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.

In 2020 the NBA was forced to play in a “bubble” format in Orlando where players could not leave and the rules made it very difficult to get items sent in. During this time Jimmy Butler did not enjoy the coffee options that they had so he started to make his own. He used an espresso machine that he brought for his hotel room and started to sell coffee to other players for $20 a cup (we think Starbucks prices are bad). It was a success and from that experience, he launched his own coffee brand called Bigface Brand in 2021. Butler has taken his coffee business just as serious as his play on the court. He has various pending trademark applications pertaining to the Bigface Brand and has spent thousands to do so. During yet another historic playoff run Butler has filed another trademark application for his brand, “Jimmy’s Secret Stuff.” According to the trademark application, he plans to sell coffee cups using the trademark. The timing and idea for the trademark is genius. The phrase, “Michael’s Secret Stuff” became wildly famous from the movie Space Jam starring Michael Jordan. In the movie, Michael’s Secret Stuff propelled Jordan and the Looney Tunes to a comeback victory over the Monstars. His performance on the court was so special and unique people thought there had to be something different in his drink. Even some NBA players today have gotten this phrase tattooed on them to remind them no matter what they can take their play to another level. Since the bubble, many people have compared Butler’s fiery competitiveness and stellar play in the playoffs to Michael Jordan. It has gotten so far that there is a conspiracy that Butler is Jordan’s son. This is for good reason because tonight, Butler and the Miami Heat are looking to punch their ticket to the NBA Finals as the second 8th seed to ever make the finals. (Knicks were first in a shortened season). Thus far in the playoffs, Butler has averaged 29.9 points per game, shooting 50% from the field, with a +/- of +39. With this type of play, there must be something special in his cup!

2023 has been a fascinating year so far for Major League Baseball. Through the implementation of new rules and the pitch timer, the league has placed an emphasis on action, athleticism, and pace. However, there is another item MLB and a few of its owners have also centered their attention around building and improving ballparks. Over the last couple of years, Rob Manfred has repeatedly said that getting new stadiums for both the Oakland Athletics and Tampa Bay Rays was a high priority, especially before the league centers its attention on future expansion into new cities. Well, the good news is that it looks like one of those teams is close to getting a new stadium. The bad news for Oaklanders is that it won’t be in their hometown as the A’s recently reached an agreement with a group of politicians to build a new stadium in Las Vegas. While the amount of public funding might be lower than originally expected and the deal still must be voted on by the legislature, it appears like the A’s are on their way to Sin City soon. However, the A’s stadium situation is far from the only one that needs to be remedied. This past week, Manfred was in Milwaukee and reports surfaced that MLB is pressuring the Brewers to begin preparing upgrades and repairs to American Family Field. According to Dan O’Donnell, a sports talk radio host in Milwaukee, “Major League Baseball has told the Milwaukee Brewers that they need to repair American Family Field to ensure it remains an MLB-caliber ballpark.” While some outlets have floated possibilities of this situation leading to a potential relocation, it doesn’t appear like these are hostile threats from the commissioner’s office, just proactive action items to keep the Brewers ballpark from even nearing the state that the Oakland Coliseum has reached over the years. With relocation and expansion on the brain given the A’s inevitable move, I can understand why some immediately think the worst, but the Brewers and their fans are not among MLB’s problems. Despite being situated in one of MLB’s smallest media markets, the fans in Milwaukee are among the most passionate you’ll find in the league. All of this appears like a push to keep one of America’s finest facilities an A-grade fan experience for years to come. As mentioned earlier, the Rays stadium situation is also one to monitor in the coming months. The club is reportedly working hard on a deal of its own to stay in the Tampa-St. Petersburg market, seeking to negotiate an agreement by the end of the year to build a new $1.2 billion stadium near the current Tropicana Field site as part of a massive development of the surrounding Historic Gas Plant District. Despite their success on the field over the last fifteen years, the Rays haven’t drawn particularly well, consistently ranking near or at the bottom in total attendance. That can reasonably be attributed to Tropicana’s inconvenience to downtown Tampa along with the ballpark’s shortcomings compared to its peers. If the Rays ultimately stay in St. Petersburg, the convenience factor will obviously not be upgraded. However, if they can build not only a state-of-the-art facility but also an entertainment development around the park, things might change for the better. Constructing an entertainment district around stadiums is something that is becoming more and more of a buzzword when new facilities are being built. Yes, the 81 home games inevitably bring masses of people to the ballpark and its surrounding area every year. However, there are still 284 more days (minus postseason or exhibition games) left in a year for teams to search for additional revenue streams. As a result, these entertainment districts are all the rage right now, as successes like The Battery in Atlanta, Ballpark Village in St. Louis, Wrigleyville in Chicago, and Texas Live in Arlington are inspiring owners across the majors to eye their own developments. While it’s easier said than done to pay for and construct such a district, it makes complete sense. While MLB is seeing an uptick in attendance from previous years (likely stemming from lessening COVID-19 concerns), fans simply aren’t filing through the turnstiles like they did in the past. This isn’t just a baseball issue as increases in the at-home television experience have incentivized fans to not fight traffic or pay for parking or overpriced foods and drinks at games in all sports. Therefore, creating and maintaining an exceptional in-stadium experience is essential for the league and its owners. With a likely decline in RSN revenues on the horizon, clubs will be pressed to make up some of those losses in both the short and long term. Getting not only the die-hard baseball “lifers,” but also the casual fan in or around the ballpark is more important than ever, and each team will have their own way of creating a great experience that keeps people coming back. While the A’s, Brewers, and Rays' stadium situations are all unique, there is a common thread that cuts through them all. Whether it's upgrading or maintaining its 30 current stadiums or building new ballparks in expansion markets, the experience of going to a ballgame needs to be special. Therefore, don’t be surprised if you hear news about what might coming to your local ballpark moving forward. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

I do not know Ja Morant. I know he went to Murray State which is in Kentucky, and I go to the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville, which is also in Kentucky. That is as much of a connection as we have. But even with that little connection, I know that Ja Morant is clearly struggling with something. He has the wrong people around him, and he keeps putting himself in situations that could cost him tens of millions of dollars. Commissioner Adam Silver has suspended him indefinitely because of his latest slip-up, and it is said there will be a lengthy suspension to start next season. What could that number look like? Well, if you look at NBA history, there really is no consistent standard. Two months ago, Ja Morant was suspended for eight games because he flashed a gun at a club during an Instagram live stream after a game in Denver. He took time away from the team, sought counseling, and said he learned from the incident. It appears that he did not learn a lot. On May 14th, he was seen in another Instagram live video brandishing a firearm and again finds himself under fire. Over the last few months, Morant has consistently made poor choices that have landed him under public scrutiny. Last May, Morant appeared to threaten a Twitter user when he responded to them stating that it is “Free to see how hollows feel”, likely a reference to hollow-point bullets. Next during the offseason, Morant was involved in two separate incidents. The first incident occurred when he allegedly assaulted a mall security guard, and the second when he allegedly punched a teenager during a game of pickup basketball. Then in January of 2023, one of Ja Morant’s associates allegedly threatened Indiana Pacers staffers and pointed a red laser at them. The staffers claimed the laser was attached to a gun. This brings us to the past two months. In March, Morant flashed a gun at a club in Denver while livestreaming on Instagram, and just this month, he appears to have done the same thing. After the first livestream incident, Morant was suspended by the Grizzlies and missed eight games. Following a very similar incident this week, we must wonder what the next suspension for Morant will look like. It might be worth looking at similar offenses of past players to get an idea of what type of discipline Morant might be faced with. In 2007 Stephen Jackson was suspended for seven games for firing a gun five times into the air at a strip club in Indiana. He pleaded guilty to felony criminal recklessness and was suspended seven games by the league. In 2008 Sebastian Telfair was charged and convicted of criminal possession of a firearm and was sentenced to three years probation. The NBA felt that a three-game suspension was sufficient. Everyone remembers the famous incident that happened in 2009 in the Wizards locker room. Gilbert Arenas and Jarvis Crittenton pointed guns at each other after a card game got out of control. Arenas got a fifty-game suspension and Crittenton received thirty-eight. The next time that the NBA suspended a player for gun-related reasons was in 2010 when Delonte West was suspended for ten games for illegally carrying and concealing a firearm. This brings us to Morant, receiving eight games. Morant is now a repeat offender in the eyes of the NBA. However, he has not committed any crimes. Where will his suspension land? Who knows. If I were to guess based on the current facts and the previous suspensions, I’d say somewhere close to the thirty-eight games Jarvis Crittenton served. Whatever the length of the suspension, it needs to be long enough to send a message, and maybe this time Morant will hear it. Wake Gardner is a rising 2L at the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. Someday he hopes to work for a sports team in Florida. He can be reached on Twitter @WakeGardner and by email at [email protected]. Sources: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/37648020/ja-morant-suspended-video-shows-grizzlies-star-gun https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/ja-morant-sent-a-terrible-deleted-tweet-after-a-fan-called-him-p-y-whipped-its-free-to-see-how-hollows-feel https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/ja-morant-accused-of-threatening-mall-security-in-memphis-punching-teenage-boy-last-summer-per-report/ https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2023/02/05/members-of-pacers-threatened-by-ja-morant-associates-in-memphis-per-report/69875130007/ https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=2936623 https://www.espn.com/nba/story?id=3643512&src=desktop https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4862783 https://nba.nbcsports.com/2010/08/20/delonte-west-suspended-for-10-games-after-guilty-plea-on-gun-charges/

As a sports fan in 2023, it is nearly impossible to not have heard of the apparel brand Fanatics. Whether it is through their countless advertisements on live sports programs, or their highly-visible branding on every major sports league’s online store, Fanatics has become the most prominent sports retailer in the market today[1]. Recently however, Fanatics and CEO Michael Rubin have announced they are making the jump to in-game apparel, with a deal beginning in 2024 with the NHL to become their official on-ice uniform partner[2]. It is worth noting however, that while this marks the first time a Fanatics logo will appear on in-game uniforms, the company has manufactured the Nike-branded MLB on-field uniforms since 2017, so it is not completely foreign territory for the brand[3]. Now, with Fanatics moving into the on-field uniform business, I became curious about how a company with retail partnerships with every major US sports league doesn’t violate antitrust law? So, after doing some digging, I found a few cases filed against Fanatics in recent years alleging just that. The first, Casey’s Distributing Inc. v The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al, was filed in June of 2022. This case is still in the courts, but it accuses MLB and Fanatics of engaging in horizontal agreements with their fellow licensees to perform a group boycott of third-party entities from competing in the market[4]. Another case filed against Fanatics alleging antitrust actions is Maldonado et al v. National Football League Inc. et al. Much like Casey’s v. MLB, this case accuses Fanatics and the NFL of conspiring to do a group boycott against third-party sellers who had already purchased league merchandise via Amazon’s marketplace[5]. This case is also still ongoing, and no settlement or verdict has yet been reached or reported. If Fanatics is found guilty of antitrust violations, they could be required to pay millions of dollars in damages. But what does it mean to violate antitrust law, and what are the requirements courts use to determine if such a violation occurred? In assessing allegations of antitrust violations, the courts rely on the Sherman Act of 1890. The Sherman Act contains two sections, Section 1 which covers restraints of trade, and Section 2 which covers monopolization in a market. To prove a Section 1 violation, the plaintiff must show there was an agreement made between two or more parties, that this agreement unreasonably restrained trade, and that this agreement affected interstate commerce. For example, to look again at Fanatics, it would be easy to prove they had an agreement with the NFL or MLB as they publicly announce all of their retail partners[6]. To touch on the last requirement of proving a Section 1 violation, that the agreement affects interstate commerce, this is something that is almost always a guarantee in our modern contexts. Especially considering Fanatics partners with teams and leagues all over the country, it is obvious any potential antitrust action by Fanatics would affect interstate commerce. Now, for the hardest and most complicated part to prove, whether or not the agreement unreasonably restrained trade. Courts use a few different tests to determine what constitutes an “unreasonable” restraint of trade. The first test is known as the “per se” rule, which essentially looks at the actions in question and sees if they are inherently anti-competitive. Examples of activity that would violate the “per se” rule are group boycotts (which both Casey v. MLB and Maldonado v. NFL allege), horizontal agreements (which Casey v. MLB alleges), and price-fixing. Another kind of test the courts use to determine “unreasonable” restraints of trade is the “rule of reason” test. This