Player props are bets that allow you to wager on an athlete’s individual performance. This means that even if your favorite player is on the worst team, they can still win you money. Online sportsbooks simply list the players' names and the props for most sports. However, the setup is a little different for the MLB, which shows an image of the players next to their names.   The Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”) through its corporate entity, Major League Baseball Players Inc. (“MLBPI”), filed two separate lawsuits against the major sports betting platforms. The MLBPI filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against DraftKings and bet365, and a second suit against FanDuel and Underdog Fantasy in New York State Court. The lawsuits assert that the sports betting companies are misappropriating the names, images, and likenesses of hundreds of MLB players by using images of the players on their sportsbook platforms and social media pages.   The MLBPI represents MLB players in collective bargaining with MLB and other matters affecting the players’ economic and privacy interests. They are the exclusive group licensing agent for all active MLB players, including the name, image, and likeness of players for commercial marketing or promotional activities when three or more MLB players are involved. Here, they seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages and to prevent the sportsbooks from any further misappropriation of the players’ publicity rights.   The MLBPI states that nearly every active MLB player’s name and image is featured on the sportsbooks, without having been granted a license by the MLBPI. Images of the players can be found when selecting player prop bets such as “how many home runs a baseball player will hit in a season.” They believe that the uses of players’ names and images go beyond “information,” which would fall under First Amendment protection, but are instead “promotional” and are thus unprotected. Instead, this “promotional”  usage of player images claimed to be “intended to capitalize on those players’ celebrity and/or notoriety and use it to promote and drive business…”   The complaint compares the sportsbooks' representation of the MLB’s props pages to the NFL’s. Prop pages for NFL players only feature their names without images. Additionally, if a specific MLB team is selected in the DraftKings app, then there is an option to view the “roster,” which displays player cards with the images and information about the players. This “roster” tab is not even available for NFL teams.   The complaint states that, since the legalization of sports betting in Las Vegas in 1949, betters have been able to identify perfectly the wagers they wanted to take based on names alone. In-person sports books simply listed the prop and the odds, without logos or images of players. The complaint said:   Player images are not necessary for this business to function. The core information bettors require to make informed decisions—such as an athlete’s name, past and current performance, and relevant statistics—can be fully conveyed through data alone. In fact, most serious bettors focus only on data in determining what bets to place, including quantitative factors such as performance metrics, matchups, and injury status, among others.   While this quote is relevant to the context of their argument, how dare they insult my 10-leg parlays based on pure intuition and gut instinct? Don’t they know the person who picks their March Madness bracket based on team colors and mascots always wins?   As mentioned earlier, the First Amendment protects speech that is “informational,” such as news, facts, and statistics, and generally permits transformative applications of publicity rights, such as a parody. There is no clear answer as to whether the unlicensed use of players' names, images and stats would violate their right of publicity.   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media , held that MLB players did not have the right to demand licensing fees from an online fantasy baseball game because the First Amendment preempted Missouri’s right of publicity law. [1] They reasoned that the players' names and general information about them were already in the public domain. [2] They were persuaded by the arguments of a California case, Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball , in which the court stated that “recitation and discussion of factual data concerning the athletic performance of [players on Major League Baseball's website] command a substantial public interest, and, therefore, is a form of expression due substantial constitutional protection." [3]   In a similar vein, the Indiana Supreme Court in Daniels v. FanDuel, Inc.  held that DraftKings and FanDuel did not violate the right of publicity of three former college football players whose names, pictures, and stats were used on a daily fantasy football game. [4] The court reasoned that the use falls within the meaning of "material that has newsworthy value," an exception under the state statute.   There is contradictory precedent in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where the unlicensed use of players’ names and stats in fantasy sports did violate the athletes' right of publicity. In Gridiron.com v. National Football Players Association , the court ruled that a website operator cannot use players' names and images to sell football memorabilia and operate a fantasy sports game. [5] In 2018, sports betting outside of Vegas became legal with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association . Since then, thirty-eight states have legalized sports betting, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue. It’s no surprise that the MLB would want a share of the profits from an industry that their league significantly contributes to. It will be interesting to see how the sportsbooks justify their differing treatment of the MLB prop bet pages compared to the NFL’s. With legal precedent split on this issue, there’s a possibility that these cases could escalate to a First Amendment battle in the Supreme Court.   For those wanting to track these cases, they are  MLB Players Inc v. DraftKings Inc et al , U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 24-04884; and MLB Players Inc v. Underdog Sports Inc et al , New York State Supreme Court, New York County.   Andrew Gagnon is a 3L at the University of Kansas School of Law where he is a representative in the Student Bar Association and President of the Sports Law Society. He can be found on Twitter @A_Gagnon34 and LinkedIn as  Andrew Gagnon .   Sources: [1] C.B.C. Distribution & Mktg. v. Major League Baseball Advanced, L.P. , 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007). [2]   Id . [3] Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball , 94 Cal. App. 4th 400, 411, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307 (2001). [4] Daniels v. FanDuel, Inc. , 109 N.E.3d 390 (Ind. 2018). [5] Gridiron.Com , Inc. v. NFL , 106 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2000).

Last week, Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa suffered another serious concussion, leading fans to speculate about whether the Dolphins star would ever return to the field. Tagovailoa’s injury also led many media outlets to   report  that the Dolphins may be able to recover a portion of Tagovailoa’s salary via an insurance policy if he is not medically cleared. To understand why this insurance policy has the potential to make or break the Dolphins future, one only needs to turn the clock back to last year, when 40-year-old Aaron Rodgers was carted off the field just moments into his Jets debut. The newly acquired star quarterback would not return to the field in 2023-24, but the cost to the Jets was deeper than that: Rodgers’ contract was uninsured.   After acquiring Rodgers during the offseason, the Jets restructured his contract. Like Rodgers’ former team, the Green Bay Packers, the Jets wanted to ensure that their franchise centerpiece was satisfied financially, paying him $37M in guaranteed money for the 2023 season. However, unlike the Packers, the Jets did not purchase an insurance policy for the QB, with   Sportico  reporting that the team missed out on up to $22M by not purchasing one of several policy options. More importantly, the Jets missed out on serious salary cap relief. The NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") defines insurance proceeds as a “refund from the player” and labels them as a cap credit for the ensuing season, so long as they are written into the contract at the time it is signed—insurance purchased outside of the contract does not count towards cap relief. This CBA provision encourages teams to insure themselves against the loss of their most expensive players for a season or longer by allowing them to obtain additional cap space for the year after the injury. Further incentivizing teams is the fact that payments for insurance policy premiums are not counted against a team’s salary cap. It should also be noted that teams can add this insurance provision to a player contract and not obtain a policy or stop paying an existing policy, which would leave them without recourse in instances like Rodgers’ injury.   Given these advantages, why don’t all teams insure their most expensive players? For many across the league, the CBA’s treatment of insurance policies (which has remained unchanged since 2006) is viewed as a loophole and a competitive advantage that organizations don’t want to broadcast. Though Rodgers' injury placed insurance into the spotlight, insurance policies in NFL player contracts have been a growing trend for years, with estimations that these policies have doubled in prevalence across the league over the last 5 years. While this popularity is a good thing for organizations marred by injury, it has come at a cost—premium prices for these policies have skyrocketed 30-40% in the last 5 years, leaving many teams and owners feeling like it may be too expensive to insure more than one player on their roster. These perspectives are underscored by an ESPN report of sources claiming that the NFL Management Council has discussed eliminating the cap relief benefit entirely.   Despite rising costs and potential rule changes, at least half of the teams in the NFL have at least one insured contract on their roster. The most popular position with insurance is quarterback, and 13 of the 14 most expensive QB contracts are insured, including names like Joe Burrow, Dak Prescott, and Jordan Love (who has already been placed on the IR this season). In contrast, rookie QBs, bridge quarterbacks, and middle-of-the-market signal-callers typically go uninsured.   A team’s stance on insurance policies largely depends on its salary cap situation and the owner’s willingness to spend. Other teams have fewer concerns, like the Philadelphia Eagles (at least 16 players insured this season) and the San Francisco 49ers (who have successfully made claims on insurance policies for Jimmy Garoppolo, Dee Ford, and George Kittle, and will likely make another claim on Christian McCaffrey). It seems that these teams have the philosophy of spreading their risk by insuring a wide variety of players and positions for different amounts. The difficulties these teams may face in offsetting the cost of insuring multiple players across a roster may not be as high as insurance-averse owners claim, either. NFL contract insurance policies typically vary based on a player’s position, medical history, and age, so some players and personnel groups may be easier for teams to insure than others. There is also flexibility in the policy’s deductibles and the number of games a player can miss before the policy kicks in, allowing teams to further tailor these policies to their respective needs. Finally, teams can also save money by bundling multiple policies, as the New York Giants did in signing Dexter Lawrence II, Brian Burns, and Andrew Thomas this offseason.   This brings us to Tagovailoa, whose tragic concussion highlights that insurance policies are not always the safety net that they appear to be. Tagovailoa’s   2024 contract extension  provides for $167M in injury guarantees (with no waivers or exclusions for concussions) and involves an insurance policy for up to $49.3M of the contract, much like that of other expensive signal-callers across the NFL. However, as mentioned above, insurance brokers still have the discretion to vary their policies based on a player’s injury history. An   ESPN  article published earlier this week included sources who believe that concussions would be excluded under Tagovailoa’s insurance policy due to the high level of pre-existing risk involved. The Dolphins QB suffered at least two high-profile concussions in 2022 (including a “fencing response” against the Cincinnati Bengals, which indicates an impact on the brain that is strong enough to cause a traumatic brain injury) and publicly stated that he had considered retirement at the time. If Tagovailoa is found to be medically ineligible to play football and concussions are exempt from his contract’s insurance policy, Miami will not be able to file a claim under the policy or receive salary cap relief, a massive blow to the Dolphins’ 2025 season on top of losing their franchise cornerstone. By contrast, these   ESPN  sources believe that a Rodgers insurance policy in 2023 likely would not have included exclusions for an Achilles injury, as the Jets QB had never suffered that kind of injury, though it seems unlikely that the Jets would be able to obtain that same policy now that the quarterback has indeed ruptured his Achilles.   