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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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