While many Team USA fans will be pleased with their 2-0 CONCACAF Nations League victory over Canada on Father’s Day, the biggest story of the Nations League revolves around fan behavior in the semi-final rather than any performance on the pitch. During a month meant to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and to emphasize inclusion and belonging, Team USA’s match against Team Mexico was stopped under the league anti-discrimination protocol after anti-gay slurs were chanted by Team Mexico fans at American keeper Matt Turner. Despite a warning to the fans prior to the resumption of play, the slurs continued until the match was ultimately abandoned early in extra time under league anti-discrimination protocol. These slurs are not a new phenomenon from Team Mexico fans and have been chanted for years while soccer officials have struggled with creating new ways to manage fan behavior. For many, enough is enough, and according to Cyd Zeigler of Outsports.com, US Soccer indicated that they would enact policy 521-2, which would prevent a team from competing in the United States if their fans chant discriminatory slurs. Despite announcing a hard-line stance prior to the match US Soccer has made no indication that any such ban may be forthcoming. The tension arises from the governing organizations' few options of enforcement that won’t interfere with the outcome of the underlying game. The ending of the game with 8 minutes remaining in stoppage time is the closest CONCACAF has come to any such impact. Nonetheless, with 8 minutes remaining and a three-goal deficit, few fans were left wondering what might have been if the remaining time had been played out. If leagues are unwilling to ban teams from competitions due to the behavior of the fans, the best solution may ultimately be the least attractive. Tickets to sporting events are revocable licenses and subsequently may be revoked when the spectator behaves in a manner that is unacceptable within the venue. CONCACAF should provide extra funding to venues to secure the hiring of additional security staff tasked specifically with the ejection of fans who chant slurs at games immediately. Should the slurs get out of control, a stoppage would be called that will allow staff sufficient time to eject the infringing fans serving as a message to other fans who may consider joining in. Finally, CONCACAF should further insist that host venues pledge a substantial bond prior to hosting an event that is forfeited if the venue is unable to curb the slurs from fans. If a match has to be terminated for failure to stop the slurs, the bond will be automatically forfeited by the host venue to fund additional security staff at future events. Empty words and policies have gone on too long without sufficient action or enforcement. If CONCACAF wants to take a serious step in stopping Team Mexico fans’ use of slurs, they need to put their money where their mouth is and implement a new policy. Chase Youngman is a graduate of Penn State Law where he was the president of the Penn State Law Sports Entertainment Law Society. You can also find him on Twitter as @c3youngman.

Earlier this week, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN), which is owned by the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals, agreed to pay the Nationals nearly $100 million to resolve the fees the network owes the team from 2012-2016. One item remains, the network and team must resolve the fees owed from 2017-2021. When Major League Baseball, which owned the Montreal Expos, proposed moving the team to Washington in 2004, Orioles owner Peter Angelos raised concerns over sharing territory with the Nationals. Thus, Major League Baseball reached an agreement with the Orioles to form MASN, giving the Orioles an initial 90 percent stake in the network and the Nationals a 10 percent stake. After two years, the Nationals’ stake would increase by 1 percent each season until the Nationals’ stake reached 33 percent. Initially, the teams would be paid the same rights fees by MASN, which the parties could revisit every five years. In 2012, the first year the Nationals could renegotiate rights fees, the team argued that they were not paid fair market value from MASN for their rights. After failing to come to an agreement, the Nationals took the issue to arbitration. The first arbitration in front of Major League Baseball’s Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC) failed due to a New York trial court vacating the award due to the RSDC’s failure to address evident partiality. At the time, the law firm representing the Nationals was currently or previously representing Major League Baseball and the teams employing the members of the RSDC. The Orioles requested that the RSDC preclude the firm from the proceedings, but the RSDC declined, and the proceeding continued. In 2019, a second RSDC panel awarded $105 million to the Nationals. MASN appealed the award to the New York appellate court, arguing that the panel was not impartial and that the dispute required a new forum. In April, a New York appellate court upheld the $105 million arbitration award, finding that by replacing the panel members, the first proceedings did not taint the second RSDC panel. To resolve the award, the network has agreed to pay nearly $100 million to the Nationals. Now, MASN and the team must determine the fees owed to the Nationals from 2017-2021. Once finished, the Lerner family may move forward with selling the team. 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.

Over the last several years, it’s undeniable that front offices across Major League Baseball have become more analytically driven. As a result, many that cover and follow the sport have wondered about scouts and their place in the modern game. While Moneyball and the success of organizations like the Houston Astros have certainly validated the concept of valuing analytics, the common sentiment you’ll hear is that a blend of the subjective evaluations and the objective data is the best approach to building a winning baseball team. However, that has not stopped every club from downsizing their “old school” scouting departments in favor of the “new school” analytics. In fact, a group of 17 former scouts filed a class action lawsuit against MLB this week alleging age discrimination, understandably upset about the ongoing trend. The lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Denver, asserting that “older scouts” have been “blacklisted” for re-employment in MLB and contending that the league used analytics as an “ongoing pretext for coordinated and systematic discrimination based on age.” It’s worth noting that the plaintiffs range from age 55 to 71, and most held scouting positions in the game for at least 30 years. Some important context to introduce is that many of these scouts were let go in 2020 amid COVID-19, when MLB and its clubs obviously lost significant revenues. The suit alleges that MLB used the pandemic as an opportunity to terminate an entire class of older employees more susceptible, on the basis of age, to the COVID-19 virus.” With the 2020 season wiping out all ticket revenue and significant television revenue, scouts may have been the first cuts in MLB front offices looking to reduce expenses. Rick Ingalls, a scout for nearly four decades, told the Los Angeles Times that “we believe the commissioner and the owners colluded to eliminate veteran personnel because of salaries.” The lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, Robert Goodman, also told the Los Angeles Times that the scouts gained their “inspiration” from MLB’s settlement with minor league players who sued over wage-law violations earlier this spring. The suit also contains other interesting allegations that MLB terminated the use of the “scouting wire” platform that allowed scouts to get hired and that clubs relied on a false stereotype that only younger scouts held a strong understanding of analytics. MLB quickly released a statement responding to the lawsuit, reading as follows: “We do not comment on pending litigation, however, we look forward to refuting these claims in court.” While they settled with the minor leaguers, that statement reads that the league might not take the same approach in this case. The class action complaint claims that “it is estimated that there are over 100 Older Scouts within all such classes” that could potentially join and that upwards of $100 million in damages is on the table. There has certainly been no shortage of legal news in baseball recently. The minor league wage violations and ensuing CBA, the potential challenge to baseball’s antitrust exemption, and the Diamond Sports bankruptcy saga are just a few examples of the intersection of baseball and the law. As always, stay tuned to both the Conduct Detrimental podcast and website for the latest coverage of all things sports law. Brendan Bell can be found on Twitter @_bbell5.

It was reported Tuesday evening that Dolphins’ star WR Tyreek Hill was under investigation for assault/battery in Miami for an alleged physical altercation that occurred at the Miami Beach Marina. Mr. Hill allegedly hit a marina employee during a “disagreement” that took place on Sunday, June 18th. According to Andy Slater, the allegations were that Hill slapped the employee on the back of the head but that the employee has declined to press charges at this time. Yesterday, June 21, 2023, Slater followed up this scoop with another that law enforcement sources told him that they were declining to press charges. Case closed, right? Wrong. According to Miami PD, “The investigation into the alleged battery by Tyreek Hill continues. Any reports saying it is over are not accurate.” So where is this case, currently? As far as I can tell, it is still under investigation. Additionally, @IanMargolWPLG included a redacted copy of the police report on Twitter. As reported in the police report, “The alleged victim observed two unknown females on one of the fishing charter boats without permission. He was told by the boat captain to advise the females to get off the boat. A verbal altercation broke out between the Kelly Fishing Fleet and the females on the boat and their male companions that turned physical when Tyreek Hill allegedly slapped the alleged victim on the back of the neck with an open hand.” It should also be noted that the subject (i.e. Hill) was being pushed away from the altercation. Law enforcement observed no visible injuries, but this alleged altercation was captured by video surveillance cameras. What does this all mean? I have previously stated on Twitter that likely nothing would ultimately come of this. By that I mean, Tyreek Hill isn’t likely going to be convicted of this alleged battery. That is because this alleged battery is non-domestic in nature. Though hitting a random stranger is legally a battery, law enforcement and State Attorney’s Offices often shy away from filing said cases. That is because with battery cases law enforcement is trying to prevent domestic battery (ones with romantic relationships: girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife, etc.) Additionally, it was also noted in the police report that no injuries were observed. Even with alleged video surveillance of this incident, with no injuries, what jury is going to care? In my experience as a former felony prosecutor, I would decline to file formal charges if I were the prosecutor. That is because it sounds like a tussle where nobody was injured. Additionally, it was noted in the police report that Tyreek Hill was touched first and as such would have the right to defend himself if he felt threatened. Could Hill be charged? It is possible, yes. They sound like they now have a cooperative victim and video surveillance of this incident. Could they charge Hill with trespass? Sure, if this alleged altercation occurred on this boat and Hill jumped onto the boat. Could they charge Hill with a lesser included offense of disorderly conduct? Yes, however, no matter the charge the analysis is the same. Why would any jury care? Would a jury care if he jumped onto the boat to defend the females he was with? No. I have tried 40+ jury and non-jury civil and criminal trials ranging from low-level crimes to 1st-degree felonies, and I can promise you this, juries cannot stand having their time wasted. This is what this case looks like. Unless egregious facts come to light that haven’t previously been reported, this case will unlikely end with a battery conviction for Tyreek Hill. Matthew F. Tympanick, Esq. is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury Law, and Sports Law. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick! 1(888)NOPANIC. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He has appeared nationally on television, radio, and podcasts discussing criminal cases specifically sports criminal cases. He was previously a felony prosecutor where he prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. He also has tried over 40 jury and non-jury cases. You can follow him on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook @TympanickLaw.

