bowl and says, 'We're about to do some combines and if you're a good enough receiver – you play.’” The tournament begins after the shocking announcement that the PGA Tour — during a bitter antitrust lawsuit with LIV Golf and having stood its ground on legacy and the source of LIV money — has agreed to partner with the Saudi Arabia wealth fund that pays for LIV Golf. There are concerns about where the media focus will be, similar to last year’s U.S. Open in Boston, which started on the heels of a LIV event. Regardless of the noise and inevitable confusion, Whan believes the announcement of the merger and the drama surrounding it will take a back seat to this week’s U.S. Open Championship. The effect that the PGA – LIV merger will have on the tournament is still unknown. For now, all the golf world can do is sit back and enjoy while we wait for a new champion to emerge and etch their name in the U.S. Open Championship Trophy. Madelyn Feyko is a Rising 2L at Hofstra Law and the Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. She can be found on LinkedIn at the following link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/madelyn-feyko-8942b520a/

On May 27, 2023, Luton Town beat Coventry City 6-5 in penalty kicks to be promoted into the top flight of English soccer. The small English town with a population of just under 300,000 residents watched in excitement as their local soccer club reached heights not seen before. This is the first time Luton Town will be in the English Premier League since its creation in 1992. They will face some of the biggest teams in the world next season, such as Manchester City, Liverpool, & Arsenal, playing in front of crowds reaching 60,000 to 70,000 in attendance. With all the excitement, though, the team now faces new challenges, and meeting the requirements of the Premier League will be tough in such a short time. This article will focus on the upgrades needed for Luton Town’s stadium to be “Premier League” Ready. Luton Town’s stadium, built in 1905, currently sits within the heart of the town with a capacity of 10,356. Comparatively, the average size of Premier League stadiums is a capacity of 41,051, the largest stadium being Old Trafford in Manchester with a capacity of 74,140. The stadium itself is surrounded on all sides by residential buildings and even one of its main entrances is directly under apartment units. Luton Town Chief Executor Gary Sweet met with BBC Radio’s Today programme to talk about how they are going to address these issues. Mr. Sweet stated that they plan to spend up to 10 million pounds specifically to get the current stadium ready for next season, which is only roughly 3 months away. Mr. Sweet also discussed building an entirely new stadium. The soccer club has been preparing to build a new 23,000-person stadium and began planning back in 2019. With all these new plans for serious renovations to the current stadium and plans to build a new stadium, will this be enough to be “Premier League” ready? The Premier League issues a handbook each year detailing things from what teams are in the league, to more detailed rules and regulations regarding every aspect of the league. The handbook has specific stadium requirements, some of which are as follows: the stadium needs to be properly leased or owned by the club as per English real estate law, any renovations to the stadium must be approved by the Premier League Board of Officials, and even regulations on how to specifically maintain the field to ensure players safety. The handbook further details even having specific parking and entrances for away teams that are on the opposite side of the home team to prevent conflict. Building the new stadium will not only have to meet all English zoning and building laws but also the requirements of the Premier League Board of Officials. The question still remains if Luton Town’s stadium will be able to handle the thousands of visiting fans each weekend, but only time will tell. Evan Lautato, Rising 2L at St. John’s University of Law School, 1L Representative for the Entertainment and Sports Law Society, www.linkedin.com/in/evan-lautato-a4bb14178 Citations: https://www.sportsballshop.co.uk/blogs/sport/premier-league-stadium-capacity-2021-22 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-65249178 https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2023/05/25/33ed7ee2-691b-4689-87a6-a895bf31581c/PL_Handbook_2022-23_DIGITAL_23.05.23.pdf