While Tagovailoa’s health should rightfully be the main concern, how the Dolphins’ insurance policy will be handled remains an important issue to monitor. Are concussions truly exempt under his contract’s insurance policy, capsizing the Dolphins 2025 salary cap space even if their QB never plays another down of football? Will other NFL teams view the Rodgers and Tagovailoa injuries as an impetus to include more team-friendly insurance policies with their player contracts? How does a team insure an injury-prone player, or one who just suffered a serious injury? Will the NFL Management Council do away with all of these questions by eliminating the cap relief benefit? As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on the response of the Dolphins and the NFL.   Oliver Canning is a 2L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning.   Sources : https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10135895-tua-tagovailoas-dolphins-contract-has-493m-insurance-policy-amid-qbs-injury     https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/insurance-for-tua-tagovailoas-concussion-might-not-be-available-to-the-dolphins   https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40648415/miami-dolphins-qb-tua-tagovailoa-agrees-4-year-extension   https://www.sportico.com/leagues/football/2023/jets-rodgers-insurance-injury-1234742031/   https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41274295/nfl-insurance-policies-star-players-aaron-rodgers-tua-tagovailoa-jared-goff-joe-burrow-christian-mccaffrey

Gone are the days where stadiums are named after lawyers and uniforms are so pristine they can’t even be bothered to include players’ names.* As summer comes to a close, partnership deals ramp up. The surge in popularity of women’s sports expands the field for potential sponsorship opportunities, and the Golden State Valkyries and Washington Spirit have not hesitated to seize the opportunity. The Leafs remind us that business doesn’t always have to be so serious. Carolina Hurricanes and Lenovo sign a 10-year partnership deal. The Hurricanes' stadium will be renamed the Lenovo Center and Lenovo will be the official technology partner of the hurricanes. NHL MLB partners with workwear maker Strauss, making it the "Official Workwear Partner of MLB." The revenue from this multi-year partnership will be spread across all 30 MLB clubs. As part of the sponsorship deal, the Strauss name will appear on Minor League Baseball helmets, as well as on helmets during games played in Europe, beginning in the 2024 post-season. Forbes Bank of America becomes a "Champion Partner" of The Masters. The Augusta National Golf Club has not disclosed any financial details or the length of the partnership. Sports Business Journal The Golden State Valkyries sign JPMorgan Chase as their first jersey sponsor. The WNBA expansion team will enter the league in 2025 and its home arena will be the Chase Center, the current home of the Golden State Warriors. Sportico The NWSL's Washington Spirit partner with Fanatics Sportsbook, making Fanatics the Spirit's first official betting partner. This is Fanatics' first sponsorship of a professional women's sports team. Sportico The Toronto Maple Leafs make Oreo their official helmet sponsor. This partnership aligns well with the Leaf's sweater sponsor, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Hockey News *Of course with the notable exception of the preeminent AL East front-runner. Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

While the Knicks have been riding the high of the Leon Rose era and aspiring toward an NBA championship this year, their Owner, James Dolan, has been fighting a legal battle against one of their former stars. Many of you will remember the infamous incident between Dolan and former Knicks star Charles Oakley in 207. Oakley was forcible removed from a Knicks basketball game and subsequently sued MSG and Dolan for battery and assault. After a complicated few years of motions and remands, the suit has finally reached the discovery stage of litigation. Discovery entails both parties accumulating evidence and requesting evidence from the opposing side to help build their own respective cases. Of course, like many stages of the legal process, Oakley and MSG have reached an impasse on their discovery requests.   Oakley has requested to depose (question) Dolan himself and requested production of Dolan’s emails with 20 MSG custodians over a four year period. MSG argued against this request stating it was unduly burdensome and countered by offering 5 individuals to produce relevant emails sent between February 8, 2017 and March 1, 2017. The individuals offered were  (2) a security or operations person identified by Oakley; (3) Lawrence Burian (former EVP, General Counsel); (4) Marc Schoenfeld (former SVP and Associate General Counsel); and (5) James Dolan. Oakley and Dolan/MSG could not come to an agreement on this matter and as a result, requested the court make a determination on the scope of discovery.   The ”scope of discovery” here is defined under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”  See USCS Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The court will consider “the parties relative access to relevant information…the importance of discovery in resolving the issues…[and] whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Essentially, all evidence that could be relevant in the case should be produced in the discovery change unless the opposing side can show that it is overly difficult or expensive to obtain. If the requesting party proves its relevance, it falls to the opposition to refute its relevancy or prove its burden. See In re Subpoena to Loeb & Loeb LLP , 2019 WL 2428704, at *4 (S.D.N.Y., 2019).   1.      Deposition of James Dolan   Oakley seeks to question Dolan and MSG has refuted stating Dolan has no unique knowledge that other witnesses are incapable of conveying. However, Dolan was an eyewitness to the removal of Oakley, the force used to remove him, and will have personal observations made during removal. Further, Oakley has alleged that Dolan called over a security guard who he then signaled to remove Oakley with other security personnel. The court granted Oakley’s request to depose Dolan based on this information.   2.      Documents from James Dolan   Oakley seeks to obtain emails including 35 search terms over four years. MSG contends that this is an excessive search period which the court agrees. They stated that the emails during the four-year period are unlikely to be relevant to the isolated alleged assault/battery incident and that the discovery of such a long term would not be proportional to the needs of the case. They granted Oakley’s request for emails but only from February 8, 2017 to March 1, 2017 (the date of the incident and the three weeks following).   3.      Documents from Fifteen Witnesses   Finally, Oakley requests documentation from fifteen individuals who either gave statements about the incident, participated in the removal, or have claimed to have witnessed Oakley being abusive. The court has granted this request in full based on the need from Oakley’s side for this information and the extreme importance of eyewitness testimony in this case.   These orders by the court will move the litigation between Oakley and Dolan/MSG along, but don’t expect a resolution anytime soon. There is still quite a bit of bad blood between the two sides as Oakley publicly stated in March that he is not ready to return to MSG until Dolan apologizes and MSG has stated they never invited him back. In any case, this has been a long battle between the two sides approaching eight years and it seems to have no resolution in sight. I’ll be watching this case (and the Knicks) very closely for more updates.   Evan Mattel is a Junior Associate at the Law Office of Vincent Toomey. He has his J.D. from Hofstra Law and is the co-founder of the NIL Program there. He can be found on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-mattel-93a871182/ .

One of the biggest developments in baseball over the last 15-20 years is the increase in fastball velocity. Every year, MLB pitchers are throwing harder than they were before. According to Baseball America, the average four-seam fastball in 2007 was 91.9 mph. In 2023, the average four-seam fastball rose to 94.2 mph. Moreover, over the past 16 years, there has never been a season where the average fastball velocity has dipped from the previous year.   While it's always fun to see a pitcher like Aroldis Chapman or Ben Joyce light up a radar gun, some negative externalities have seemingly come with the increases in velocity. The rise of pitcher injuries and decline of offense in the game have been well-documented in recent years. However, another problem that hasn't been talked about a lot is the safety of hitters facing said velocity.   It's no secret that talent evaluators across all levels of baseball are emphasizing velocity more than ever. Pitchers who throw hard inherently generate more swing and miss than those who don't. In this analytical era, front offices and coaches love to minimize risk. While pitch to contact pitchers still can be tremendously effective in the game today, having more strikeout pitchers limits the chance seeing-eye-singles bleed through the infield or wind-aided homeruns blow over the fence in a critical spot in the game.   This has created more of an incentive for pitchers to focus on adding velocity in lieu of improving control and command. While the elite pitchers in the game are able to locate with 95+ mph fastballs, the reality is that there aren't many pitchers like Gerrit Cole, Zack Wheeler, and Chris Sale around who are able to do both consistently.   As velocities keep rising and command oriented pitchers decrease, batters are more vulnerable to serious injuries as a result from being hit by a pitch. According to Jayson Stark of The Athletic , hit by pitch rates have nearly doubled since the 1960s and have steadily increased each year since. In recent years, players like Giancarlo Stanton, James McCann, Willie Calhoun, and Taylor Ward have been hit in the face. Moreover, there have been a proliferation of serious hand and elbow injuries resulting from hit by pitches as well.   Absent when umpires deem the action is intentional, pitchers currently face no consequences for hitting batters. However, as more injuries and/or scary episodes add up, discipline could be coming for pitchers.   A day after he was hit in the back of the head by a 95 mph fastball, Whit Merrifield of the Atlanta Braves predicted the MLB Competition Committee he serves on will have a rule in place by next season with penalties for pitchers who hit batters with similar high-and-inside fastballs.   “Yeah, we’ll have something in place by the time the season starts next year,” Merrifield said. “I’d be shocked if we didn’t.”   Merrifield is among many players who want a rule punishing pitchers for plunking hitters with fastballs that break hands and wrists or hit players in the head or neck. He said the competition committee, consisted of MLB team officials, umpires, and players, were receptive to the idea.   "Where the game's at right now, it's just ridiculous. I hate where the game's at right now with that," Merrifield said after the game. The way pitchers are throwing now, there's no regard for throwing up and in. The guys are throwing as hard as they can, they don't care where the ball goes.    Other sports have enacted various punishments relating to dangerous conduct. The NFL has ejected, fined, and suspended players for helmet-to-helmet hits. College football employs the targeting rule where players are flagged and ejected. The NBA has levels of flagrant violations as does soccer. In fact, MLB is actually somewhat of an outlier right now when it comes to policing dangerous plays in the game.   How exactly these punishments could come about is certainly up in the air. Questions around what qualifies as a "dangerous" hit by pitch will need to be ironed out. Is it a simple black-and-white rule where a pitcher is automatically ejected if they hit a batter in the head? What about when a pitcher breaks a batter's wrist? Will umpires have the discretion to determine which pitches constitute as an ejection? All of this will need to be parsed out before any discipline goes into effect. The MLBPA will be heavily involved to protect pitchers against any unreasonable fines or suspensions as well.   Nonetheless, this will be an interesting development to follow in the coming months. Merrifield's prediction that a rule will be in place by Opening Day 2025 seems aggressive, but he has more inside information than the rest of us. Most importantly though, player safety concerns should rule the day in the end. Brendan Bell is a 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law and is the Southwest Regional Rep on Conduct Detrimental's Law School Student Board. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

In today’s college sports landscape, it seems as though nearly every athlete and every company is involved in some sort of Name, Image, Likeness deal. However, a recent deal shows perhaps there are industries yet to be tapped into. Last week, CBS Sports reported that University of Southern California has struck a sponsorship deal with highly regarded cannabis company “Cookies.” This move comes on the heels of the NCAA removing cannabis from its banned substance list as well as the FDA looking to move Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III (Schedule III substances are those with moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence). In its press release, Vice President and General Manager of USC Sports Properties, Drew DeHart, said the following: "With the decision to open this category, it was our goal to find the right partner for USC Athletics, and we did just that with Cookies. Cookies is the global leader in CBD but also an innovative brand deep in life-style culture and wellness," DeHart said. "We are excited for the Trojans to be a leader in collegiate athletics on and off the field, and today's announcement continues to showcase just that." While it sounds as though this partnership is focusing on the CBD capabilities on the company, it raises questions in other states considering the potential of future sponsorship deals pertaining to CBD. On its face, it seems as though it would be cut and dry, as cannabis has been removed from the Banned Substance list. With this, should we expect a proliferation of CBD NIL deals in the near future? Well, it might not be that simple. CBD NIL deals nationwide could create a slippery slope for the still unsettled landscape that was created by the advent and inconsistent regulations around the NIL of student-athletes. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, have a “vice-clause” in their legislation regarding the ability of student athletes to be compensated for the use of their NIL. Such clauses may prohibit gambling, alcoholic beverage, and other lifestyle/wellness companies (including CBD) from entering into deals with student-athletes. However, with NIL regulations being left to the states, there is not a comprehensive or even consistent regulatory landscape. While states such as Pennsylvania have vice clauses, other states do not. For example, N’Kosi Perry, a former Florida Atlantic University Quarterback, signed a deal with an alcohol company in 2021. In addition, it’s important to keep in mind that while some states may not have specific vice clauses, each academic institution may have their own policy surrounding the types of companies student-athletes can contract with for NIL purposes. With the NCAA and Federal Government taking the steps it has, it remains to be seen if states will begin making tweaks now or wait for Federal action. Making adjustments now would require states to re-visit their NIL laws. While not impossible, this would be a tall task. As of the writing of this article, the Cookies sponsorship deal is only between USC and the wellness company. Moreover, there doesn’t appear to be a sponsorship or NIL deal between a wellness company such as Cookies and a student-athlete at the moment. However, such a deal may not be so far off. It’ll be interesting to watch how this deal creates a precedent for other institutions and to see who might emerge as a trailblazer by inking a deal between such a company and a student-athlete in relation to their NIL. Stephon Burton is a second-year associate working at Motion Law Immigration in Washington, DC. He additionally is a Volunteer with the DC Bar Non-Profit and Small Business clinic. He can be reached via Twitter/X @StephonBurton3 and Linkedin .

(Image via Ken Blaze/Imagn Images) It was reported that Cleveland Browns QB Deshaun Watson has once again been sued for sexual assault and battery . As most of you can remember, Deshaun Watson was suspended 11 games during the 2022 season for sexual misconduct. This was a negotiated suspension that allowed for Deshaun Watson to essentially grandfather in the suspension without it having the ability to void his guarantees on his new $231 million contract. That is because the CBA allows teams to void remaining guarantees on a contract for a suspension for a violation of the personal conduct policy (which the NFL found Watson did). However, those lawsuits were based on sexual misconduct (exposing oneself or making inappropriate sexual remarks). These allegations are far more serious. “Watson grabbed Jane Doe’s legs and positioned her so that she was laying down. Watson then partially disrobed Jane Doe and penetrated her [v*****] without consent, implicit or explicit. Jane Doe felt paralyzed, unsure if she should risk her safety by trying to stop Watson or endure his assault. Watson roughly sexually assaulted Jane Doe for several minutes in a [sexual position] before grabbing her and flipping her over. Watson continued to assault Doe aggressively from behind. Jane Doe finally gathered the courage and strength to escape Watson.” ** Words bracketed in quote to mask graphic sexual content **   As one can see, these allegations are far more aggravating than the previous lawsuits. This begs the question: Did the National Football League, the Cleveland Browns, and/or the Houston Texans know about these allegations in 2022, when the trade sending Watson to Cleveland was consummated, as well as the subsequent suspension? This is important because the anticipated suspension was specifically considered in the 2022 contract, meaning that the personal conduct suspension would NOT void the guarantees in his contract as one usually would. However, since the suspension, Deshaun Watson has played a grand total of 13 games in three seasons. Of course, he was suspended for 11 games in 2022 and then missed another 11 games in 2023. However, his completion percentage is down from 70.2% in 2020 (when he was with the Texans). He had a completion percentage of 58.2% in 2022 and 61.4% in 2023. Those are hardly par for the player with the largest full guarantee in the history of football.   Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” With Watson the subject of another sexual assault lawsuit (this one alleging forcible rape), are the Browns going to use this as an opportunity to suspend Watson and use that suspension as a preface to void the remaining guarantees on his contract? Yes, they would be in salary cap hell for the next several years (restructuring his contract was a massive mistake in my opinion). The simple answer is: It depends. If they were aware of these allegations, the contract provision which specifically excludes voiding the guarantees would still control and Watson would remain under contract for 2+ more seasons. If not, the Browns could feasibly suspend Watson for Conduct Detrimental to the Club if these allegations were not known when they signed him. That suspension for Conduct Detrimental would allow for the Browns to void all remaining guarantees. The NFL could place Deshaun Watson on the Commissioner’s Exempt List but remember that allows for full pay and there is no guarantee the league would do anything to help them. Remember the Browns broke all understood norms by fully guaranteeing Watson’s entire contract. That decision reverberated throughout the entire league and forced many influential owners to have conversations with their star QBs about why they were not also going to get a fully guaranteed contract. With how poorly Watson has played since the trade, the Browns need to ask themselves if they are going to let a good crisis go to waste? If not, there will undoubtedly be lawyers.     Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Sports Law. He is a soon-to-be National Football League Certified Contract Advisor.  He is a frequent legal analyst on Court TV, Live Now on Fox, and Law & Crime Trial Network. He was recently a featured contributor on 48 Hours on CBS. He has also appeared on television, radio, and podcasts discussing various criminal law issues. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. Attorney Tympanick was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota and Manatee Counties in Florida. In over seven years as an attorney, Attorney Tympanick has tried over forty cases and handled thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic..Call Tympanick 1(888)NOPANIC. www.tympanicklaw.com .

On August 27, 2024, the NFL made a significant move by allowing private equity firms to invest in its teams. This decision marked a shift in the league’s traditionally conservative approach to ownership. While other major U.S. sports leagues have been more open to private equity involvement, the NFL's decision introduces new dynamics in team financing, ownership structure, and league governance. Here’s a breakdown of the key points of the NFL’s decision and how it compares to the other major leagues: Key Points of the NFL’s Decision Ownership Rules Relaxed : The NFL had long maintained strict ownership rules, favoring individual or family owners with deep pockets. By allowing private equity firms to acquire minority stakes, the league is easing the financial burden on traditional owners who may need capital due to the exponentially growing valuations of their teams, but do not wish to relinquish full control. Minority Stake Limitations : While private equity can now buy into NFL teams, there are still limitations. They can own up to 10% of a single team, and this 10% can be split among multiple funds. However, each fund must own at least 3% of the team, allowing them to invest in multiple teams at once – up to six teams. This preserves the NFL’s historical preference for stable, long-term ownership. Investor Qualifications : The NFL is instituting strict guidelines for private equity firms to ensure financial stability and long-term commitment. The current list of league approved funds are: Arctos Partners, LP; Ares Management Corporation; Sixth Street; and a consortium group including Blackstone, Carlyle, CVC, Dynasty Equity and Ludis. Sovereign wealth funds and pension funds are not permitted. The funds that invest will be required to hold their investment for a minimum of six years. Revenue Sharing and Team Valuations : With private equity involvement, there is potential for increased team valuations, especially for franchises that need capital to upgrade facilities, marketing, or operations. However, the NFL’s strong revenue-sharing model will likely remain in place, ensuring competitive balance across the league. Long-Term Impact on Governance : The introduction of private equity may influence the league’s decision-making processes over time. With investors looking for returns, there could be pressure on the league to pursue more aggressive growth strategies, including expanding international markets, increasing media rights deals, and monetizing digital assets, but for now with the league only allowing such a passive investment these changes will likely not be seen in the near future. Comparisons with Other Major Sports Leagues NBA : The NBA was one of the first major sports leagues to embrace private equity investment. Since 2020, the NBA has allowed private equity firms to own up to 20% of a team, with a cap on total private equity ownership at 30%. This has resulted in increased liquidity for owners and higher team valuations. The NBA has been more flexible in its approach, with some teams welcoming multiple private equity investors, allowing for more diversified ownership structures. MLB : Major League Baseball has also opened its doors to private equity in recent years. Like the NBA, MLB allows minority stakes to be sold to private equity, but with tighter restrictions. MLB’s approach is more conservative, focusing on maintaining control within traditional ownership groups. This has helped stabilize teams financially but limits the influence of private equity on day-to-day operations. MLB permits teams to sell up to 30% to funds, and the maximum equity a fund can have in a single team is 15%.   NHL : The NHL began permitting private equity firms to buy minority stakes in teams starting in 2021. The NHL’s ownership model is similar to MLB’s, with a focus on ensuring that private equity investors do not gain significant control over team operations. The NHL permits teams to sell up to 30% to funds, and the maximum equity a fund can have in a single team is 20%. The NHL has used private equity as a way to provide financial relief to struggling franchises, allowing them to remain competitive without forcing ownership changes. MLS : Major League Soccer has been equally as flexible as both the NBA and NHL when it comes to private equity involvement. MLS franchises have allowed private equity firms to take additional stakes in teams, often providing essential capital for stadium development and expansion efforts. The league’s newer structure and focus on growth have made it a more attractive option for private equity investors compared to the more established leagues. Distinctions in Private Equity Involvement Across Leagues Control and Governance : The NFL’s decision to limit private equity ownership to minority stakes is the strictest of the major sports leagues to ensure control is carefully guarded by traditional owners. In contrast, the NBA, MLB, NHL and MLS have been more open to shared control, with multiple private equity investors holding stakes in several teams and allowing these investors to own a greater percentage of those teams. Financial Impact : Private equity’s influence on team valuations has been most pronounced in the NBA, where the league’s global popularity and lucrative media deals have made teams attractive investment vehicles. The NFL, with its established media dominance and high franchise values, may see similar effects but at a slower pace due to its more restrictive ownership rules. Operational Influence : While private equity in the NBA and MLS often has a more hands-on role in driving growth strategies, the NFL’s approach is likely to keep operational influence limited. The NFL’s governance structure prioritizes long-term stability over short-term financial gains, which could curb some of the aggressive growth strategies typically favored by private equity. Conclusion The NFL’s decision to allow private equity investment marks a significant shift in the league’s approach to ownership and financing. While the move brings the NFL in line with other major U.S. sports leagues, the restrictions on ownership stakes and control will ensure that the league maintains its focus on stability and competitive balance. As private equity firms begin to invest in NFL teams, the long-term impact on team valuations, operations, and league governance will be closely watched, with lessons likely to be drawn from the experiences of the NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS, which all allow for more private equity involvement than the NFL. Michael Perlo is an Associate Attorney at Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP and writes and speaks frequently about the legal issues related to sports. He can be reached on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-perlo/

As summer comes to a close, partnership deals are booming. From sneakers to chocolate, every industry is hoping to get a piece of the profit. For the sake of us consumers, let’s hope Angel Reese’s collection is a bit more affordable than Ruth’s jersey.   USA football makes Oakley its official eyewear sponsor in advance of the 2028 Olympics. USA Football Aflac partners with the University of Colorado Buffaloes football team to provide custom headsets for the upcoming season. The coaching staff’s headsets will be designed to match the players’ uniforms each week. CU Hershey’s Reese’s partners with Angel Reese to create a Reese’s Pieces logowear collection. Logowear will feature the new “Reese’s Angel” logo. Yahoo Sports Babe Ruth’s “called shot” jersey sold for $24.12M. This sale sets the auction record for most expensive sports collectible ever sold, topping a Mickey Mantle Topps card which sold for $12.6M in 2022. ESPN Duke forward Cooper Flagg signs endorsement deal with New Balance. ESPN projects Flagg will be the first pick in the 2025 NBA draft. ESPN Kelce brothers sign a $100M+ deal with Amazon for their New Heights podcast. WSJ Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

As much of the world enjoys end-of-summer traveling, Delta is hard at work solidifying its partnership with the WNBA, and Pitbull is ready to get back to school. Non-alcoholic beverages continue to have their moment, and KD just can’t get enough of Paris after coming home with the Gold for Team USA. Pitbull purchases naming rights to Florida International University’s football stadium for the next 5 years. Pitbull will pay FIU $1.2 million per year, and has the option to renew for an additional 5 years. As part of the agreement, Pitbull will create an anthem for the school, make 12 social media posts per year and appear at one athletics funding event per year. In return, Pitbull will get to use the stadium 10 times per year, and his vodka company (Voli 305 vodka) will be the preferred brand of the stadium. ESPN Arsenal FC names Athletic Brewing as its official non-alcoholic beer partner. CNBC Kevin Durant becomes minority owner of Paris Saint-Germain soccer club. Durant invested through his company, Boardroom Sports Holding, LLC, via Arctos Partners. Yahoo Sports Richard Sherman and Sheldon Day’s Players Company partners with Mogul Club, a real estate investment firm designed to help accredited investors interested in investing in single-family rental properties. Sherman and Day formed Players Company to help educate and support professional athletes and other accredited investors with their investments. Forbes WNBA names Delta Air Lines as its official airline partner. WNBA Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

While House v. NCAA has dominated most of the headlines lately, it is far from the only active lawsuit against the NCAA in this  litigious environment in college athletics. Ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Alston case and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s scathing concurrence to go with it, the NCAA has been in an extremely vulnerable position.  This week, another lawsuit has been filed against the NCAA, this time by a former college baseball player. Riley Cornelio, a former TCU pitcher, is suing the NCAA and power conferences, "accusing the leagues of wage fixing through scholarship limits." The federal antitrust case was filed in Colorado this week and "seeks class-action status for college baseball and hockey players." The timing of this suit is noteworthy because it appears like scholarship limits in college baseball and other college sports might no longer exist in a couple of years.  The NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC already have an agreement in place to settle recent antitrust litigation, including House , where scholarship limits would be replaced by roster caps. The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a judge, also includes a plan to allow schools to implement a revenue-sharing system with athletes and increase the number of scholarship schools would be permitted — though not required — to hand out in most Division I sports.  The scholarship limit for baseball has been 11.7 per program. With most college baseball programs carrying 35-40 man rosters, nearly all players have been on partial scholarships. Under the new proposed system, baseball rosters will be capped at 34 players and schools can choose to fund them all with full scholarships. While it’s uncertain the exact number of scholarships certain programs will fund moving forward, it’s reasonable to assume power programs will far exceed the previous 11.7 limit.  However, just because the scholarship limitation may be going away, the settlement is still not final by any means. Moreover, the plaintiffs are seeking retroactive relief. “Even if the rule is finally repealed, there will still be a need to make whole the athletes who suffered,” the lawsuit says.  The suit also alleges that “Defendant and its members operate as a cartel, and the capping of scholarship money at artificially low levels in these sports results in wage fixing amongst horizontal competitors in a market for services,” the complaint says. “The anticompetitive effects are as clear as with any other wage fix, and it is an unlawful restraint under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.” The suit was filed by the same attorneys who are leading the Fontenot case against the NCAA. In that case, a former football player at the University of Colorado filed a lawsuit last November, claiming NCAA rules have illegally prevented college athletes from earning their fair share of the millions of dollars in revenue schools bring in. The plaintiffs' attorneys in House  requested that Fontenot  be joined with another lawsuit that is part of the settlement, but a Colorado judge denied the request. It seems like change and litigation are the only constants you can count on right now in college athletics. The advent of NIL, conference realignment, and sweeping litigation have dominated the landscape in recent years and does not appear to be slowing down. Clemson and Florida State have active cases against ACC that will likely end with the two institutions in new conferences. College athletes will likely gain employee status in the near horizon. But when and how these changes will come about is up in the air as we sit here today. Outcomes of court cases like House will undoubtedly shape the future of college athletics. With every lawsuit that is brought, the NCAA becomes weaker and weaker. In this era, nearly every decision being made is guided by the potential of a future lawsuit. Therefore, it’s important to monitor each case that comes in, including this scholarship case brought by Riley Cornelio. Brendan Bell is a 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law and is the Southwest Regional Rep on Conduct Detrimental's Law School Student Board. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

As July comes to a close, so does a few highly anticipated deals. However, not without drama, as the battle between the NBA and TNT continues at full force.   NBA Board of Governors approves media rights agreements. NYT NBA rejects TNT’s rival bid, stating the proposal did not match the terms of Amazon Prime Video’s offer. Warner Bros. Discovery, TNT’s parent company, is now suing the NBA for its “unjustified rejection” of Warner Bros.’ matching offer. Front Office Sports / NYT Willow Bay and Bob Igor secure controlling stake in Angel City FC. Bay and Igor will invest an additional $50M in the club. The franchise is valued at $250M. ESPN   Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .