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)

In many ways, the world of sports serves as a microcosm of society at large. Through competition, we are able to witness the full range of human experiences – hardship, grief, loss, perseverance, joy, and victory. Many people feel almost spiritual connections to the teams and players that they root for: sports are not just a game; they are an important part of a person’s identity and a person’s life. Because of this deep-rooted connection to sports that many people have, the world of sports can be a useful tool for explaining and better understanding just exactly how humans tick. What matters to them, or what does not matter to them? What they value, or what they do not value. What they are willing to applaud, and what they are willing to boo. What their politics are, or what their politics are not. The sports world is rife with such examples. As of recent, the sports world has begun to confront the issue of transgender athletes. With society as a whole being confronted with, and oftentimes pushing hostilely back against transgender people, it is no wonder that this fight has seeped into the world of sports as well. Lia Thomas, a former member of the University of Pennsylvania’s swim team, became the figurehead of the over-sensationalizing of transgender athletes in women’s sports being peddled by conservative and right-wing media groups looking to actively attack not only the idea of transgender women competing in women’s collegiate athletics but also Thomas herself. The debate on transgender athletes has only been heightened in the last year or so, and most recently came before the Supreme Court of the United States in West Virginia, et al., v. B. P. K., by her next friend and Mother, Heather Jackson. The background to the case involves Becky Pepper-Jackson, a twelve-year-old transgender girl who was a member of the female track team at her school. When West Virginia passed House Bill 3293 in 2021 banning the participation in sports by transgender athletes, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), the ACLU West Virginia, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. House Bill 3293 was just one of the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills that were brought before state legislatures in 2021 – as society goes, so goes sports. Interestingly, despite the bill’s purported goal of providing better, more fair opportunities to female athletes, the bill was not backed by any mainstream sporting or health organizations.[1] On July 21, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the “District Court”) ruled that it was “clear” that Becky Pepper-Jackson was being excluded from school athletics on the basis of her sex, and granted a preliminary injunction allowing for her to try out to be a member of the track team “in the same way as her girl classmates” while the case proceeded.[2] The victory was short-lived, however, as the District Court granted summary judgment to the State of West Virginia on January 5, 2023, allowing House Bill 3293 to go into effect.[3] While the District Court Judge, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, stated in his opinion that he had “no doubt that H.B. 3293 aimed to politicize participation in school athletics for transgender students,” he did not find that “a sufficient record of legislative animus” was shown and, therefore, considering the law under an intermediate scrutiny standard,[4] he found that the law was substantially related to an important government interest and therefore could not be struck down.[5] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay motion on the District Court’s ruling pending appeal, which allowed for Becky Pepper-Jackson to join the track team (for the time being), and the State of West Virginia responded by filing application on March 13, 2023, with the Supreme Court of the United State (the “Supreme Court”) to vacate the stay motion and prevent Becky Pepper-Jackson from participating on the track team as the litigation continued. The Supreme Court rejected the State’s application during the shadow docket, which, unfortunately, means that no opinion was given as to the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind the rejection.[6] The rejection comes as a bit of a surprise given the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, so the lack of reasoning is disappointing, especially given the penchant for the Supreme Court’s supermajority to “aggressive[ly] use . . . the emergency docket to deal with controversial issues without full briefing and oral argument.”[7] Justice Alito and Justice Thomas did dissent, giving a brief view into how the Supreme Court may view similar cases in the future. In their dissent, Justices Alito and Thomas stated that the application “concern[ed] an important issue that this Court is likely to be required to address in the near future, namely, whether either Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from restricting participation in women’s or girls’ sports based on genes or physiological or anatomical characteristics.”[8] In a fair point, Justices Alito and Thomas stated that they did not believe that the application should have been denied given the lack of an adequate (in their opinion) explanation by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which as a general practice does not explain orders pending appeal. The dissent indicates, though, that Justices Alito and Thomas would have ruled in favor of the State of West Virginia, given that, if they agreed with the denial, the appropriate response would have been a concurrence specifying in more detail why the denial was granted and taking a stance against the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ practice of not explaining orders pending appeal. On the other hand, Becky Pepper-Jackson’s attorneys argued that the State of West Virginia “should not be allowed to use the [Supreme Court’s] emergency docket to force the court” to give a “preview” of how it felt on the issue given that no appeals court had addressed the issue.[9] In either case, the case will continue before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals without intervention by the Supreme Court, which does not rule out a later trip to the Supreme Court for its ultimate resolution. It is telling that the words used by the attorneys for the State of West Virginia in its application to vacate the injunction concerning House Bill 3293 were in the same vein of fear-mongering rhetoric used by conservative talk media when discussing transgender athletes. The State’s attorneys set up the issue of transgender athletes as “biological males identifying as female” jumping from men’s athletics to female athletics to beat female athletes. What this language ignores is that, based on a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in 2019, only roughly 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender,[10] and of that, 1.8% only 14% of transgender boys and 12% of transgender girls play sports, according to a report by the Human Rights Campaign.[11] In other words, only roughly 0.44% of high school athletes are transgender.[12] As a society, we tend to over-sensationalize things that are different than what we are accustomed to. In this case, the war on transgender athletes has been completely blown out of proportion to take away the basic dignities of a small portion of athletes, and, more broadly speaking, a small portion of people. Becky Pepper-Jackson’s own words are the best indicator of why it is so important for access to sports to be available to everyone: "I just want to run, I come from a family of runners. I know how hurtful a law like this is to all kids like me who just want to play sports with their classmates, and I’m doing this for them. Trans kids deserve better."[13] 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] Civil Rights Advocates Bring Federal Court Challenge to West Virginia Law Banning Trans Students in School Sports | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) [2] B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education - Order Granting Preliminary Injunction | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) [3] B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education - Lambda Legal [4] Intermediate scrutiny is the standard of Constitutional review implemented by the court when a law is alleged to negatively effect certain protected classes. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must further an important government interest and do so in a way that is substantially related to that interest. See intermediate scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) [5] B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) [6] Supreme Court won't enforce West Virginia law banning trans athletes from girls' teams : NPR [7] Id. [8] B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) [9] Supreme Court won't enforce West Virginia law banning trans athletes from girls' teams : NPR [10] Transgender Identity and Experiences of Violence Victimization, Substance Use, Suicide Risk, and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among High School Students — 19 States and Large Urban School Districts, 2017 | MMWR (cdc.gov) [11] https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/PlayToWin-FINAL.pdf [12] Young transgender athletes caught in middle of states' debates (espn.com) [13] Civil Rights Advocates Bring Federal Court Challenge to West Virginia Law Banning Trans Students in School Sports | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

Coaches leaving low and mid-major programs for bigger and “better” jobs is nothing new in college athletics. From Fielding Yost to John Wooden, to Mike Krzyzewski, to Nick Saban, history is filled with coaches climbing the proverbial ladder to lead programs that compete at the highest levels and offer the most resources. What hasn’t been as common, however, is mid-major head coaches leaving to become power conference assistant coaches. Whether it came down to status, prestige, pay, control, or other factors in the past, it was rare to see head coaches willingly leave to become an assistant. In fact, it was more common for the best assistant coaches at big schools to take mid-major head coaching positions. Bo Schembechler left his assistant post at Ohio State to become the head coach at Miami (Ohio). Mack Brown left his offensive coordinator position at LSU to take the Appalachian State head job. John Calipari left as a Pittsburgh assistant for UMass, just to name a few. Power conference schools have always had more money and more resources than low to mid-majors. There’s nothing surprising about that statement. Big Ten head coaches have always made more than MAC head coaches. SEC head coaches have always made more than Conference USA head coaches. What hasn’t always been the case is Big Ten or SEC assistant coaches with salaries that double or even triple those of MAC or Conference USA head coaches. However, in the current landscape of college athletics with lucrative media contracts, conference realignment, etc., the revenue gap is widening with each passing day. This has resulted in numerous head coaches at the Group of 5/non-power conference level to take a voluntary “demotion” in terms of rank. There are numerous examples of Groups of 5/non-power conference head coaches leaving to become high-major assistants over the past decade. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it shows the growing trend of this reality in the current landscape. In football, some instances include Dan Enos, Pete Lembo, and Sean Lewis. In basketball, Rodney Terry, Billy Donlon, and Austin Claunch. In baseball, we most recently saw TJ Bruce last off-season. In looking ahead to the future, I don’t expect this trend to slow down anytime soon. Furthermore, it was recently announced that Baker Dunleavy, the head coach at Quinnipiac University was leaving for Villanova to become the Wildcats “GM of Basketball.” In the role, he will oversee men's and women's NIL, transfer portal, fundraising, and athlete brand marketing. It’s especially worth noting because Dunleavy isn’t even taking an on-field/court role like the aforementioned coaches above have recently done. He’s working solely in the roster construction/NIL aspect of things. Could we see more sitting head coaches take these types of positions moving forward? I think it’s definitely possible. In addition to the financial component, it’s also worth noting that it’s becoming rarer for coaches without power conference experience to land power conference head coaching positions. In the last football hiring cycle, more sitting P5 coordinators landed P5 head jobs than sitting G5 head coaches did. Athletic directors at big-time programs have shown more of a proclivity to seek out those with extensive experience at big-time programs, not those who dominate the lower levels. For example, if Sean Lewis has Colorado’s offense humming over the next couple of years, he will likely be in a better spot to land a big-time head coaching job than he would’ve if he won 10 games in the MAC (which is incredibly difficult to do at Kent State to boot). In today’s landscape of college sports, this is something that coaches have to be looking at and considering in their career decisions. The opportunity to make more money and be in a more advantageous position to achieve their dreams of becoming national championship-level coaches might include a voluntary choice to step down in the ranks. Expect to see more of this in the “coaching carousel” moving forward. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

In early March this year, Memphis Grizzlies star Ja Morant was accused of several violent incidents including punching a teenager (17). Morant claimed that he was acting in self-defense against the teen, and the boy acted aggressively by showing signs of wanting to cause an altercation. Morant told police officers that the teen threatened him by saying he was “gonna come back and light this place up like fireworks.” The teen told police officers that he considered Morant a mentor and had been to Morant’s house in the past to play pickup games. He alleged that Morant kept hitting him after he fell to the ground and continued being attacked by his friends. All witnesses that were interviewed support Morant’s version of the events and neither party has been interviewed on this matter. The teen’s mother filed the lawsuit last year; however, he filed it under his own name after he turned 18 last month. In recent court filings, Morant alleged that he is the victim of slander, battery, and assault by the teen. In filing the countersuit, Morant claimed that the teen could have ended his career by throwing a basketball at his face. Morant now faces the burden of proof against the teen in this countersuit, and with the Memphis Grizzlies being the number 2 seed in the western conference playoffs, there seems to be a lot of pressure on the young superstar. Sources: The Daily Memphian The Washington Post