The PGA and LIV Golf League (LIV) surprisingly agreed to unify and become one golf entity last week. Their bitter comments towards one another and the year-long legal battle are finally over. Could part of the merger be because of LIV’s trademark filing issues? In March, LIV nightclub in Miami, known as one of the most popular clubs in America filed a court action to oppose LIV’s attempt to register its trademark. According to the Notice of Opposition, the nightclub believed that both trademarks are “visually and phonetically similar and the goods and services share similarities.” For both companies, LIV represents the Roman numeral for the number 54. LIV nightclub was built in 1954 and each LIV golf event is 54 holes. The nightclub does not want to have its own trademarks diluted. Trademark dilution refers to the unauthorized use of and/or application for a trademark that is likely to weaken the distinctive quality of or harm a famous mark. Trademark dilution protects marks that are so well-known, highly reputable, or “famous” that jurisdictions have decided they deserve protection whether or not their unauthorized use is likely to cause consumer confusion. This is different from trademark infringement. Trademark dilution does not necessarily involve the unauthorized use of a mark in connection with marks that are confusingly similar to those offered in connection with the famous mark. LIV nightclub and LIV golf are unrelated to one another, but LIV nightclub is so famous since athletes, models, and other prominent figures attend regularly that consumers could believe they are associated with one another. Without a trademark for the name of the league, LIV Golf most likely would have had to change its name in order to make money off of its name and likeness. Also, an Argentine corporation, Cool Brands Supply, has filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against the LIV Golf League and its HyFlyers GC team captain, Phil Mickelson. Both logos are reflected pairs of F’s. The company has a real case due to the similarity of the logos in the same class consisting of shirts, hats, and sweatshirts. The complaint states, “the similarities between the two marks, particularly when used on clothing, are striking, and are confusing consumers and causing damage to Plaintiff's senior mark and brand.” Cool Brands Supply also stated that due to LIV’s ties to Saudi Arabia, it could hurt its brand’s reputation if consumers believe that it partnered with LIV. After these incidents, LIV would have to do some rebranding in order to have trademarks that they could actually profit off of. Without filed trademarks, LIV would be prone to trademark litigation. The PGA Tour has a vast number of filed trademarks that they could use in numerous classes. It would be no surprise if trademarks were a small reason LIV decided to merge with the PGA Tour. Chris D'Avanzo is a 2L at Hofstra Law School and can be found on Twitter @_chrisdavanzo.

Taco Tuesday is a phrase that many companies would love to trademark. LeBron James has recently made this phrase famous through his social media videos of his family enjoying tacos every Tuesday. In 2019, LeBron James was unsuccessful in registering “Taco Tuesday” as a trademark and was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). James wanted protection from liability if he used “Taco Tuesday” in certain projects, like podcasts and other media sources. Ultimately, the phrase has been trademarked since 1989. The phrase is owned by two entities, Taco John’s and Gregory’s Bar & Restaurant. Taco John’s owns the trademark in 49 states and Gregory’s Bar and Restaurant owns the trademark in New Jersey. Typically, a trademark is established on a first come first served basis, but it is possible to have two separate businesses own the same trademark. For example, when one company used a business name first, but another company registered the name before them. If the company can prove that they had the business name first, then they would be able to use the business name in their geographic market. The company would not be able to use the mark outside of their geographic market though. This is how Taco John’s and Gregory’s Bar & Restaurant own the “Taco Tuesday” trademark. Recently, Lebron James teamed up with Taco Bell to pursue the revocation of the trademark. Together the pair want to “liberate the phrase for restaurants nationwide.” James said in a statement. "'Taco Tuesdays' create opportunities that bring people together in so many ways, and it's a celebration that nobody should own." The pair even created a commercial about the revocation that aired during Game 2 of the NBA Finals. In their petition, they will have to prove that the phrase “Taco Tuesday” is a commonplace message. A commonplace message can never be a trademark because the expression merely conveys an ordinary, familiar, well recognized sentiment. In other words, the more common a term or phrase is used in everyday speech, the less likely consumers will perceive the matter as a trademark or service mark for any goods and services. On the other hand, Taco John’s and Gregory’s Bar & Restaurant will have to prove that the mark identifies their goods or services. It is how customers recognize them in the marketplace and distinguishes them from other competitors. The case is currently before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which can only decide if the trademark registration should remain in place. If Taco Bell is successful then any person or restaurant in the country will be allowed to offer Taco Tuesday promotions. Chris D'Avanzo is a 2L at Hofstra Law School and can be found on Twitter @_chrisdavanzo.