analysis weighs the pro-competitive results of an agreement against its anti-competitive consequences, like a balancing test. Lastly, some courts use a “quick look” test, which incorporates aspects of the “per se” and “rule of reason” analyses as a means to determine if an antitrust violation occurred. In both Casey v. MLB and Maldonado v. NFL, the court will likely employ one or more of these tests in assessing the validity of the plaintiff’s claims. So, with these requirements and tests in mind, does Fanatics violate antitrust law? The courts have not yet decided that the agreements made by Fanatics with any of their 900+ sports properties violate antitrust law[7]. However, the two aforementioned cases are seeking to change that. A reason proving Fanatics guilty of breaking antitrust law could be especially difficult because for 3 out of the 4 major US sports, both the player’s union and the league office own shares of the brand[8]. This is relevant because if, say, only the leagues invested in Fanatics, a challenge from a player’s union could come alleging antitrust violations regarding licensing of player memorabilia or sharing of revenues generated from the sale of such memorabilia. Throughout recent antitrust and labor law history, player’s unions have been relatively successful against their leagues in antitrust cases[9]. Since the player’s unions also have a financial interest in Fanatics, it is highly unlikely any such suit would be brought. It will instead be left up to cases like Casey v. MLB and Maldonado v. NFL to challenge the vast market power Fanatics has over the sports retail industry. Greg Moretto is a 2023 graduate of Boston College. He will be working at Ropes & Gray in their corporate department as a paralegal come June. He can be found on Twitter @gregjmoretto Sources: [1] https://shop.nhl.com/ , https://www.mlbshop.com/ , https://store.nba.com/ , https://www.nflshop.com/ [2] https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/35906901/everything-need-know-nhl-fanatics-jersey-deal [3] ESPN [4] https://www.law360.com/articles/1501473/-fanatics-sports-merchandise-antitrust-suits-spread-to-mlb [5] https://www.law360.com/articles/1499448 [6] https://www.fanaticsinc.com/all-partners [7] https://huddleup.substack.com/p/how-fanatics-plans-to-become-a-100#:~:text=But%20this%20really%20shouldn%27t,%2C%20MLS%2C%20and%20Formula%201. [8] HuddleUp Blog [9] See Haywood v. NBA, Radovich v. NFL, Mackey v. NFL, McNeil v. NFL, Jackson v. NFL etc.

Introduction The Florida Panthers are playing the Toronto Maple Leafs in the second round of the 2023 National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs. Before Game 1 started in Toronto, tickets for the series went on sale on May 1. The Panthers will host Games 3 and 4 of the series at FLA Live Arena. The Panthers are restricting sales to Games 3 and 4 on Ticketmaster “to residents of the United States” and any orders “by residents outside of the United States will be canceled without notice and refunds given”.[1] Even though the Florida Panthers have not expressly unveiled their philosophy, it is obvious to some, that the Panthers would like to minimize the sheer number of the Canadian-based fans of the Maple Leafs out of the arena in order to maintain a home-ice advantage. Maple Leafs' fans will have the opportunity to purchase Game 3 and Game 4 tickets on the secondary market which amounts to limited availability hence far more expensive. Legal Challenge The question arises whether the Florida Panthers can legally manipulate ticket sales in this fashion. This is not the first time a home sports team has tried to limit opposing fans from purchasing tickets “in an effort to try and ensure that more home team fans can procure tickets…and that fans of the opposing team cannot.”[2] In 2006, for the Divisional Playoff game, the San Diego Chargers “limited ticket sales to southern California” against the New England Patriots.[3] In 2012, the Washington Nationals “limited advance ticket sales for games against the Phillies to Nationals’ season ticket holders and fans who resided in Washington, DC, Virginia, and Maryland.[4] In analyzing the legal issues associated with limiting tickets to opposing fans, a precedent for prior ticket manipulation does exist. This short article will focus on the arguments proposed in John E. Williams, III v. National Football League et al decided by the United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle. Williams v. National Football League In 2014, the Seattle Seahawks limited the sale of tickets in the 2014 NFC Championship game against the San Francisco 49ers in Seattle “to those individuals with credit card addresses from the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, or the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta”.[5] The Plaintiff, John E. Williams, a San Francisco 49ers fan and a Nevada resident was unable to purchase tickets to the 2014 NFC Championship because of his billing address which was in one of the “banned” states. He alleged that “the geographic restriction on ticket sales injured him because he was ‘excluded from the purchase of tickets’ in the primary market”.[6] Economic Discrimination and Violation of Public Accommodation Laws The plaintiff requested declaratory judgment based on claims of “economic discrimination” and violation of public accommodation laws as it pertains to the “alleged economic harm done to ‘the Economy in Seattle as well as the State of Washington State.”[7] The court held that “Plaintiff lacks standing to complain about economic harm done to the city of Seattle or Washington state”. In addition, the court held that the Plaintiff’s public accommodation argument “does not extend to discrimination on the basis of state residence.”[8] Consumer Protection The plaintiff argues that the Defendant violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), “which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce.”[9] The plaintiff contested “that the geographic sales restriction ‘makes it an unfair game to the Forty-Niners since the crowd gets so loud when the Forty-Niner Quarterback makes his call, it makes it an unfair game’”.[10] The court held that “any equity whose source is the volume of the…crowd does not state a legal claim under the WCPA”.[11] Antitrust Claim Plaintiff argued that Defendant violated the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Under the Sherman Act, “claims depend on a plaintiff establishing market power in a relevant market.”[12] The court found that “the plaintiff’s allegations did not relate to competition between firms in a market, but rather between two football teams” as “the geographic restriction on ticket sales related to an exercise of a natural monopoly on the sales of tickets in a single stadium.”[13] The Clayton Act “applies solely to commodities.”[14] The court held that tickets are not under the purview of the Clayton Act because they “are not tangible goods, but revocable licenses.”[15] Conclusion The case of Williams v. NFL “virtually assures that professional sports teams will continue to exercise the practice of ticket sales bans in the future” as the court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims.[16] Due to the decision in this case and the universal custom of ticket bans, the Florida Panthers can legally prohibit the sale of tickets to Games 3 and 4 to the Canadian-based Toronto Maple Leafs fans. Alexander is a graduate of Trinity College and earned his JD, cum laude, and MBA from Quinnipiac University. In law school, he was the Editor-in-Chief of the Quinnipiac Health Law Journal. Sources: [1] Cohen, Andrew, Panthers to Protect House by Blocking Maple Leafs Fans From Tickets (May 1, 2023) https://frontofficesports.com/florida-panthers-geo-restrict-tickets-ticketmaster-against-toronto-maple-leafs/ [2] Reese, James T., Dodds, Mark A., Let’s here it for the home team: Williams V. National Football League upholds geographic ticket sales ban (2015) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Let%27s+here+it+for+the+home+team%3A+Williams+V.+National+Football+League...-a0419928807 [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] Williams v. Nat'l Football League, CASE NO. C14-1089 MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2014) [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. [12] Reese, James T., Dodds, Mark A., Lets here it for the home team: Williams V. National Football League upholds geographic ticket sales ban (2015) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Let%27s+here+it+for+the+home+team%3A+Williams+V.+National+Football+League...-a0419928807 [13] Id. [14] Williams v. Nat'l Football League, CASE NO. C14-1089 MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2014) [15] Id. [16] Reese, James T., Dodds, Mark A., Lets here it for the home team: Williams V. National Football League upholds geographic ticket sales ban (2015) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Let%27s+here+it+for+the+home+team%3A+Williams+V.+National+Football+League...-a0419928807

The California Attorney General and New York Attorney General have launched a joint investigation into allegations of employment discrimination and a hostile work environment at the NFL. What Triggered the Investigation? The joint investigation stems from allegations made by former employees alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. A joint press release[i] summarized some of the key events that led to the investigation’s launch: February 2022: The New York Times reported[ii] on the more than 30 former female employees alleging gender discrimination and retaliation after they had filed complaints with the NFL’s human resources division. April 2022: New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of six attorneys general in sending a letter[iii] to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter requested the NFL to investigate allegations of workplace inequity. April 2023: A former director for NFL Enterprises LLC sued the organization for age and gender discrimination. The complaint alleged "pervasive sexism" in the workplace and a "boys' club" mentality among male peers, and attributed her 2022 layoff to retaliation for her complaints. What is the Scope of the Investigation? The joint investigation seeks information from the NFL regarding allegations of gender pay disparities, harassment, and gender and race discrimination. According to the joint press release, the Attorney Generals believe that the NFL has not taken sufficient effective steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation from occurring in the workplace. “No person should ever have to endure harassment, discrimination, or abuse in the workplace,” said Attorney General James. “No matter how powerful or influential, no institution is above the law, and we will ensure the NFL is held accountable.” “California will not tolerate any form of discrimination,” said California Attorney General Bonta. “We have serious concerns about the NFL’s role in creating an extremely hostile and detrimental work environment. No company is too big or popular to avoid being held responsible for their actions.” This investigation is the latest of a number of high-profile investigations involving the NFL and alleged discrimination. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if the Commissioner is able to “defend the shield” and protect the NFL’s reputation. Ken Winkler is a shareholder at Berman Fink Van Horn P.C. in Atlanta, where he counsels employers and business owners on employment law and compliance, including workplace issues such as harassment (#MeToo) and discrimination; ADA, FMLA and other employment laws governing the workplace; employment restrictions (non-competes); and employment and business litigation. Ken obtained his law degree (1993) and B.S.B.A (1990) from The Ohio State University. You can read his blog, SportsFansGuide2HR, and connect with him via LinkedIn and Twitter @kwinklerbfvlaw. Sources: [i] Attorneys General James and Bonta Launch Investigation into National Football League’s Workplace Practices and Culture, Office of the N.Y. State Attorney General (May 4, 2023), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2023/attorneys-general-james-and-bonta-launch-investigation-national-football-leagues. [ii] Katherine Roseman & Ken Belson, Promised a New Culture, Women Say the N.F.L. Instead Pushed Them Aside, The New York Times (Feb. 8, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/sports/football/nfl-women-culture.html. [iii] Attorney General James Demands NFL Address Gender-Based Discrimination, Office of the N.Y. State Attorney General (Apr. 6, 2022), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/attorney-general-james-demands-nfl-address-gender-based-discrimination. Ken Winkler is a shareholder at Berman Fink Van Horn P.C. in Atlanta, where he counsels employers and business owners on employment law and compliance, including workplace issues such as harassment (#MeToo) and discrimination; ADA, FMLA and other employment laws governing the workplace; employment restrictions (non-competes); and employment and business litigation. Ken obtained his law degree (1993) and B.S.B.A (1990) from The Ohio State University. You can read his blog, SportsFansGuide2HR, and connect with him via LinkedIn and Twitter @kwinklerbfvlaw.

The University of Alabama baseball team was having its best season under sixth-year head coach Brad Bohannon. With a collection of experienced upperclassmen along with talented freshmen, the Crimson Tide began the season 14-0 and have continued to play solid baseball in the rugged Southeastern Conference. However, Brad Bohannan was just fired by the school. What led to the sudden exit? It’s a very interesting and complex situation. If you read the news about Bohannon’s firing over the next couple of days, you’ll come to learn that there was “suspicious wagering activity” surrounding Alabama’s games against top-ranked LSU last weekend, leading to Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania halting all bets on the team’s games. More on that in a bit as it appears to be the crux of the matter at least from the outside. However, there is another factor that might’ve led to Alabama’s decision to let Bohannon go. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article (recently published) detailing how Bohannon and other members of the Crimson Tide baseball staff were sued for alleged negligence, wantonness, and breach of agreement for the handling of an injury by a former player who is no longer a member of the program. You can read more about the lawsuit in the article, but it can’t be ignored when discussing Bohannon’s firing. As it pertains to the suspicious betting, things definitely get interesting. On Monday night, an ESPN report surfaced that the state of Ohio was halting bets on Alabama baseball games, citing “suspicious betting activity” surrounding the Tide’s games against LSU over the weekend. The bets apparently originated in Cincinnati at Great American Ballpark, which triggered U.S. Integrity, a Las Vegas-based independent monitor which monitors gambling data to detect abnormalities and misuse of insider information to send a warning to all its clients after Friday night’s game. The chairman of the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, Ronnie Johns, told NOLA.com that one of the bets was a parlay involving the Bama-LSU game, and another was a “large” straight-up bet on the game. As someone who follows college baseball closely, I was actually watching the Friday game live. To be completely honest, I didn’t notice anything unusual about the game itself. LSU’s starting pitcher was Paul Skenes, who projects to be the top pitcher selected in this year’s MLB Draft this summer. Throughout the season, he has consistently made opposing hitters look silly, so simply stating that Alabama hitters “weren’t trying” would be a gross misunderstanding. In addition, after falling behind early, the Crimson Tide rallied to nearly come back and win the game before losing 8-6. Not to speculate too much, but the issue may have popped up with Alabama changing their starting pitcher shortly before Friday night’s ballgame. Crimson Tide pitcher Luke Holman was originally the probable starter, but according to Alabama’s game recap story, reliever Hagan Banks was told “an hour before” the first pitch that he would be starting in Holman’s place. How that information may have reached some parties before others could be the cause. Multiple sources confirmed to ESPN’s David Purdum that “sportsbook surveillance video indicated” that whoever made the flagged bet in Ohio’s Great American Ballpark was in contact with Bohannon. The combination of the lawsuit and the betting probe apparently left Alabama no choice but to fire Bohannon. The school announced that athletic director Greg Byrne had "initiated the termination process" for Bohannon for "among other things, violating the standards, duties, and responsibilities expected of University employees.” While there’s still a lot more information that will likely surface about the betting situation and the lawsuit, all indications suggest that this is a for cause firing. Anyone who follows college sports knows that the Alabama athletic department has been under fire so far in 2023, and this only adds to their off-the-field/court issues. Where things go from here is anyone’s guess. Pitching coach Jason Jackson, who was also named by the ex-player in the lawsuit, has been named interim head coach for the time being. The Crimson Tide project to be an NCAA Tournament team with three regular season weekends remaining, but how the team handles this news will be interesting to watch. Nonetheless, it’s a tough situation for everyone involved. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell55

In both professional and college sports, athletes are feeling more empowered than ever before. Whether it’s by demanding trades, entering the transfer portal, holding out of training camp, or leveraging NIL opportunities, it’s never been a better time for athletes to advocate for themselves both on and off the field. While this is generally a great thing for sports as a whole, it’s something front offices, administrators, and coaches need to be cognizant of. An example of why this is the case came from the great sport of college baseball in the last week. Current Alabama head coach Brad Bohannan (and two staffers) and former Radford head coach (current Charleston Southern assistant) Karl Kuhn were sued by former players for how they were handled by said coaches. Let’s dive into each case separately before tying them together at the end. Let’s start with Alabama. Head coach Brad Bohannan, pitching coach Jason Jackson, and athletic trainer Sean Stryker have been sued for alleged negligence, wantonness, and breach of agreement for the handling of an injury to former player Johnny Blake Bennett. The lawsuit alleged Bennett repeatedly told Bohannon, Jackson, and Stryker about issues with his arm in 2019 and that he was not provided with proper medical care. Bennett was later diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome and had surgery in March 2020. According to the lawsuit, Bohannon called months later while Bennett was rehabbing from the injury to tell him his scholarship was not going to be renewed for the following season. Bennett then transferred to Pensacola State College, a junior college program, where he eventually withdrew because of "intense, stressful fear of failure and anxiety each time he pitched," according to the lawsuit. Following that, he made his way back to Division 1 Baseball when he transferred to Jacksonville State but was dismissed without explanation from JSU two days after playing Alabama in May of 2022, per the lawsuit. The first complaint was filed on Sept. 19, 2022, and the defense filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 19, 2022. An amended complaint was filed on March 10, 2023, and the new motion to dismiss was filed on March 31, 2023. Bohannan is in his sixth year at Alabama where he has done a solid job in getting the Crimson Tide program back to relevancy in the rugged Southeastern Conference. However, with only one NCAA Tournament appearance in his tenure, pressure is beginning to mount on Bohannan. From all accounts, the Alabama head coach is an excellent man who is revered in the coaching community. It’s unclear how this situation will be resolved or if it will impact Bohannan’s status in Tuscaloosa, but it’s never a good thing to be associated with these types of allegations. In moving to former Radford head coach Karl Kuhn, the situation is a little more complex and unfortunately appears to have affected more than one player. Attorneys for an anonymous former Radford University baseball player filed a federal lawsuit against Kuhn and the school’s current athletic director Robert Lineburg. Kuhn, who has since left Radford and is now an assistant at Charleston Southern University, is accused of costing the player a year of college eligibility by using him in a game late in the 2021 season “as retaliation for leading a group of players to complain about his season-long verbal abuse, indifference to players’ mental and physical health, and racial animus.” Before Kuhn inserted said player into the game in question, the player had not been used in any prior 2021 games, so being inserted in that game meant he was giving up that year of eligibility. Days after using the player in that game, Kuhn cut the player from the team and revoked his scholarship, according to the lawsuit. In addition to Kuhn, the lawsuit accuses Lineburg, who is still the athletic director at Radford, of “refusing to investigate Kuhn, refusing to act on Doe’s complaints, and allowing Doe’s complaints — purportedly made in confidence — to be leaked to Kuhn.” The player filing the lawsuit eventually transferred away from Radford to another college, according to the lawsuit, but lost about $100,000 because his new scholarship failed to match his old scholarship amount. In college baseball, each Division 1 program is only able to provide 11.7 scholarships to 27 players, so each school has different parameters on how much they can offer to their players. The player is seeking undisclosed compensatory damages for the lost year of eligibility and his diminished scholarship, as well as undisclosed punitive damages. In addition, according to the lawsuit, the player also wants Kuhn and Lineburg to cooperate with him in his appeal to the NCAA to grant him back that year of eligibility and for Kuhn and Lineburg to undergo First Amendment training. While both situations are unique and have different particulars and allegations, there is an overarching lesson to learn from both of them. Coaches and administrators can’t exploit players or treat them poorly like they may have been able to get away with in previous generations. First of all, let me state that this is a good thing for college sports and sports as a whole. While their ultimate job description is to win games, there are a large majority of coaches and administrators out there that go above and beyond to create great experiences for their players while on campus. But for those who don’t, legal ramifications could be in store as recent and future court decisions are lending more favorable outcomes for college athletes. This isn’t calling out Bohannan, Jackson, Stryker, and Kuhn as bad apples. For all we know, these allegations might not entail the whole truth and there could be another side to these stories. That will all play out as the legal process unfolds. However, one thing is true: the days of treating players poorly and getting away with it are long gone, as they should be. These are just two examples of a long line of recent lawsuits against schools, administrators, and coaches. Hopefully, we won’t see many more in the future. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

There are two standards in the NBA it seems. One for players named Draymond Green, and one for players who are not named Draymond Green. And that is an issue. Dillon Brooks avoided suspension for a clear attempt to harm LeBron James. All the elements for a battery are present and on tape. He had the Mens Rea commit an act knowing that it could or would cause bodily harm when he struck LeBron James in the groin. This act occurred beyond the scope of consent that is given in a basketball game. No one consents to being intentionally hit in the groin during a game. Draymond Green was suspended for a clear attempt to harm Domantas Sabonis. All the elements of a battery are present and documented on tape. He had the Mens Rea commit an act knowing that it could or would cause bodily harm when he stomped on Sabonis in the chest. He, unlike Brooks, even has a possible defense. He also differs from Brooks when it comes to punishment, he was suspended. Green is a repeat offender, but Brooks is not an altar boy by any stretch of the imagination. It appears that the NBA has a standard for Green and a standard for everyone else. Does Green deserve it? That is for the individual to decide. However, if the league wants its' authority to be taken seriously, it needs to either do one of two things. One lay out what the standard is to be suspended for an intentional act. The other is to not do that, and not suspend players. The current system of arbitrary punishment harkens back to the days of Roger Goodell dispensing seemingly random punishment on players. The NBA and Adam Silver have become the story, and that is not a good thing. The playoffs are being overshadowed by the self-inflicted controversy that has befallen the league. Green is a circus, there is no argument against that. He sucker punched a teammate at the beginning of the season for example, but there must be consistency or at least clear guidelines. If they want to fix this, they must be clear and consistent with punishment. They must remove the Green standard. Wake Gardner is a 1L at the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. Someday he hopes to work for a sports team in Florida. He can be reached on Twitter @WakeGardner and by email at [email protected]. Sources: 1. Report: Dillon Brooks won't face a suspension for Game 4 (yahoo.com) 2. Golden State Warriors' Draymond Green suspended for stepping on Sacramento Kings' Domantas Sabonis | CNN 3. Leaked video of Draymond Green punch of Jordan Poole means incident not just going away (nbcsports.com)