One of the biggest topics of conversation stemming from last week’s MLB owner’s meetings in New York was the fate of baseball in Oakland. While Rob Manfred didn’t make any new friends in the East Bay with his comments about the A’s situation and commissioned Brewers owner Mark Attanasio as chair of the “Relocation Committee,” there was another interesting bit of news that surfaced out of the meetings. According to The Athletic, MLB and high-ranking team executives discussed the possibility of limiting how much clubs can spend on items not related to player salaries. This could include capping expenditures related to technology, player development, scouting, sports science, and health. While every professional sport features teams seeking ways to find competitive advantages and market inefficiencies, MLB’s current structure forces the issue even more. Unlike the other major American sports, baseball doesn’t have a salary cap. As a result, you see massive payroll discrepancies across the sport. This season, New York Mets are spending nearly $375 million on player salaries while the Pittsburgh Pirates, Baltimore Orioles, and Oakland Athletics are all running payrolls of less than $100 million. Whether or not it’s good or bad that the Mets are spending that much and the Pirates, Orioles, and A’s are spending that little is an entirely different discussion. But because small market teams can’t (or claim they can’t) keep up with the large market teams on player salaries, they do try to find edges in other ways, which brings us to the news about MLB potentially capping off-field expenditures. Over the last handful of years, the quantity of off-field personnel staffers MLB teams employ has grown dramatically. If you were to visit your favorite team’s website and clicked on the front office directory, you’d likely be surprised at how long you might be scrolling down the list. In addition to the staffing, teams are investing more and more into technology. Whether its hitting or pitching “labs,” sensors, machines, devices, etc, players have more tools at their disposal than ever before. Why is all of this a problem? Well, it’s a fair question. But you have to keep in mind that despite the lack of a salary cap and the disparity of market sizes across the league, MLB still desires competitive balance. While teams like the Rays or the Moneyball A’s might’ve been first on investing in these off-field expenditures, the realities of baseball being a “copycat” industry have led other teams to catch up. According to the Athletic report, “executives with smaller-market teams have long lamented the task of keeping up with the spending capabilities of larger market teams.” This obviously comes into play with player salaries, but the Major League Baseball Players Association has long held firm against a cap on player pay. Therefore, could owners of low payroll clubs be pushing this cap against off-field expenditures as another avenue to keep up? It’s certainly plausible. While curbing spending on technology capital might not pose any sort of legal risks for the league, some could come in if employees begin to lose jobs as a result of the hypothetical capping of spending. As mentioned before, teams are employing dozens of employees with titles like “Biomechanical Analyst” and “Data Engineer of Baseball Systems” just to name a few. If those jobs are cut, it could certainly be perceived as “colluding” in regard to hiring practices. With baseball’s antitrust exemption under fire as a result of cases involving MLB’s contraction of the minor league and recent legislation introduced by state senators, any further leveraging of the exemption might not be viewed positively in today’s environment. You can hear more about the fight to challenge baseball’s antitrust exemption in one of the latest Conduct Detrimental podcasts, where our own Dan Wallach and Justin Mader were joined by renowned sports antitrust lawyer Jim Quinn. While a cap on player pay might not be coming any time soon to Major League Baseball, it will be interesting to see if the league imposes restrictions on off-field expenditures. Moreover, if it indeed comes to pass, what will the ramifications be? How will large market owners react to caps on how much they can spend? Will it increase parity in the sport? Will the push to overturn baseball’s antitrust exemption only grow stronger? On the surface, I find it peculiar why MLB would go to these lengths, but I understand that the desire to reduce expenses and increase competitive balance are high priorities in the league office. Nonetheless, this is something to watch moving forward. Brendan Bell can be found on Twitter @_bbell5.

On Friday night, a report emerged that New England Patriots Starting CB Jack Jones was arrested on 5 separate charges including: 2 counts of possession of a concealed weapon in a secure area of an airport, 2 counts of possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, 2 counts unlawful possession of a firearm, 2 counts carrying a loaded firearm, and 2 counts possession of a large capacity feeding device. These charges are troubling because at least two of the charges include a minimum mandatory sentence. First, the unlawful possession of a firearm triggers an eighteen month minimum mandatory sentence. Additionally, the possession of a large capacity feeding device (“magazine clip”) carries with it 2.5 years in prison to 10 years in prison minimum mandatory sentence (“min man”). Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 269 § 10(m). A lot has been said about Jack Jones past transgressions, but we aren’t focused on that, we are focused on this case as hand. What do we know about the facts of the case? According to a tweet from Andrew Callahan, “TSA was alerted to a report of two loaded firearms at a security checkpoint. Upon arrival, a TSA Agent informed Trooper Hendry of the Massachusetts State Police that a black duffel bag containing two loaded firearms and two additional loaded magazines were placed into the X-ray machine. After attempting to speak to the suspect (Jack Jones), the Trooper opened the bag and observed an unlocked black Glock handgun box. There was a white tag attached to the black duffel bag with the words “UFC” and” Jack, Jones”. Inside the black duffel bag there were multiple pairs of socks and other articles of clothing that appeared to be men’s clothing.” I have said this previously, but I will say it again, “FACTS. WIN. CASES.” This is a well written police report (Some police reports are very lazy and sloppy and as a criminal defense attorney I have a field day with those). The facts that the prosecution will zero in on will be the bag had a tag with his name “Jack Jones” on it, and there appeared be “men’s clothing”. As this is Logan Airport, there is going to be surveillance video galore. My questions are, “Is there surveillance video of Jones dropping off that bag at checked baggage or in security? My guess is, yes. Were the guns on top of everything meaning the individual who zipped up the bag would have seen the guns? Was Jack Jones traveling with anyone else? The statement by his attorney Rosemary Scapicchio that her client “didn’t intend to bring the guns onto the airplane” tells me they likely aren’t going to argue the guns weren’t “his”. Intent likely is not going to be a strong defense in this case. Firearms cases are about possession. Did Jack Jones possess those items? There is types of possession: Actual possession and constructive possession. If the police run fingerprints on the guns and they match Jack Jones, they Commonwealth can argue actual possession. Additionally, at work, since it appears Jack Jones possessed the black duffel bag, the Commonwealth could also argue constructive possession (meaning he controlled the luggage that allegedly contained the guns). Where is the case going to go from here? First, as the feeding device is a felony, a grand jury in Suffolk County (Massachusetts) must return a true bill indictment (meaning sufficient evidence to charge Jack Jones). If a true bill is returned (it likely will be), the case will proceed towards trial. There will be a probable cause hearing on August 18, 2023, where the Judge will determine if the charges move forward. It is possible his attorney will attempt a suppression hearing that Trooper Hendry did not have reasonable suspicion to open the duffel bag. However, 4th amendment protections are minimal as the Defendant is in an airport. That is why all bags are put through an X-Ray machine. At this time, Jack Jones is looking at a minimum mandatory of 18 months in prison on the unlawful possession of a firearm and 2.5 years to 10 years in prison for the feeding device (gun magazine). The statement by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office that, “Jones is looking at up to 30 years in prison” is not a statement that screams imminent “slap on the wrist” plea deal. Could this case end in a plea? Absolutely. Anything is possible. However, there is relatively new District Attorney who might be looking to show that he is tough on crime and could make an example of Jack Jones’ case. As such, Jack Jones better strap in because the next several months are going to be tumultuous. This article is the first in a multi-part series. Matthew F. Tympanick, Esq. is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury Law, and Sports Law. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick! 1(888)NOPANIC. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He has appeared nationally on television, radio, and podcasts discussing criminal cases specifically sports criminal cases. He was previously a felony prosecutor where he prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. He also has tried over 40 jury and non-jury cases. You can follow him on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook @TympanickLaw.

There is no doubt that the world of college athletics is shifting into an atmosphere that has yet to be seen. The amount of battles the NCAA is currently involved in goes to show a strong likelihood that substantial change is about to occur. Currently, the NCAA is lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to pass federal legislation that would keep the amateur model intact by claiming college athletes are not employees, as well as give the NCAA an anti-trust exemption, and a uniform NIL law.[1] The NCAA is involved in a current NLRB complaint brought by the NLRB’s Los Angeles office against the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference, and USC for unfair labor practices, which a hearing will take place on Nov. 7 in Los Angeles. The NCAA has an antitrust suit pending against them in House v. NCAA, where athletes who were unable to benefit from NIL opportunities are seeking to be compensated for media rights revenue that was received by the NCAA due to those athletes’ participation. Lastly, and most relevant to this article, the NCAA is being sued by former Villanova football player Trey Johnson and other Division I athletes in Johnson v. NCAA, where the athletes are asking to be deemed employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would entitle them to minimum wage and overtime pay. The FLSA defines an employee as “any individual employed by an employer.” Which is clearly not very helpful when a court attempts to apply it, therefore, courts must come up with other methods to determine if an individual is an employee of an employer. The Johnson case has been sent to the Third Circuit of Appeals on interlocutory appeal, meaning on a sole issue the district court beneath them decided, and a party (the NCAA) wants to stop the case and appeal that sole issue before continuing. That “sole issue” is whether athletes are employees as a matter of law. If the Third Circuit finds for the athletes, then the NCAA can appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, or the case will be returned to the district court, for that court to continue the case and evaluate the merits of the claim (meaning, did the NCAA actually violate the FLSA). While the NCAA would likely appeal the interlocutory decision by the Third Circuit to the Supreme Court if the NCAA were to lose, it would be rare for the Supreme Court to hear the case before it was evaluated on its merits. However, the decision to make athletes employees as a matter of law would cause a circuit split (discussed later), which would give the Supreme Court more reason to accept the interlocutory appeal. The arguments appear to be broken up as follows. The athletes argue that they are “employees” under the FLSA because of the amount of control that the NCAA has over them. The NCAA argues the athletes are not employees because appellate courts before have set the precedent that athletes are not employees, the Department of Labor has stated athletes are not employees in their handbook, and it is not the NCAA that has significant control over individual athletes, but rather the individual universities. While both sides make strong arguments, personally I believe it is clear that the NCAA displays a significant amount of control over the athletes. The NCAA controls athletes on what time of year recruiting takes place, the concept that athletes cannot be paid for play, the total number of scholarships certain teams can give out, the number of years of eligibility athletes have, what types of behavior will make an athlete lose their eligibility, and the NCAA allows conferences to schedule games for athletes forcing them to travel thousands of miles during a week, forcing them to miss classes. There is a laundry list of other items that the NCAA has in place that demonstrates control over the athletes as well. However, the NCAA rebuts this argument with a strong one of its own. The Seventh Circuit of Appeals in Berger v. NCAA and the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Dawson v. NCAA both set the precedent that student-athletes are not employees as a matter of law (this is why there is a circuit split). Meaning that in order to say an employer breached the FLSA, the plaintiff first must establish they have the potential to be an employee of the employer. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits found that athletes fail to establish even that potential and therefore, there is no point in litigating the case further. Those courts came to that decision because the NCAA and the concept of college athletics require a special set of circumstances in order to create a structure where student-athletes can play sports, the games can be televised to please millions of consumers, athletes can get an education in return for their play, and a system is created where the student can focus on education and athletics, rather than everything else that comes with a full-time job, such as taxes, lawsuits, bargaining, etc. The courts also gave credit to the Department of Labor which oversees enforcement of the FLSA, who in their handbook specifically stated the student-athletes are not employees. While both the NCAA and student-athlete plaintiffs present strong arguments for why athletes do or do not meet the definition of employee under the FLSA, a major reason why I believe the Third Circuit will find for the NCAA in dismissing the case is that if student-athletes become employees under the FLSA it does not cure the current problems in the world of college sports. Those problems consist of athletic departments at the D1 level, and the NCAA making much more profit from television deals and portions of those profits could and should be shared with the athletes generating that revenue. Health and safety of the athletes when it comes to injuries related to their sports, and especially the long-term injuries and expenses that come with them after they leave their university. Missing classes and not being able to take the classes they want (the NCAA has time and time again said the amateur model should stay because they are students first). NIL rules and regulations to protect athletes avoid schools in certain states from gaining an edge over other schools in different states and a method to enforce rules against violators, including third-party entities, such as collectives. Ensuring that Title IX requirements are continued to be met. This is not an exhaustive list of all the problems in college sports, but it touches on the major ones. I would say you could look at the recent article published by the chair of the Division I Student Athletic Advisory Committee, but if you listen to Amanda Christovich on Conduct Detrimental’s podcast released on June 14, 2023, we get the sense that the letter submitted does not resemble the true desires of NCAA athletes. While the Third Circuit is going to go into a deep analysis on which test should be used between the Berger, Dawson, Glatt (prior appellate decision that athlete plaintiffs want the court to use), or the Enterprise test (test that the district court used in this case), in the end the court is going to give some credit to the question, “will having the right to minimum wage and overtime cure the problem that is before them.” The simple answer to that is no. It can be argued that yes it can because this will be the first step and declaring them employees as a matter of law will lead to unionization, more beneficial laws for the athletes, and potential revenue sharing down the road. However, I do not believe the Third Circuit is going to view it in that manner and would attempt to solve the problem in more of a single swoop and would not make such a substantial decision in the hopes that it causes a domino effect. All this being said, this is just my opinion and a panel of three judges could interpret things very differently than a third-year law student. However, if the panel asked me, I would say rule in favor of the NCAA because that is what history, precedent, and the purpose of the FLSA are ordering you to do. There is no doubt that student-athletes should be entitled to much more than they are given, but this is not the path. There is a chance that the NLRB will deem athletes as employees under the NLRA, which will give them the right to unionize and collectively bargain for things like health and safety policies, proper enforcement and guidance of NIL regulations, revenue sharing, abiding Title IX regulations, and allowing STUDENT-athletes to take the courses they desire and allow them to attend that course, as well as other future rights that athletes come up with. That type of solution makes much more sense to me, rather than attempting to pay every athlete minimum wage and overtime. Logan Hughes is a third-year law student at Ohio Northern University. He can be found on Twitter @loganchughes23. [1] See, Eric Prisbell, “As college sports transform thanks to NIL, here is the state of play” (June 19, 2023), https://www.on3.com/nil/news/as-college-sports-transform-here-is-the-state-of-play-nil-title-ix-ncaa/.

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

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

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

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

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