Madison Square Garden (MSG) is known as “The World's Most Famous Arena." It’s home to the New York Rangers, Knicks, Billy Joel, March Madness, and some of the biggest music acts in the world. The garden is the forefront of entertainment in New York. While the arena is a New York City staple, its operating license is expiring in July and could be bad news for MSG. A Brief History of Madison Square Garden MSG has a robust history in New York City, having had four locations, the first of which opened in 1879. From 1879 to 1925 the first two arenas were located near Madison Square Park, at Fifth Avenue and 23rd Street. A third MSG opened in 1925 on Eighth Avenue and 50th Street, this arena closed in 1968. Currently, MSG is located in Midtown Manhattan between Seventh and Eighth Avenues from 31st to 33rd Street above Pennsylvania Station.[1] When it was announced that MSG would move above Penn Station, not everyone was celebrating the new location. The public, architecture lovers and preservationists were all upset that Penn Station would lose its charm because the light-strewn main waiting room would be no more. Nonetheless, the developers won and the project began construction. In order to build MSG, Penn Station was relocated below ground and kept functioning during the five years of construction. [2] When all was said and done MSG and a new office building were erected on the site. Madison Square Gardens License Issue The anger that many New Yorkers felt about Penn Station being moved underground is at the forefront of the latest dispute between MSG, the community, and the three major transportation authorities. A New York City law requires arenas with more than 2,500 seats to get special permits to operate. Ten years ago, MSG requested a permanent permit which was denied. Instead, in 2013, the city granted MSG a ten-year license, shorter than the 50-year permit that was granted in 1963.[3] On Wednesday, June 7, 2023, the City Planning Commission will begin hearing testimony on MSG’s bid to operate permanently after the current city permit expires on July 24, 2023. The fate of the MSG’s location is complicated because of several issues (1) how to transform Penn Station so it meets the needs of the city (2) whether to expand the station to accommodate more trains and (3) whether to build ten new office towers around the station. A new shocking report from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) may put MSG’s location in jeopardy. The MTA released a report stating that Penn Station and MSG are no longer compatible together. The report stated: “The Garden’s site plan and loading arrangements may have been compatible with Penn Station and the surrounding community in the early 1960s. Today, however, MSG’s existing configuration and property boundaries impose severe constraints on the station that impede the safe and efficient movement of passengers and restrict efforts to implement improvements, particularly at the street and platform levels.”[4] The MTA was backed by the station's other two tenants: Amtrak and NJ Transit. This is an interesting tactic by the MTA if they are trying to sway MSG owner James Dolan into moving the arena to another part of the city. There have been talks of MSG moving to Hudson Yard which hosts the National Hockey Leagues offices. However, one thing people love about MSG’s location is the convince of Amtrack, NJ Transit, the LIRR, and New York City subways. Penn Station offers the ease of traveling to events at MSG and encourages people to take public transportation as opposed to driving. A spokesperson for MSG Entertainment stated: “We are disappointed to see this compatibility report from the MTA and the other rail agencies, considering how we have been cooperating throughout this process. This is the opinion of a few and not all stakeholders involved.”[5] Impact on the Rangers and Knicks If MSG is not granted a new license, the arena would not be able to host more than 2,500 people. MSG holds about 18,500 - 19,812 people for Rangers and Knicks games. This would create a hardship for the Rangers and Knicks who have strong ties to the city. The ramifications of not being granted a new license would severely impact these two franchises financially because they would only be able to sell 2,500 tickets per game. Both teams would lose money for lack of ticket sales. Fans would also have issues getting tickets to games because so few would be sold. Trying to get tickets to see the teams play would be harder than getting tickets to The Eras Tour. Jobs would also be lost because fewer concessions would need to be open. The blow to the teams’ finances could force them to seek out other arenas and possibly leave New York permanently. It wouldn’t be the first time professional teams left a state due to not filling up seats at a game. As someone who sees MSG as a second home, I hope the city and the arena can come to a compromise to renew the license. Jessica Shaw is a graduate of New York Law School and awaiting admission in New York State. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Agovino, Michael J. “How the Magic Came to Madison Square Garden.” Zurich.Com, 3 Nov. 2022, www.zurich.com/en/media/magazine/2022/how-zurich-north-america-helped-bring-the-magic-to-madison-square-garden#:~:text=And%20it%20placed%20Madison%20Square,fights%20there%2C%20winning%20each%20time. [2]Id. [3] Rubinstein, Dana. “Madison Square Garden Wants to Stay Put Forever. It May Not Be so Easy.” The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/nyregion/madison-square-garden-permit-dolan.html. [4] Calder, Rich. “MSG, Penn Station Are ‘not Compatible’ Due to Boundaries Restricting Improvements: MTA.” New York Post, 3 June 2023, nypost.com/2023/06/03/msg-penn-station-are-not-compatible-mta/. [5]Id.

For devoted soccer followers in the United States, this day always seemed to be, at best, an optimistic dream. And yet, in what will certainly go down as a monumental moment in the history of American soccer, this day has seemingly arrived. This past morning, Lionel Messi, arguably the greatest soccer player of the modern generation, has seemingly agreed a deal (though not yet official at the time of writing) to join MLS side Inter Miami after having left the employ of his previous club, Paris Saint-Germain (PSG). Messi, the seven-time Ballon D’or winner and captain of 2022 FIFA World Cup-winning Argentina, has not been devoid of suitors since news of his impending departure from PSG became public. To begin, multiple reports suggested the possibility of Messi’s return to Barcelona, the club with whom he established his status as a global soccer icon and from whom he only departed because of previous financial constraints suffered by the Spanish club. If Messi were not convinced by his former club’s efforts to secure his signature for a second spell in La Liga, it appeared increasingly likely that his next destination would be in Saudi Arabia, as the Argentine midfielder is a Saudi ambassador for tourism and was being touted as the centerpiece to the continued evolution of the domestic league in Saudi Arabia, a league which has now recruited the likes of N’Golo Kante, Karim Benzema, and Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi’s longtime rival for the throne of soccer’s greatest player within the modern era. Within the last month, it was even reported that Saudi Arabian side Al-Hilal had offered Messi a contract worth approximately $400 million per year, and the league at large offered him a contract worth over €1 billion. Nevertheless, these rumors were ultimately supplanted by Messi’s decision to sign with MLS outfit Inter Miami. While the exact details of Messi’s contract have not yet been released, various aspects of the compensation Messi will receive have in fact been released. In light of these aspects, an understanding of the previous difficulties faced by Inter Miami in complying with league salary policies, along with the operative structure under which MLS operates, makes the realities of this prospective agreement all the more astounding. Most interestingly, Messi’s compensation package will not come entirely from Inter Miami. Rather, Apple, who recently obtained the broadcast rights to MLS matches for the next ten years, has offered Messi a share of its revenue from the MLS Season Pass subscriptions purchased by the viewers who wish to watch him play. Additionally, Adidas, the athletic brand for which Messi is a sponsor, has offered Messi an arrangement for a profit-sharing agreement, whereby Messi would receive a share of the increase in profits from Messi’s prospective move to Inter Miami. The fact that Apple and Adidas have assisted Inter Miami in offering additional compensation would be a crucially important factor in the success of this deal should it be made official. Frankly, given Inter Miami’s previous run-in with the MLS over financial breaches, the deal would likely be quite difficult without them. Around one year ago, the MLS announced sanctions against Inter Miami for violations of MLS’s salary budget and roster guidelines. According to the MLS, Inter Miami miscategorized former players Blaise Matuidi and Andrés Reyes by not labeling them as Designated Players, and they also underreported salary budget amounts from the contracts of three other players. These sanctions derived from a breach of the salary budget rules established by the MLS to cap each club’s spending on their roster at a uniform amount. If an MLS club has outspent its Salary Budget Charge, it must use either General Allocation Money (GAM) (money used to “buy down” a player’s salary so that the entire salary does not go toward the Salary Budget Charge) or Discretionary Targeted Allocation Money (TAM) (money that does not have to be used during the year but is available for a club to use toward building their roster) if they want to increase the amount they can spend on the roster. Additionally, it is important to note the operative structure under which MLS operates to understand why the league has so much power in regulating player transfers. In order to avoid lawsuits claiming antitrust violations, MLS was created as a single-entity system, in which all member clubs are classified not as individual organizations but as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the parent organization (the league). In that vein, while a club may be able to negotiate with a player for his signature, it is MLS, not the club, who signs the player to an employment contract and registers them with the league. In light of this background, Apple and Adidas’s involvement in this prospective deal is that much more beneficial from Inter Miami’s perspective, as it will very likely help to buy down Messi’s overall salary to comply with Salary Budget requirements. If these additional sources of compensation were not present in the deal, then perhaps Inter Miami would have a more difficult time in convincing MLS to approve this potentially historic agreement. Whether or not this deal becomes official has yet to be announced. Nevertheless, it appears increasingly likely by the minute, and should it be officially announced, it will be a contractual masterstroke from all parties involved. Involving third-party sources of compensation that will be triggered merely by Messi’s presence in the league is a brilliant way for Miami to counteract the hurdle of MLS Salary Budget rules, and it may just be the spark that the team itself desperately needs, as they currently sit in the bottom four of the Eastern Conference. Regardless, the prospect of arguably the greatest player of the modern generation continuing his career in the United States is so incredibly exciting, and with the World Cup coming to American soil in three years, it could not come at a better time. Bryce Goodwyn is a rising 2L at Regent University School of Law. He is a member of the Honors Program, and he also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the East Region Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

On Tuesday morning, the PGA Tour, DP World Tour and LIV golf released a joint statement announcing a surprise merger between the warring professional golf leagues. The news shocked the world of professional golf with an unnamed PGA Tour player saying “No f---ing way” to ESPN when reached out to on Tuesday. As would be expected, the announcement also stated that it will be “followed by a mutually agreed end to all pending litigation between the participating parties.” However, the end of the mutually destructive litigation does not mean that all potential legal risks are gone. First, remember that the Department of Justice launched an investigation into the PGA Tour regarding possible Anti-Trust violations the Tour may have committed during the course of their “battle” against LIV Golf. While it is currently unclear exactly what that investigation uncovered, what is clear is that the PGA Tour did not appreciate the US government taking a look behind the curtain at how the Tour operates. This lack of appreciation within the PGA Tour can be seen within the shocking 180 degree approach the PGA Tour took in merging with LIV Golf, an entity that PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan said last summer was an “irrational threat” attempting to buy the sport of golf. To Monahan’s credit, he did show some foresight when he said, “if this is an arms race and if the only weapons here are dollar bills, the PGA Tour can’t compete… with a foreign monarchy that is spending billions of dollars in attempt to buy the game of golf.”[1] Whether it was the pressure from the Department of Justice or the seemingly infinite checkbook of a foreign monarchy, the PGA Tour and Commissioner Monahan clearly took the hint that it may be time for the Tour to cash out and expand the amount of seats at the dinner table of professional golf spoils. However, just because the PGA Tour is finally willing to cooperate with other leagues does not mean that the Department of Justice investigation will suddenly conclude. The Department of Justice’s Antitrust division will likely continue to investigate and then recommend a course of action, but until then, anyone would be remiss to declare the PGA Tour free of any wrongdoing. Second, while the joint press release clarified certain aspects of how the merger will be achieved and operate in the future, many of the details surrounding the merger have yet to be revealed, which leaves major regulatory questions looming over the deal. According to the press release, “Under the terms of the agreement, the Board of Directors of the new entity will oversee and direct all the new entity’s golf-related commercial operations, businesses and investments. The new entity will work to ensure a cohesive schedule of events that will be exciting for fans, sponsors and all stakeholders. PIF will initially be the exclusive investor in the new entity, alongside the PGA TOUR, LIV Golf and the DP World Tour. Going forward, PIF will have the exclusive right to further invest in the new entity, including a right of first refusal on any capital that may be invested in the new entity, including into the PGA TOUR, LIV Golf and DP World Tour. The PGA TOUR will appoint a majority of the Board and hold a majority voting interest in the combined entity.” Two of the more interesting points include the PIF possessing the exclusive right to further invest in the new entity, whereas the PGA Tour will seemingly control a majority of the board and hold a majority voting interest in the new entity, leaving everyone to wonder who will truly control and operate this new entity. More terms for this merger agreement or at least partial terms will likely begin to surface in the coming weeks, but the PGA Tour made it clear in the press release that they intend to remain as a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization, a decision that many people will definitely question as a traditional 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization must not be organized for profit and this new entity has clearly been organized as a “for-profit entity” as per the press release. (If you are interested in learning more about the PGA Tour’s 501(c)(6) tax-exempt structure, check out the previous blog I wrote on the topic here.) Whether or not merging with LIV Golf was the right move for the PGA Tour and how the PGA Tour’s 501(c)(6) tax exempt structure will be affected going forward is unclear, but as Winston Churchill once said, “those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It seems safe to say that Jay Monahan has been studying the history of professional golf and may have learned a lesson on how ego and arrogance can ruin multi-billion-dollar professional sports leagues. (P.S – this entire feud was pointless if the new entity isn’t named the “Super Golf League”) Benjamin Kaner is a 3L at New York Law School with a passion for sports and law. Benjamin is passionate about all sports but especially Golf, International Football, and Formula 1. Benjamin is interested in working with sports leagues and teams in the future. You can find Benjamin on Twitter and Instagram @BenKaner. [1] https://golf.com/news/jay-monahan-calls-liv-golf-irrational-threat/

This has been a big week when it comes to broadcasts of MLB games. Marred in financial trouble, Diamond Sports Group decided it would not pay the rights fee to the San Diego Padres, triggering MLB to take control of the club’s broadcast rights. Diamond Sports Group, the Baltimore-based parent company of 19 Bally Sports channels, had already missed payments to the Arizona Diamondbacks, Cleveland Guardians, Minnesota Twins, and Texas Rangers this season. However, because the Padres and the company were joint owners of Bally Sports San Diego, the rights immediately flowed to the club and league when Diamond failed to pay up. Ironically, the news that MLB would take over broadcasting Padres games in lieu of Diamond came right before a significant bankruptcy court case determining the fate of Diamond’s contracts with the four clubs it skipped payments to. Diamond, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, argued it should be able to pay less than the original contract mandated due to changes in market dynamics in the era of cord-cutting and the decline of cable television. However, after a couple of tension-filled days in a Houston courtroom, Judge Christopher Lopez ruled in favor of MLB, stating that baseball games were an essential service and DSG was obligated to pay the full contract rate. This was a huge win for MLB and the D-backs, Guardians, Twins, and Rangers because taking less than full price while still relinquishing broadcasting rights to Diamond would’ve been detrimental to their respective bottom lines. However, just because these teams are entitled to payment doesn’t mean Diamond will come through with the money owed. Just as Diamond decided not to pay the Padres, the company will need to decide whether it will be able to keep the contracts or reject them. If they cannot pay up, there’s a strong likelihood more teams will be in the Padres' position soon. This story has massive ramifications that go beyond how fans consume baseball. Local television money is a major source of revenue for every MLB team. While the exact amount of money each team rakes in varies by market, there’s no doubt that the last thing teams want is to miss out on these payments. Yes, MLB does have a lucrative national TV deal, and smaller market teams benefit from revenue sharing. But outside of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, and Cubs who either own or receive massive payments from their regional sports network, the decline of RSNs is a big development to watch moving forward. Fans might not care if their teams are making a profit or not, but when their team is hypothetically unable to sign the star free agent they want over the winter, they might be a little more concerned. While the RSN downfall has many cons for teams, it isn’t all bad news. One of Rob Manfred’s top priorities currently is expanding the game’s reach. A big part of doing that is making the sport accessible to as many people as possible. MLB.tv is one of the league’s best products that enables fans to watch nearly every out-of-market game. On the flip side, because cable distributors pay high dollar for exclusive broadcasting rights for RSNs like Bally Sports, the in-market streaming on MLB.tv is often susceptible to local blackouts. However, with Diamond Sports potentially losing control of broadcasts, MLB could be on the precipice of being able to offer more in-market streaming opportunities. For example, the league is offering San Diegans the opportunity to stream Padres games locally for a little bit more than they would be paying for MLB.tv otherwise. We could see more of this in the future, especially if Diamond doesn’t pay up in Arizona, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Texas. While MLB won the court case, this story is far from over. MLB isn’t the NFL where national television money can satisfy each of its teams. Local television money is a big facet of not just MLB teams, but NBA and NHL teams too. As cable television has seen many changes over the past few years, RSNs are definitely feeling its effects. The economics of baseball have been in the news lately with the return from COVID-19 in 2020 and the arduous CBA negotiations last year. How MLB games are broadcasted and what revenues are available to teams is something every baseball fan should be monitoring in the short and long term. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

Major League Baseball will take over broadcasting San Diego Padres games for the foreseeable future after Diamond Sports Group missed its payment to the Padres. The missed payment is another hit to Diamond Sports Group’s offerings as it battles bankruptcy and other issues. Diamond Sports Group has an ownership stake in Bally Sports San Diego, the regional sports network that broadcasts San Diego Padres baseball games. In 2012, Diamond Sports Group entered into a 20-year deal with the San Diego Padres to broadcast the team’s games in exchange for $1.2 billion. Importantly, the Padres kept an ownership stake in Bally Sports San Diego. In March, Diamond Sports Group filed for bankruptcy, which has led to the group failing to make broadcast rights payments to multiple teams, including the Arizona Diamondbacks. In May, the Phoenix Suns attempted to contract their broadcast rights to another company after alleging that the team’s deal with Diamond Sports Group had expired. A judge blocked the deal, noting that even though the group filed for bankruptcy, the group had a contractual right to negotiate an extension with the Suns. Notably, Diamond Sports Group did not include the Padres’ broadcasting rights in the bankruptcy filing because the team had an ownership stake in the network. Thus, Diamond Sports Group’s failure to pay the team reverts the rights to the Padres. Now, Major League Baseball will step in and broadcast the games via streaming through multiple outlets. Dominoes are continuing to fall for Diamond Sports Group. Considering the group does not have bankruptcy protections to lean on for the Padres’ rights, this is a big loss for the group. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

In April 2023, the NFL announced the suspension of five players for violating the league's strict gambling policy. The suspensions have left fans and analysts wondering how they will impact their respective teams, and how the league will continue to enforce its policy going forward. The league suspended four Lions players including wide receivers Jameson Williams, Quintez Cephus, Stanley Berryhill, and safety C.J. Moore. The fifth player suspended was the Washington Commanders' defensive end, Shaka Toney. Berryhill and Williams were handed a 6-game suspension while Cephus, Moore, and Toney are suspended indefinitely with the ability to revisit the suspension after one year. The league released in a statement, “The gambling policy, which is annually reviewed with all NFL personnel, including players, prohibits anyone in the NFL from engaging in any form of gambling in any club or league facility or venue, including the practice facility.” Additionally, the league felt it was necessary to defend the integrity of the games that were bet on by stating, “A league review uncovered no evidence indicating any inside information was used or that any game was compromised in any way.” These suspensions had an immediate effect on Detroit. Following the NFL’s statement, the Lions released their own regarding the organization's own players. Lions general manager Brad Holmes said in a statement “As a result of an NFL investigation, it came to our attention that a few of our players had violated the league's gambling policy.” He continued, "These players exhibited decision-making that is not consistent with our organizational values and violates league rules. We have made the decision to part ways with Quintez and C.J. immediately. We are disappointed by the decision-making demonstrated by Stanley and Jameson and will work with both players to ensure they understand the severity of these violations and have clarity on the league rules moving forward." To fully understand my critique of these suspensions it is important to note the differences in the actions of the players that led to some receiving shorter suspensions than the others. The three players that received the indefinite suspension were caught betting on NFL games while Berryhill and Williams placed bets on college games while at the team facilities. Even as a staunch supporter of sports betting, prohibiting the placing of wagers on a league you participate in is one line that I believe should be staunchly enforced. The integrity of sports betting flies out the window when those who are actively participating in the game and/or have knowledge that would put that person at an extreme advantage. However, my opinion changes when we look at the suspension of Berryhill and Williams. Do I think they should’ve been suspended? Yes, they broke a rule that is clearly outlined in the NFL’s Gambling Policy for NFL Personnel. Do I believe that this rule is dumb and should not be applied to players who are placing bets on leagues not affiliated with their employment? A resounding YES. The NFL and its affiliated teams enjoy profit from their partnerships with sports betting companies such as FanDuel, DraftKings, and many others. According to SponsorUnited’s 2022 NFL Report, more than 25 NFL teams have a sports betting or daily fantasy sports sponsorship deal. Just this past year, the Buffalo Bills inked a multi-year deal with FanDuel to become the team’s official mobile sports betting partner. This runs in conjunction with New York’s record-setting mobile sports betting revenue numbers hitting around $1.754 billion. The 2022 report also states that sports betting deals have quadrupled over the past 3 NFL seasons. This growth in sponsorship deals led to a 40% increase in revenue for the teams just this past year alone. Given that the league takes full advantage of legalized gambling why should players not be able to bet on other leagues? They do not have inside knowledge that would allow them to beat the system and they certainly would not hold the power to influence the outcome of games in these other leagues. I believe that the rules should be amended to allow players and other personnel to enjoy legalized sports betting as long as those bets are not placed on NFL games. Having restrictions on the time and place in which personnel can place legal sports wagers on unaffiliated leagues seems like an overstep. The league is sending a message that they can enjoy the full benefits of legalized gambling while hampering their personnel and players from enjoying the same freedom. Yes, NFL players should not be allied to bet on NFL games. But punishing players for placing otherwise permissible wagers because they happened to be sitting in an NFL facility is ludicrous. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He serves as one of Conduct Detrimental’s Producers and Editors. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw.