First reported by Jonathan Jones of CBS Sports, former Carolina Panthers Head Coach Matt Rhule has filed for arbitration against the Carolina Panthers, alleging that the Carolina Panthers have refused to pay the amount owed to the coach after offsetting his salary as head coach of the University of Nebraska football team. Based on rough estimates, the amount in dispute is between $5-7 million, depending on the remaining amount the Panthers owe Rhule. In 2020, the Carolina Panthers signed Matt Rhule to a seven-year, $62 million contract after Rhule’s successful stints as head coach at Baylor University and Temple University. After less than three years and starting the 2022 season with one win in five games, the Carolina Panthers decided to make a change and fired Rhule, finishing his stint with the Panthers with an 11-27 overall record. At the time of Rhule’s firing, the Carolina Panthers still owed around $34 million through 2027. Rhule’s contract included a clause that the remaining amount the Panthers owe Rhule would be offset if Rhule signed a contract with another team. In November 2022, Rhule signed an eight-year, $74 million contract with the University of Nebraska, which began at $5.5 million and gradually increases each year. Through 2027, Nebraska owes Rhule roughly $28 million. Since the Panthers included an offset clause in their contract with Rhule, the $28 million Nebraska owes to Rhule through 2027 offsets the $34 million the Panthers owe Rhule. Thus, Rhule’s arbitration suit is likely claiming that the Carolina Panthers are refusing to pay somewhere between $5-7 million. Importantly, it is unclear when the Panthers are required to pay out the amount they owe to Rhule. Typically, contracts between coaches and the National Football League (NFL) have a strict mandatory arbitration clause. Thus, the NFL has the option to appoint an arbitrator to hear Rhule’s dispute with the Panthers. Since arbitration is private compared to public litigation, any settlement will likely be confidential. The Carolina Panthers thought they moved on from the Rhule era, hiring Frank Reich last week. However, it will not officially be over until Rhule’s dispute is resolved. 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.

Today, February 3, 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s September, 2021 order awarding Emmanuel Acho disability benefits. The Philadelphia Eagles had petitioned for review of the award on September 29, 2021. The benefits stemmed from an August 11, 2015 thumb injury Acho suffered in practice while employed by the Eagles as a linebacker. Acho continued playing football and ended up fracturing the same thumb less than a month later – again in practice. He had an operation on the thumb a couple days later in August of 2015. Acho was unable to participate in physical activities for a few weeks after the surgery, and, at that point, the Eagles suddenly released him from their roster. Pursuant to an injury settlement agreement, Acho received three weeks of pay upon his release. After physical rehabilitation, Acho was finally cleared to play but continued to have pain in his thumb. Nevertheless, he re-signed with the Eagles in November of 2015. He was there for a cup of coffee. Acho was released, once again, just 16 days after re-signing. After that second release, Acho never played professional football again. That didn’t limit his success, though, as Acho has become a highly-popular sports commentator and obtained a master’s degree at the University of Texas in 2017. Still, according to the court order, Acho argued that this thumb injury left him physically unable to play football at a high level, leading to a lack of employment in the NFL. He suffered from post-traumatic arthritis, among other complications, after the surgery. With that, on August 20, 2018, Acho filed a Claim petition relating to the 2015 thumb injury. The Workers’ Comp. Judge granted Acho partial disability benefits until September 12, 2019, and granted the Eagles a three-week credit for the injury settlement they had reached back in 2015. The Eagles petitioned for review of Acho’s multiple disability awards on September 29, 2021. The team raised 3 issues: “The evidence relied upon by the WCJ to award total disability benefits from August 23, 2015, to November 10, 2015, was insufficient because it did not establish that Claimant's release from Employer's roster was due to his injury.” "The evidence relied upon by the WCJ to award partial disability benefits from November 10, 2015, through September 12, 2019, was insufficient to establish that Claimant suffered a compensable injury during this period; the WCJ's finding in this regard was arbitrary and capricious;" and "The medical testimony of Claimant's expert, Dr. Vagner, was not competent, credible, or unequivocal in establishing a compensable injury after August 23, 2015." The Commonwealth Court’s standard of reviewing the WCJ’s decision was to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. The Court was not convinced that Acho’s second release from the team wasn’t related to injury: “Claimant [Acho] was released immediately after the surgery on his thumb and was paid a three-week injury settlement.” “The 2015 release thus clearly was not routine or based on any past practice, but rather was due to Claimant's injury and perceived inability to play.” Thus, the court concluded that an award of total disability benefits for the period in 2015, as well as the subsequent award of partial benefits, were not made in error. Finally, the Court held that the WCJ did not err in considering Acho’s expert Dr.’s testimony. Specifically, the Court pointed to Dr. Vagner's experience: "he is an orthopedic surgeon with added credentials as a hand specialist and the hand surgeon for the University of Texas and Baylor University athletic departments." Jason Morrin is a law clerk (pending admission to the NY Bar) at Zumpano, Patricios & Popok LLP in New York, a firm dedicated to litigation and business counseling including in the areas of sports, gaming and entertainment. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report and more.

Star Georgia quarterback Stetson Bennett was arrested on a public intoxication charge in Dallas on Sunday, January 29th. [1] The police report shows that officers were responding to reports of banging on doors, eventually taking Bennett into custody. [2] Bennett recently chiseled his name as a Georgia football legend a couple of weeks ago after leading the Georgia Bulldogs to their second consecutive College Football Playoff National Championship. His arrest poses interesting legal questions regarding the structure of NIL contracts and brings forward issues other student-athletes should know about. What Makes a Morals Clause So Important? Typical NIL agreements include a morals clause that student-athletes may or may not be aware of. A morals clause allows a party who is paying a student-athlete to terminate that agreement because the student-athlete has placed the party into disrepute or public embarrassment. Common actions that trigger a morals clause are arrest, conviction of a crime, or being charged with a felony. These clauses are important for student-athletes to understand because the impact they have on the NIL agreement depends on the language in the contract. Some morals clauses include language that will retake payments already issued to a student-athlete in addition to canceling future payments or termination of the agreement as a whole. The actions that trigger a morals clause can also vary. Even if being arrested does not trigger the clause, an arrest may violate a team or school policy, which could cause termination from the team. Such termination may then trigger the morals clause. What are the Ramifications for Stetson Bennett? Stetson Bennett has exhausted all his years of NCAA eligibility and is preparing for the NFL draft, so his arrest may not his future income. However, Bennett will see consequences if his NIL agreements had morals clauses that included language permitting a company to repossess payments. Another factor to think about, which Bennett and his management team are certainly aware of, is how this arrest affects Bennett’s draft stock. At five feet eleven inches, NFL scouts have already raised doubts and predicted he would be a sixth or seventh-round draft pick.[3] With this arrest, some teams may be even more reluctant to pick him up, so Bennett may need to be worried about losing NIL deals because of behavior that some companies may consider to have brought them into disrepute and public embarrassment. Stetson Bennett’s arrest highlights a significant aspect of all NIL agreements that some student-athletes may overlook or forget about. Now that student-athletes are getting paid through these deals, they have to keep in mind they are representing professional organizations beyond their team and school, and a lack of reciprocal professionalism brings unwanted consequences to NIL deals they have secured. Jared Yaggie is a 2L at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or on Twitter @JaredYaggie. Sources: [1] Mark Schlabach, Georgia QB Stetson Bennett Arrested On Public Intoxication Charge, ESPN (Jan. 29, 2023, https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35551758/georgia-qb-stetson-bennett-arrested-public-intoxication. [2] Id. [3] Calvin Watkins, How Will Georgia QB Stetson Bennett’s NFL Draft Stock Be Affected By Dallas Arrest?, THE DALLAS MORNING STAR (Jan. 29, 2023), https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/how-will-georgia-qb-stetson-bennett-s-nfl-draft-stock-be-affected-by-dallas-arrest/ar-AA16So6J.

In January, 2023, Kelly Oubre, Jr.’s fashion brand “Dope Soul” filed a lawsuit against former NBA player Patrick Christopher and his fashion brand Sloan and Bennett (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract and fraud, among other claims. Christopher was a two-time first-team all-Pac-10 selection who played 4 total games in the NBA. After Christopher’s playing career ended in 2016, he started the apparel company Sloan and Bennett. The company describes itself as a “luxury brand of outerwear garments.” Per the complaint, Sloan and Bennett has collaborated with prominent NBA players and agents. One such player is Charlotte Hornets’ swingman Kelly Oubre, Jr. Oubre is a celebrated fashion mogul in the association, consistently drawing the cameras as he walks through stadium tunnels (which now largely serve as runways). Oubre met Patrick Christopher through Oubre’s friend and videographer, who also worked with Christopher’s brother, Houston Rockets 2021 first-round pick Josh Christopher. Oubre approached Defendant Christopher, inquiring about his ability to manufacture garments for Dope Soul. Christopher assured Oubre and Dope Soul that he had the capability. Per the complaint, the two parties began to work together and Christopher provided Oubre samples of how certain items would look starting in February, 2021. Dope Soul approved of the samples and by March of that year, Christopher began sending invoices for the work. However, Plaintiff claims that Christopher did not tell Oubre that Sloan and Bennett had been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board in 2020 and that Sloan and Bennett did not have the capabilities, despite promises to the contrary, to manufacture Oubre’s requested garments. In 2021, Defendants issued six invoices to Plaintiff, totaling $257,506.81. Plaintiff paid them all in full. Plaintiff’s complaint is summed up as follows, as Christopher never produced the garments after accepting payment: Defendants did not perform: For months, Defendants dodged Plaintiff and strung Plaintiff along, including by ignoring Plaintiff’s attempts to schedule delivery or pickup of the Dope Soul Inventory, making excuses for why the Dope Soul Inventory could not be delivered or picked up, refusing to provide information necessary to arrange pickup of the Dope Soul Inventory (such as the quantity and weight of the boxes), and demanding that Plaintiff pay a ransom to have the Dope Soul Inventory made available for pick up despite previously claiming that they were in storage. Between February and July 2002, it became apparent the jig was up. With that, Oubre filed this 7-count complaint against Christopher and Sloan and Bennett in Los Angeles County Court. Oubre is currently represented by Billy Duffy of BDA sports for his professional career and is on the second year of a 2-year, $24,600,000 contract. He is represented by LA law firm King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP in this legal proceeding. Jason Morrin is a law clerk (pending admission to the NY Bar) at Zumpano, Patricios & Popok LLP in New York, a firm dedicated to litigation and business counseling including in the areas of sports, gaming and entertainment. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report and more.

As of right now, student-athletes in the NCAA are not considered employees. Many argue that should change. This is a hunch, but there is a chance student-athletes will make the jump to employees in a manner very similar to the one where they became allowed to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. How We Got to NIL Rights: On September 30, 2019, California passed Senate Bill 206 which allowed NCAA athletes to be compensated for their NIL. The bill was to take effect on January 1, 2023. Then numerous other states passed very similar legislation that would allow athletes compensation for their NIL. This put some pressure on the NCAA, which at the time was the only reason athletes were not allowed to make money on their NIL. When these bills would take effect, the NCAA would then violate state law. However, at the time none of them were in effect. Then on June 21, 2021, the Alston decision by the Supreme Court came out. The case consisted of athletes alleging that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by restricting non-cash education-related benefits. Judge Wilken of the Ninth Circuit ruled against the NCAA and found that athletes could receive benefits beyond the previously-established full scholarships rule. The NCAA could not prevent athletes from receiving post-eligibility scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees. Wilken also established that the conferences within the NCAA could set other allowances. However, the NCAA could still limit cash or cash-equivalent awards for academic purposes, so there is no pay-for-play. The Supreme Court affirmed Wilkens decision and found against the NCAA. The Supreme Court however, did not attempt to make any judgment on whether student-athletes should receive further pay. [1] The Supreme Court did not make the NCAA take away their restriction of NIL rights for college athletes, but they showed that the NCAA was restricting the athletes too much by only allowing a full scholarship. This gave further momentum, along with those states passing NIL laws to student-athletes getting the right to their NIL. Then on June 30, 2021, just 9 days after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the NCAA approved the new interim NIL policy allowing student-athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. Now Further Compensation for Athletes? If history were to repeat itself, we might see a very similar situation that results in student-athletes being paid part of the revenue generated by their team. On January 19th, 2023 California lawmaker Chris Holden proposed a bill labeled the College Athlete Protection Act that would require schools with major revenue-generating sports to create a fund that would pay the players a share of their teams’ annual revenue. The formula designed to create fair market value compensation for the athletes would be giving them half of the team's revenue either through grant-in-aid scholarship dollars or in revenue-sharing payments, after deducting what the team spent on scholarships. For example, if the San Diego State basketball team generates roughly $6 million in revenue and spends roughly $500,000 on scholarships for its players, the school would have to set aside $2.5 million at the end of the year for the players. Players could receive up to $25,000 in annual payments at the end of their season and any additional money would be held in a trust until they graduate. The bill also creates regulation about a 21-member state-run panel that regulates how schools give resources to protecting and educating their activities. Other areas of emphasis in the bill include: return to play, guaranteed scholarships, and restricting schools from cutting varsity programs if the athletic director makes more than $500,000 a year. [2] The proposed bill does make it clear that athletes would not be considered employees. [3] Employment Status: On February 8, 2022, the National College Players Association (NCPA) filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming that the NCAA, Pac 12, and USC unlawfully violated the employee rights of college football and basketball players under the National Labor Relations Act. The NCPA complained that for the past 6 months, the employers have interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees… by repeatedly misclassifying employees as “student-athlete’ non-employees.” The NLRB has agreed to bring the charge against the NCAA, Pac-12, and USC. If a settlement is not reached the case will be heard by an administrative law judge. That decision would then likely be appealed to a five-person National Labor Relations Board in DC (which currently has a 3-2 Democratic majority), and then that decision could be appealed to a US District Court or even the US Supreme Court. If the NCPA were to win the case, student-athletes would be classified as employees and would be given all the rights of employees and must be paid to play. [4] Getting to the Deja Vu: It takes a stretch, but if you look at these scenarios from a broad perspective we see that NIL rights came about because California passed a law, other states passed similar laws, the US judicial system heard a case that somewhat had to do with what the laws revolved around, and it leads to the NCAA giving the states what they wanted. Now, we have California’s proposed law and a potential case that could be heard by the US judicial system. I do not mean to say that athletes are going to be classified as employees, I just intend to show the similar characteristics that lead to the NCAA’s hand being forced. Multiple factors will come into play when determining if student-athletes will be paid for their play; whether the California bill passed, other state legislation, any federal legislation, the result of the NCPA lawsuit, and the mindset of the new NCAA President Charlie Baker. The moral of the story is we are getting closer and closer to athletes being paid for the services they are providing for the schools. A big question might be, will the NCAA create its regulation concerning it, or are they once again going to wait for their hand to be forced? Written by Logan Hughes, a second-year law student at Ohio Northern University. Twitter: @loganchughes23 Linkedin: Logan Hughes. Sources: [1] 135 Harv. L. Rev. 471 (2021) [2] Dan Murphy, “New California bill pushes for college sports revenue sharing”, espn.com, Jan 19, 2023, https://www.espn.com/college- sports/story/_/id/35483573/new-california-bill-pushes-college-sports-revenu e-sharing. [3] Id. [4] Michael McCann, “NCAA, PAC-12 Accused of Athlete Labor Violations in New Filing”, sportico.com, Feb 8, 2022, https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/ncaa-pac-12-ucla-and-usc-1234660311/.

The NCAA has circulated a memorandum to its Division I member schools that includes a standard of review for violations related to NIL activities (H/T to @WinterSportLaw who tweeted the memo). The memorandum also lists several factors for determining whether an NIL violation has occurred and provides additional information on the related infractions process. Standard of Review The memorandum states that when available information supports that the behaviors leading up to, surrounding, and/or related to an NIL agreement or activity were contrary to NCAA Division I legislation and/or the interim NIL policy, the NCAA’s enforcement staff and Division I Committee on Infractions shall presume a violation occurred. Once it is presumed an NIL violation has occurred, the burden then shifts to the institution to “clearly demonstrate” that all behaviors complied with NCAA legislation and the interim policy. The standard of review and burden-shifting analysis included in the memorandum is essentially a reiteration of statements in the NCAA’s press release announcing updated NIL guidance for institutions in October 2022: Factors for Determining NIL Violations The memorandum also outlined several factors for determining whether an NIL violation has occurred, including, but not limited to, impermissible contacts, offers, and benefits. Impermissible Contacts. An impermissible contact is deemed to occur when an institutional staff member directly or indirectly contacts a prospect who is not in the NCAA Transfer Portal to discuss NIL opportunities. An impermissible contact is also deemed to occur when a representative of the institution’s athletic interests (e.g., booster, collective) contacts a prospect or their family about potential NIL opportunities before the prospect signs with an institution. Impermissible Offers. The memorandum provides several examples of impermissible offers: An institutional staff member in any way offers, communicates, and/or guarantees an NIL opportunity to a prospect, their family or representatives during their recruitment. A representative of the institution’s athletics interests announces and/or enters (whether verbally or in writing) into an NIL agreement with a prospect prior to their enrollment at the institution. An NIL agreement requires a prospect to be in the locale (i.e., city, ZIP code) of the institution prior to enrollment in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement (e.g., local appearances). A collective and/or its representatives engage in recruiting activities and/or the promotion of specific prospects prior to their commitment to the institution. Impermissible Benefits. An impermissible benefit is deemed to occur when an institutional staff member, booster or other institutional representative solicits, facilitates and/or provides additional NIL opportunities in order to secure a student-athlete’s continued enrollment at the institution. Infractions Process The memorandum concludes by discussing the infractions process for a potential NIL violation. The memorandum discusses how the NCAA’s enforcement staff has the authority to conduct either a (1) limited/expedited investigation or (2) issue a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to an institution. After reviewing the information obtained through the investigation and/or the institution’s responses to an LOI, the enforcement staff will allege an NIL violation unless it concludes that the institution rebuts the presumption that a violation has occurred. If the institution agrees a violation has occurred, the institution and enforcement staff may submit a summary disposition or negotiated resolution for approval by the Committee on Infractions. If the institution and enforcement do not agree as to whether a violation has occurred, the case will proceed to a contested hearing Key Takeaway The NCAA’s memorandum is intended to crack down on the use of NIL payments as recruiting inducements or disguised “pay-for-play” deals. However, the NCAA has yet to actually enforce its NIL rules. Coaches and administrators have been calling for the NCAA to enforce its rules for months as boosters and collectives continue to commit recruiting violations and use the guise of NIL to lure top high-school recruits and target players in the Transfer Portal through “pay-for-play” deals. But, this new memorandum may be a warning sign for institutions and collectives to get their act together as the standard of review places a heavy burden on institutions to clearly demonstrate that all behaviors with respect to an NIL agreement or activity complied with NCAA rules. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group. He is a graduate of Albany Law School and Union College. At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via Twitter and LinkedIn.

The effect a “contract year” has on an athlete is undoubtedly an interesting phenomenon to observe. Whether it’s an MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL player, the stakes involved for a player’s performance entering free agency are through the roof. Even as smart as today’s front offices are in their holistic evaluations, the recency bias of seeing an athlete succeed or fail could mean the difference of tens of millions. A prime example on the positive side is Aaron Judge. In 2022, Judge was in his last year of club control with the Yankees. He proceeded to break the AL single-season homerun record and inked a $360 Million deal as a result. For a player who’d battled injuries over the course of his career before 2022, if Judge failed to stay healthy and perform in his contract year, he would’ve settled for far less than that this winter. On the flip side, Joey Gallo was also in a contract year in 2022. In the summer of 2021, Gallo was rumored to be negotiating with the Texas Rangers on a potential nine-figure contract to stay in Texas. The talks fell through, and Gallo was eventually traded to the Yankees (later to the Dodgers), where he struggled mightily over the next year and a half. Once positioned to a lucrative $100 Million deal, Gallo was forced to take a 1-year/$11 million deal with the Minnesota Twins. So that’s professional sports. But what about college football? Obviously, college athletes (for the time being) don’t have contracts with their schools, so our attention will be on the coaches. In evaluating the landscape of college football coaching contracts, something really stood out: today’s coaches rarely even get to the point where their deal expires. Why is this the case? While acknowledging that every situation is unique, the contract status for a coach can often be described in one of two ways. The first is if the coach is succeeding and the second is if the coach isn’t. Hitting on the positive side first, if a coach has a successful season or collection of seasons, athletic directors, university presidents, and boosters are immediately pressured to do whatever it takes to keep that coach at their school. Whether it be another school or the NFL, the fear of losing a successful coach often leads to schools shelling out lucrative extensions. Even if a coach isn’t a real candidate for another job, the magnificent work of agents to push rumors into the public sphere can give coaches tremendous leverage at the negotiating table. Whether or not these long-term extensions are wise investments is certainly unknown. In looking at Nick Saban’s pay over the years, there’s no question the seven-time national championship coach has been worth every penny to the University of Alabama. But for Jimbo Fisher and Mel Tucker, there’s certainly some early trepidation on whether their schools acted too soon. However, it’s worth mentioning that hindsight is always 20/20, and the 10-year/$100 million deal is the market for the perceived elite coaches today. Without the extension at Michigan State, would Mel Tucker have taken the LSU job? Who knows? But Michigan State, like many other schools today, wasn’t willing to take that chance. The other reason why coaches rarely get too close to a contract year is quite simple: They get fired well before their contract expires. I’ve written extensively for the site about how coaches are getting fired sooner and sooner into their tenures over the past few years, and I really don’t expect that trend to cease. If a coach doesn’t have success on the field or on the recruiting trail within two years, the pressure to get a new coach in that will is through the roof, especially at big programs. Paying a buyout is undoubtedly a tough pill to swallow for a school’s power brokers. But when pressed to make that decision, they aren’t asking whether or not they can afford to pay their fired coach, they’re asking if they can afford not to. In total, of the 69 power conference schools (including Notre Dame), 65 have either fired or extended a coach over the past two calendar years. Some, including Washington and Texas Tech have done both. Simply put, when it comes to coaches’ contracts in today’s college football, a coach either gets fired or gets extended within months on the job. There’s no in-between. Below is a conference-by-conference look at the contract status of each coach. *Denotes private institutions. Private institutions are not required to release contract terms, but in many cases, they do Although not included in the charts, the Group of 5 data is similar. Whether or not we see this trend reverse or scale back is yet to be determined. But as conferences continue to sign lucrative media rights deals, it’s clear that big-time programs aren’t pressing for money. Sure, in a day where the players start getting paid directly by the schools like employees, this may change. But for now, the money must go somewhere. A significant portion of it is going to extensions or buyouts for coaches. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed a new rule that would ban employers from imposing non-competes on their workers. Under the rule, a non-compete clause means “a contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.” If the rule becomes law, it could have huge implications for workers in all industries – including college athletics. Although the use of traditional non-competes in employment agreements between universities and college football coaches is not widespread, they do exist. The University of Arkansas Razorbacks’ employment agreement with head football coach Scot Pittman contains a non-compete that prohibits Pittman from seeking or accepting a head coaching or assistant position at any other Southeastern Conference (“SEC”) school for the duration of the contract unless he is fired without cause.[1] The University’s employment agreements with its former head football coaches Bobby Petrino[2] and Bret Bielema[3] similarly barred them from coaching other football teams in the SEC. In addition to non-competes, universities include other types of clauses in college football coach agreements designed to restrict competitive activity such as: non-disclosure covenants, non-solicitation covenants, consent to interview clauses, and liquidated damage provisions. So, the question arises, are non-competes and other restrictive covenants in college football coach agreements subject to this proposed ban? The answer appears to be yes as to non-competes. The FTC’s rule is a broad-based ban on the use of non-competes in the employment context. The rule makes no exception for high-level employees or employees with access to trade secrets or highly sensitive information. Thus, it would apply to almost all workers – including coaches. The only exception is for non-competes with the seller of a business. Notably, there are aspects of the FTC’s rule that could impact the enforceability of other types of clauses, such as liquidated damages. To better understand the implications of the FTC’s rule, it is helpful to explain the origin of the rule and its scope. How Did We Get Here? Arguably, a sub sandwich. In 2014, non-competes drew national attention when sub-sandwich chain Jimmy John’s imposed non-compete covenants on its sandwich makers. Jimmy John’s stopped its use of non-competes after it was sued by the Illinois and New York Attorney General’s offices. Nonetheless, the controversy heightened hostility towards non-competes and led to Federal legislation being introduced in Congress.[4] None of the legislation, however, garnered sufficient bipartisan support. Because legislation never caught traction, in 2016 the Obama White House called on state policymakers to take action to reduce its perceived misuse of non-compete agreements. Specifically, the White House’s “Call to Action” encouraged states to impose at least one of the following actions: Ban non-compete clauses for categories of workers, such as workers under a certain wage threshold; workers in certain occupations that promote public health and safety; workers who are unlikely to possess trade secrets; or those who may suffer undue adverse impacts from non-competes, such as workers laid-off or terminated without cause. Improve transparency and fairness of non-compete agreements by, for example, disallowing non-competes unless they are proposed before a job offer or significant promotion has been accepted (because an applicant who has accepted an offer and declined other positions may have less bargaining power); providing consideration over and above continued employment for workers who sign non-compete agreements; or encouraging employers to better inform workers about the law in their state and the existence of non-competes in contracts and how they work. Incentivize employers to write enforceable contracts, and encourage the elimination of unenforceable provisions by, for example, promoting the use of the “red pencil doctrine,” which renders contracts with unenforceable provisions void in their entirety. In 2018 and 2020 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) held full-day workshops on non-competes to determine whether there is a legal and empirical basis to promulgate a rule curbing or banning non-competes. Then, in 2021, making good on his campaign promises, President Biden issued an Executive Order that encouraged the FTC to take unspecified action against unfair non-competes and other agreements limiting employee mobility. In response, the FTC first issued its Strategic Plan for Fiscal years 2022-2026 that included express references to non-competes. Now, nearly eighteen months after the Executive Order, the FTC has published its proposed rule banning non-competes. Surprisingly, the scope of the proposed rule would bar non-competes for almost all workers, exceeding the Obama Call to Action that encouraged limits on only certain workers, such as low-wage earners. Does the New Rule Apply to Other Restrictive Covenants, such as Non-disclosures, Customer Non-solicits, and Non-recruitment Covenants? The exact scope of the rule is not clear yet. In addition to banning non-competes, the rule prohibits “de facto” non-competes or contractual provisions which prevent or have the effect of preventing an employee from working elsewhere after his/her employment ends. The rule provides the following examples of de facto non-competes: Non-disclosure agreements which are so broad that they prevent an employee from working in the same field elsewhere; and Training repayment provisions which require the worker to repay training costs if the worker leaves within a certain time period and if the obligations are not reasonably related to the costs the employer incurred in training the worker. These examples suggest that narrowly tailored customer non-solicits, non-recruits, and nondisclosures will not be impacted by the ban. Whether other types of clauses contained in coach agreements, such as liquidated damage clauses, will be deemed de facto non-competes and covered by the rule is unclear. What are Liquidated Damage Clauses and Why Could they be Barred by the FTC’s Rule? Liquidated damage clauses are common in college football coach agreements. These clauses permit the coach to terminate the employment agreement early without cause but render the coach liable to the university for an amount specified in the contract which is denominated and agreed to as liquidated damages. By example, the agreement between the University of Georgia and its head football Coach Kirby Smart contains a liquidated damage clause. Specifically, the Agreement provides that if Coach Smart were to resign prior to the end of the term he would owe the school $5 million if it were to happen between the 2022 and 2025 seasons. The liquidated damage amount decreases over the course of the contract, dropping to $4 million for the 2026 and 2027 seasons, $3 million for the 2028 season, $2 million for the 2029 season, and $1 million for the 2030 and 2031 seasons.[5] The Ohio State University’s agreement with its head football coach Ryan Day was extended in 2022 and contains a similar liquidated damage clause with varying sums of money based on how far into the contract’s term Day’s termination occurs as follows: Prior to Jan. 31, 2023: $5 million, 2024: $4.5 million, 2025: $4 million, 2026: $3 million, 2027: $2 million, 2028: $1 million, 2029: $750,000.[6] Historically, liquidated damage clauses have not been considered as non-competes in the eyes of the courts or subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as non-competes. However, the FTC’s rule applies to contractual provisions which prevent or have the effect of preventing an employee from working elsewhere after his/her employment ends. The FTC’s disdain for non-competes coupled by its recent enforcement actions suggests that it could view hefty-liquidated damage clauses as de-facto non-competes or provisions that have the effect of preventing coaches from leaving one program to coach another. At the very least, liquidated damage clauses for assistant and position coaches could be at risk if they appear so high as to deter free mobility. Recent activity by the FTC supports such an aggressive approach. The FTC released the proposed rule a day after it settled complaints alleging that three companies and two individuals violated § 5 of the FTC Act by imposing and enforcing anticompetitive employer/employee non-competes. One FTC complaint alleged that Prudential Security used individual lawsuits to enforce non-competes, which required low-wage security guards to pay a $100,000 penalty if violated.[7] The FTC seemed troubled by the liquidated damage clause. The proposed rule requires employers to rescind any existing non-competes and to notify their workers and former workers that their non-competes are no longer in effect. The deadline to do so would be within 180 days of publication of the final rule. Therefore, if the FTC took an aggressive approach and barred liquidated damage clauses, coaches would have free reign to terminate their employment agreements at any time without the university having meaningful recourse. The financial ramifications could be significant. Without contractual safeguards, universities would likely choose to pay their coaches less. In the coming years we would likely see a coaching carousel. Could the FTC’s Actions Impact College Football Players? The FTC’s proposed rule will clearly impact agreements between universities and coaches, but what about the rule’s impact on player mobility in the era of transfer portals? Currently, as “student-athletes” college football players are not protected by employment laws that apply to workers. They are also not required to sign non-compete covenants with their university. Ironically, this may change if the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is successful in its push to declare certain players employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). In September 2021, the employment status of athletes garnered a media frenzy when NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum expressing her position that certain collegiate athletes are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and, as such, are afforded all statutory protections.[8] More recently, in December 2022, the NLRB announced that it is pursuing a lawsuit against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12, the NCAA by the National Players Association claiming that football and basketball players are misclassified as “student-athletes” and should be considered employees.[9] If certain college players are deemed employees under the NLRB and other laws, they would likely be treated as employees in all regards including restrictive covenants. Thus, interesting questions arise as to the implications of the FTC rule on players such as: Could college football players be bound by non-competes? Could college football players be bound by non-disclosure, non-solicitation covenants or liquidated damage provisions? If the FTC modifies its proposed rule to limit the ban to low-wage earners, would college football players who earn NIL money be considered low-wage earners? If college football players could be bound by non-competes, would universities in States where non-competes are illegal (such as California) have a recruiting advantage? Would employment status impact transfer portal rules in the future? Looking to the Future Like all rules issued by regulatory agencies, the FTC’s proposed rule will go through a “notice and comment” period. During this 60-day period, various stakeholders and members of the public may submit feedback or comments on the proposed rule. Sometime after the 60-day period, the FTC will likely issue a final version of the rule, which could differ from the language of the proposed rule. A final rule would likely not by published for several months. Is the FTC Allowed to Regulate and Ban Non-competes? The United States Supreme Court has recently reined in the authority of agencies to regulate in areas that materially impact the economy in the absence of clear congressional authorization. Once the final rule is issued, it will almost certainly be challenged as beyond the FTC’s authority.[10] In fact, FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson issued a scathing dissenting statement when the proposed rule was published. She asserted that non-compete clauses are an inappropriate subject for rulemaking and that the rule “represents a radical departure from hundreds of years of legal precedent that employs a fact-specific inquiry into whether a non-compete clause is unreasonable in duration and scope, given the business justification for the restriction.” In the months to come, expect a lot of debate and lingering uncertainty about the merits and validity of the rule. Ken Winkler is a shareholder at Berman Fink Van Horn in Atlanta, where he counsels employers and business owners on employment law and compliance, including workplace issues such as harassment (#MeToo) and discrimination; ADA, FMLA, and other employment laws governing the workplace; employment restrictions (non-competes); and employment and business litigation. Ken obtained his law degree (1993) and B.S.B.A (1990) from The Ohio State University. You can read his blog, SportsFansGuide2HR, and connect with him via LinkedIn and Twitter @kwinklerbfvlaw. Footnotes: [1] Pittman's contract holds SEC non-compete clause. Tom Murphy & Matt Jones, Pittman’s Contract Holds SEC Non-Compete Clause, Arkansas Democrat Gazette (July 25, 2020, 2:15 AM), https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jul/25/pittmans-contract-holds-sec-non-compete-clause/. [2] Jason Kirk, Bobby Petrino’s Arkansas Contract: On His Buyout and SEC West Non-Compete; Atlanta SBNATION (Dec. 9, 2010, 6:24 PM), https://atlanta.sbnation.com/georgia-bulldogs/2010/12/9/1867054/bobby-petrinos-arkansas-contract-buyout-sec-west-non-compete. [3] See First Amendment to Employment Agreement (https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/first-amendment-to-employment-agreement-fully-executed-bret-bielema-redacted-111517-1510777379.pdf). [4] Benjamin I. Fink, Employer Alert: Non-Competes are Under Attack in Certain States, Berman Fink Van Horn (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.bfvlaw.com/employer-alert-non-competes-are-under-attack-in-certain-states-2/. [5] Thomas Neumann, Kirby Smart’s $112.5M UGA Contract Contains Massive Guarantees, Sports Illustrated (Aug. 4, 2022), https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/04/kirby-smart-uga-bulldogs-contract-guaranteed-money. [6] See Head Coach Employment Agreement (https://media.bizj.us/view/img/11501416/ryandaycontract-executed5-31-19-151677.pdf); Russell Steinberg, Ryan Day Salary, Contract & Buyout Breakdown at Ohio State, Boardroom (last updated Nov. 28, 2022), https://boardroom.tv/ryan-day-contract-salary-buyout-ohio-state/. [7] Decision and Order, Prudential Security, Inc., et al., FTC Docket No. C-XXXX, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2210026prudentialsecurityproposedorder.pdf. [8] Office of Pub. Affairs, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo Issues Memo on Employee Status of Players at Academic Institutions, National Lab. Rel. Board (Sept. 29, 2021), https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of. [9] Dan Murphy, NLRB to Pursue Unlawful Labor Practices Against USC, Pac-12, NCAA, ESPN (Dec. 15, 2022), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35259868/nlrb-pursue-unlawful-labor-practices-usc-pac-12-ncaa; NLRB to Pursue Unlawful Labor Practices Against USC, Pac-12, NCAA, Conduct Detrimental (Dec. 15, 2022), https://www.conductdetrimental.com/news/nlrb-to-pursue-unlawful-labor-practices-against-usc%2C-pac-12%2C-ncaa. [10] Chelsey Cox, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Threatens to Sue the FTC Over Proposed Ban on Noncompete Clauses, CNBC (Jan. 12, 2023, 6:12 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/us-chamber-of-commerce-threatens-to-sue-the-ftc-over-proposed-ban-on-noncompete-clauses.html.

If this offseason has told us anything regarding the state of the game, it’s that Major League Baseball is not struggling financially. Now that concerns about COVID-19 and a lack of labor peace are seemingly in the rear-view mirror, we’ve seen numerous teams get back to spending aggressively in free agency. In addition, MLB sold its share of BAMTech, a video streaming tech company, for a reported $900 million dollars. In short, when it comes to the almighty dollar, business is booming in baseball. However, just because revenues are at all-time highs for MLB doesn’t mean there aren’t major issues that need to be addressed for the long-term health of the game. One of those issues is baseball’s popularity and appeal to the younger generation of sports fans. According to Global Data, the average age of a baseball fan in North America is 57, a figure that should concern Rob Manfred in the commissioner’s office in New York. Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen MLB take certain measures like adding the 3-batter minimum rule and a pitch clock to speed up the pace of games. In addition, in hopes to spark a little more action and excitement, the league has increased the size of the bases to encourage more base stealing and has also banned the shift. However, perhaps the most important factor in MLB’s quest to make the game more appealing is to simply make the game more accessible to consume. This may seem obvious, but if you have any experience with MLB’s dreaded “blackouts,” you know exactly what I’m talking about. The current problem for many MLB.TV and Extra Innings subscribers are that local games are blacked out. The blackout restrictions are meant to protect local TV partners and force fans to watch the local broadcast of the game rather than using their MLB.TV or Extra Innings subscription. With many fans cutting the cord, the digital landscape is shifting more toward streaming each day. Inevitably, blackouts have been a huge source of frustration for fans. As an example, imagine you are a New York Yankees fan living in North Carolina. You pay well over $100 for an Extra Innings or MLB.TV subscription, which allows you to watch the Yankees. However, under the current arrangement, any games that the Yankees play against the Baltimore Orioles, Washington Nationals, Cincinnati Reds, and Atlanta Braves would be blacked out on subscription packages in an attempt to force fans to tune into the local broadcast. In cases where fans are streaming or don’t have access to the local broadcast, they are unable to watch the game. For a sport that is somewhat declining in popularity and failing to appeal to the younger generation, restrictions such as these do nothing but hurt the long-term health of the game. However, it looks like MLB has taken a strong step to address this issue. Last week, the league announced that it has hired longtime regional sports network executive Billy Chambers for the newly created position of EVP/Local Media. According to John Ourand of Sports Business Journal, the main issue Chambers will tackle is helping MLB take better control of their local media rights. Reportedly, one of MLB’s goals is to create a national product that would combine local rights with its Extra Innings and MLB.TV packages. According to MLB’s press release, Chambers will work closely with the 30 Clubs on the most effective means to distribute games to fans in local markets throughout the country. Additionally, he will work with Kenny Gersh, whose role at MLB centers around driving new revenue streams and business initiatives for the league, including all business aspects of the league’s sports betting strategy, fantasy baseball, the league’s direct-to-consumer media businesses, and Web 3 opportunities such as NFTs. From this, it’s apparent that MLB understands the current predicament and is working diligently to address it in the best way possible. Untangling television and media rights contracts is no small task, so it’s unreasonable to expect overnight changes. But if you’re an MLB fan, you can’t help but be somewhat encouraged by the steps the league is taking by adding Chambers to their staff. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The iconic chime. The players hugging the commissioner. The NFL draft is an event where athletes' dreams come true as a culmination of their hard work in the weight room and on the field has led to them almost instantly becoming millionaires. However, there is a dark side to what should be a pure beautiful moment. In 2005, Aaron Rodgers was one of six athletes invited to attend the draft. Rodgers had to sit and wait as 23 players were selected before him, including the 5 other athletes that attended the draft, before the Packers finally selected him at pick number 24. While embarrassing for Rodgers, no fault can be assigned with teams either choosing other quarterbacks or not needing to draft one being the main reasoning behind his fall in the draft. In 2016, Laremy Tunsil was projected to be the third pick of the draft. However, before the draft began, a video was posted on Twitter from Tunsil’s account which showed Tunsil wearing a mask that had what appeared to be a marijuana pipe with smoke attached to it. The video was quickly deleted but the damage had been done, causing Tunsil to fall to the 13th pick of the draft. Tunsil claimed his account was hacked, but seeing as the video was real, Tunsil could only have considered a civil suit against the hacker if the hacker was found. As of today, there has been no evidence solidifying anyone as the hacker, thus no lawsuit. Far more common than these situations is the occurrence of anonymous sources stating issues with players during the draft process. For instance, there are current reports from Todd McShay regarding the projected top 3 selection in the upcoming NFL draft Jalen Carter. McShay has been reporting that there are character concerns with the Georgia defensive tackle but has not cited any examples or individuals who have this opinion. The issue for players like Carter is that these allegations can lead to teams passing on him in the draft. Teams commit a lot of resources to each draft pick and have limited selections, so they may avoid a player for issues that do not even have a factual basis because of the value of each pick. On the other side, players lose millions of dollars for each pick they do not get chosen. Using the figures from spottrac.com, the difference between picks 1 and 2 in the 2022 draft was a contract worth $1,861,979 less. Even more shocking, the difference between pick 1 and 10 was a contract worth $18,873,693 less. The easy argument here is to point out that players like Carter will be making at least 20 million once drafted, so some may say that complaining about this is just complaining about a couple of million from someone who is already becoming a multi-millionaire. First, players come from diverse backgrounds of financial stability, and these contracts are given out on a scheduled system of payments. This means that each paycheck will be smaller and many of these players want every dollar possible to help their families or those who helped them along the way. Second, the main issue here is the morals behind it. Why should we allow unnamed “sources” to tank players’ draft stocks for no substantial reason other than creating controversy during the draft? Where a player is drafted is not just a number, but a brighter future with financial stability. Can the player take legal action through a defamation suit? The players have multiple things working against them. First, players who are good enough to be drafted will be considered public figures, who are held to a different standard in defamation lawsuits. Courts treat public figures differently as they are individuals who seek attention through the media and thus have access to said media, allowing them to better control the narrative. Further, public figures must prove that there was actual malice from the individual who made these comments about them. This is oftentimes very difficult to prove as the confidential sources who make these comments are often scouts, general managers, or teammates who could claim they are simply sharing their truthful opinion about the player and lack malice. If a player tries to meet this standard through a defamation lawsuit, confidentiality will further make the case difficult. Today, there are 49 states who have enacted shield laws. Shield laws generally require the side seeking the journalist to testify and reveal their sources to prove that the information sought is “relevant, material, and unobtainable from an alternative source.” While most likely not the most difficult bar for a player seeking information from a direct quote from a journalist's confidential source, it is another hoop to jump through. Overall, a defamation suit is unlikely to prove worthwhile as a result of the ease of denial with the source being confidential. Further, these comments could be loosely based on fact, ruining the case. For instance, in the Carter incident, the confidential source could use one minor blowup at practice as evidence of “character concerns.” Unfortunately for players like Carter, they will have to outwork these kinds of comments rather than find success within a courtroom. Dustin Pokorny is a 1L student and representative of the Sports Law Society at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law in Los Angeles. He can be found on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dustin-pokorny-301459172/.

Do I have a list in my phone that highlights all of Lamar Jackson's accomplishments that I will include as fun facts throughout this article? I plead the 5th. Now that we got that out of the way, let's get into his contract status and the Ravens' three options. Introduction Lamar Jackson, Florida native and former Louisville quarterback, was the last pick (32nd) in the 2018 NFL Draft. He signed a four-year deal with the Ravens for $9,471,648 with a $4,968,471 signing bonus. Lamar has been crucial to the Baltimore Ravens' run-first offense winning an MVP in 2019 and posing a 49-21 record thus far. Fast forward to 2022, Baltimore exercised their fifth-year option to keep him one more season pushing his deal closer to $23,016,000. Thanks to Sam Hubbard's 98-yard fumble-return TD, the Ravens season has ended and Jackson is currently not under contract. ***FUN FACT 1: Lamar, at 22, is the youngest QB to ever win an MVP in the NFL. The total number is unclear. However, per Adam Schefter, Baltimore reportedly offered Jackson a contract extension worth $250 million. This offer was for six years, per Chris Mortensen, with $133 million guaranteed. Jackson would have been the second-highest-paid quarterback in terms of average money per year and guaranteed money at signing. Why deny this offer? Let's ask his agent. Jackson, who does not have an agent, seems to want the Deshaun Watson special (absent the litigation). Watson secured a $230,000,000 deal with $230,000,000 fully guaranteed from the Cleveland Browns. In addition to breaking the hearts of NFL owners into pieces, this precedent set a high bar for many future NFL QBs, like Lamar. Before the Watson deal, Russell Wilson's $245,000,000 deal ($160,000,000 fully guaranteed), was the highest fully guaranteed deal and still $70,000,000 less. This decision, like the Browns' decision, played out perfectly as the Denver Broncos finished 5-12 at the bottom of the AFC West. Going into next season, the Ravens now have three options with respect to Lamar: (1) exercise their franchise tag, (2) finalize a trade, or (3) agree to a long-term deal. 1. Franchise Tag The franchise tag window is open between Feb. 21 and Mar. 7. The Ravens can either offer a (1) exclusive or (2) non-exclusive franchise tag. The way to reconcile these two tags is that an exclusive tag is more expensive ($45 million) but allows the Ravens to control the negotiation process. A non-exclusive is more affordable ($32 million) but allows other teams to talk with Jackson. Most teams, despite the extra money, lean toward an exclusive tag so that another team cannot dictate communications with the desired player. ***FUN FACT 2: Lamar, in 50 games, is the only NFL player ever with 8000 pass yards and 3000 rush yards. The exclusive franchise tag poses a problem, per ESPN's Jamison Hensley, because the Ravens have a little over $40 million in cap space. Since the exclusive tag is projected to be around $45 million, the organization would have to make some pay cuts in order to be under the cap by Mar. 15. If the Ravens offer a franchise tag—arguably their best financial decision—Lamar could very likely sit out the 2023 season because his security is not guaranteed. Lamar's knee injury against the Broncos during Week 13 appeared to be inconsequential - Harbaugh at least made it seem that way - but he ended up missing four games and their first-round playoff exit against the Bengals. Fans, like myself, speculate that potentially would have played through the injury if the Ravens gave him his fully guaranteed deal. Since the front office did not "truss" Lamar, he decided to nurse his injury back to full health to ensure he can get the full money somewhere else, if required. Hopefully, Jackson does not consult with Le'Veon Bell, who was upset with the Steelers' franchise tag and sat out the 2018 season to protest. ***FUN FACT 3: Lamar has the most career NFL wins by a QB younger than 25. The good news is that only Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott have been offered franchise tags in the past and both led to the QBs getting paid. Kirk left Washington to sign long term-deal with Minnesota, and Dak later signed a long-term deal with Dallas. 2. Trade (please don't) This option would definitely make some noise in the NFL because there have only been 9 trades involving MVP QBs and none have been above the age of 30. Twitter has already been having some fun photoshopping Lamar on their favorite teams. The Ravens understandably have some dubious feelings on giving Jackson a fully guaranteed deal because he missed 10 of the past 22 games. With his nature of being a mobile QB, the risk of injury is much higher than someone who is more of a pocket passer. It's impossible to say what the Ravens would be able to secure in a trade, but precedent is on their side. I mentioned how poorly both Wilson and Watson turned out, but the Seahawks (trading Wilson) and the Texans (trading Watson) got plenty in return. ***FUN FACT 4: Lamar is one of two players (Tom Brady) to have 5 touchdowns and 0 interceptions in 3 games during a season. Seattle got two first-round picks and two second-round picks for Wilson even with him being 33 at the time. Similarly, Houston got first-round picks in 2022-2024 and some other picks for Watson even pending litigation at the time. Lamar's value, at 25 and arguably at the peak of his career, is likely higher than both of these quarterbacks. 3. Long-Term Deal Contract negotiations have been going on for two seasons. Baltimore now has two months to make this long-term deal happen. Things could be seen as pointing in the right direction as the Ravens recently fired running back and tight end aficionado OC Greg Roman. John Harbaugh took this opportunity to speak highly of Lamar and note that he will be involved in the process of finding a new OC. "Lamar Jackson is our quarterback...everything we've done is based on this incredible young man." He went on further to say that "everyone wants Lamar to be in Baltimore and Lamar wants to be in Baltimore." I can confirm this statement and I speak for everyone. Thanks for stopping by, Matt Matthew Marino is a 2L at Elon University School of Law.

On Thursday, California Assembly Member Chris Holden introduced the College Athlete Protection Act (“Act”). The Act will require California colleges and universities to split annual revenue with student-athletes. Additionally, the Act is similar to the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act introduced last year, which ultimately failed to pass. Under the College Athlete Protection Act, California colleges and universities must establish a degree completion fund for student-athletes in revenue-generating sports, including football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. From the degree completion fund, colleges and universities must pay up to $25,000 per student-athlete per year, depending on the amount of revenue earned by the college or university. If the amount an athlete earns exceeds $25,000, the institution retains the funds until the student-athlete graduates. If the student-athlete does not graduate within six years of full-time enrollment, the student-athlete forfeits the funds. Importantly, the Act does not designate student-athletes as employees, institutions must comply with Title IX proportionality requirements for degree completion funds, and the portion of the Act governing degree completion funds only applies to Division I sports. Other notable parts of the Act require the development of College Athlete Protection Health and Safety Standards, which California colleges and universities will have to follow once established. Institutions will be responsible for sports-related medical expenses even after a student-athlete has left the college or university. California led the way on name, image, and likeness, which ultimately forced the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to change its rules. Now, California is pushing to allow colleges and universities to directly pay athletes and alter the NCAA’s ban on “pay-for-play.” 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.