Given how popular and seemingly larger-than-life most professional sports franchises are, we sometimes forget that these entities are still “companies” looking to make the most prudent business decisions available to them. While there is often more money involved, your favorite sports team operates under the same principles that your business does. As a finance major, my professors often say that when analyzing investments, it’s best not to just seek out the highest possible return, but the highest risk-adjusted return. How does this simple finance fundamental apply to Carlos Correa’s negotiations with a handful of MLB teams this offseason? Well, it explains why the former Rookie of the Year, All-Star, and World Series-winning shortstop went from being a Giant to a Met to a Twin over the course of about a month. After superstars like Aaron Judge, Jacob deGrom, Justin Verlander, Trea Turner, and Xander Bogaerts all signed massive free agent contracts earlier this offseason, all signs pointed to Carlos Correa having a robust market being the last major impact player left on the board. That notion was initially validated when Correa agreed to a 13-year contract worth $350 million with the San Francisco Giants, one of the biggest deals in MLB history. However, on December 20th, Correa’s introductory press conference in San Francisco was postponed due to a holdup with his physical stemming from an injury Correa suffered before even debuting in the majors. Within a matter of hours, the Mets swooped in and offered 12 years and $315 million to Correa, which he quickly accepted. Before anything was official, Mets owner Steve Cohen claimed that the acquisition “puts us over the top.” You might be asking: what did the Giants see in Correa’s physical that the Mets didn’t? Well, the answer came on Christmas Eve when reports surfaced that the Mets did in fact have similar concerns. Cohen’s comments came before any Mets doctor was able to examine Correa. This led to nearly three weeks of back and forth between Correa, Scott Boras (Correa’s agent), the Mets, and eventually, the Twins. Why did this process take so long? It’s because when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, things can get extremely complex. And that they did. When teams sign players to long-term contracts like Correa’s, they often acquire insurance to protect themselves if the player is unable to play due to an injury. However, these insurance policies contain exclusions regarding previous and or existing injuries (i.e. Correa’s ankle injury) that might wreak havoc on the player’s long-term health. For most free agents who sign shorter-term deals, this isn’t an issue. But when you’re talking about a deal spanning over a decade, teams want to protect themselves against risk as much as possible. If insurance won’t protect the teams, what can? In contrast to the NFL, most MLB free agent contracts are fully guaranteed. Once signed, a player is entitled to all the money that was agreed upon. Yes, there are usually performance bonuses that sometimes include playing time elements, but for the most part, star players like Correa usually have the leverage to secure a lot of guaranteed cash. However, as the last month has told us, sometimes it can get tricky. A recent example of this came in 2018 when J.D. Martinez signed with the Boston Red Sox. Coming off a monster 2017 season, Martinez was in line to cash in on a big-time deal. However, concerns over a foot injury he suffered early in the season somewhat hampered his market. Martinez still netted a nine-figure deal from Boston, but not without some drawbacks. The Red Sox, led by GM Dave Dombrowski at the time, negotiated their own means of walking away from the final two years of the contract in the event that Martinez’s foot proved to be a chronic condition. According to the contract, had Martinez spent 60 consecutive days on the injured list in the third year of the contract with an injury related to his prior foot injury, the fourth year could’ve been converted into a mutual option. Boston could’ve also converted the fourth year to a mutual option had Martinez missed 120 days between the second and third years of the deal pertaining to the prior Lisfranc issue. As it turned out, none of this came to pass as Martinez played out his Boston deal without any foot concerns. But from this, you can definitely see the detail and implications involved in these types of negotiations. That’s why the Correa situation took so long. You can bet lawyers from the Mets and Twins worked around the clock to try and include the most advantageous contract language possible to protect against the long-term risk of taking on Correa. Concurrently, Boras Corp sought to maximize the guarantees in the contract. What it likely came down to in the end goes back to a simple principle any finance major learns in school: The deal that was ultimately agreed upon offered the highest risk-adjusted return for both Correa’s camp and the Twins. Ultimately, the Twins were willing to offer more in guarantees and Correa saw fit to accept the deal. He can earn up to $270 million if he is able to stay healthy over the length of the contract, so he’ll be just fine despite not securing quite the bag he thought he would in San Francisco. Just like every company wants to mitigate risk and every investor seeks the highest risk-adjusted return, teams and players seek to do the same when it comes to the business and law of sports. Some may overlook this aspect of sports, but all of us at Conduct Detrimental, we’re fascinated by it! Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX sent shockwaves through the crypto world, with reverberations being felt across the many industries that invested in and used the exchange. Unfortunately for the Miami Heat, the sports industry was no exception, as on January 11, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that the agreement between Miami-Dade County (the owners of the arena) and FTX has been terminated. Not even two years after the crypto-exchange pledged $135 million in a deal spread out over 19 years to the county, the naming rights for the Heat’s arena are once again up for negotiation[1]. The Heat were not the only sports organization to suffer from the implosion of FTX, as Major League Baseball was forced to do some damage control and remove the FTX sponsorship patch from the shirts of their umpires. In November, Commissioner Manfred said that it would be a “pretty good bet” that the league won’t have their employees don the FTX logo for the upcoming season[2]. MLB and FTX had agreed to a sponsorship deal in June of 2021, making FTX the league’s “official cryptocurrency exchange” and making history as the first non-athletic brand to adorn the shirts of MLB umpires. Along with these organizations, a number of professional athletes that served as brand ambassadors for the company were named in a class-action lawsuit filed in November[3]. Stars like Tom Brady, David Ortiz, Shohei Ohtani, Shaquille O’Neal, and Stephen Curry were all named in the suit, which claimed that the use of these “big names” gave the company an “aura of credibility” and drove American consumers to invest[4]. All of these athletes are generally liked among sports fans, and have had little-to-no controversies in their careers, but the collapse of FTX and their roles in promoting it could certainly shift some public opinion. Now, for the Miami Heat and for Miami-Dade County, a new arena sponsor is on the horizon. After the judge’s ruling to end the agreement, the stadium crews will remove all FTX branding from inside and outside the arena, leaving it “un-branded” as of the writing of this article. I’m curious to see what a temporary name would be, or if they already have a deal lined up to replace FTX, what the details of that deal would be. Considering the original deal with FTX in March of 2021 was supposed to pay $90 million of the total directly to the county, it is likely that the county will seek to match or exceed that mark in a new deal[5]. A new deal could be beneficial to Miami-Dade and the Heat however, as just a few months after FTX secured the rights to the Heat’s arena, another cryptocurrency exchange, Crypto.com, made a historic deal with the owners of the Lakers’ arena (AEG Worldwide) for $700 million over 20 years to rename Staples Center to Crypto.com Arena[6]. Although the arena where the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, and Los Angeles Kings play is undoubtedly a more valuable investment than the Heat’s arena, the county should nevertheless be able to get more than they did in their original FTX deal back in March of 2021. During this in-between phase for the naming rights to the arena, the county and the Heat are in uncharted territory. With the Heat welcoming fans to their arena this week for a back-to-back versus the Milwaukee Bucks, the arena owners will either need to secure a deal in record time, put up a temporary name for the stadium, or perhaps leave it un-sponsored for the remainder of the season while they search for a new partner. Regardless of the path the county takes, I’d be surprised if they agree to a deal with another cryptocurrency company. The risks associated with these companies and the extreme fallout from the collapse of FTX is not something that sports leagues or teams will want to have to concern themselves with. Even though such companies can provide lucrative deals, like the Crypto.com Arena deal, their long-term viability is unproven, and can leave organizations susceptible to unnecessary risks. Greg Moretto is a Pre-Law Student at Boston College ‘23. He is a member of the BC Sports Business Society E-Board. He can be found on Twitter @gregjmoretto. Sources: [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/goodbye-ftx-arena-miami-heat-stadium-ditches-crypto-sponsor-11673462807 [2] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/17/mlb-commissioner-its-a-pretty-good-bet-ftx-patches-wont-be-on-umpires-next-season/ [3] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ [4] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ [5] https://www.thenextmiami.com/ftx-arena-getting-a-name-change-after-just-19-months/ [6] https://www.thenextmiami.com/ftx-arena-getting-a-name-change-after-just-19-months/

This past winter, many Americans began watching soccer for the first time in years or for the first time in their lives. This was because the United States men’s soccer team was back in the World Cup for the first time in 8 years. The World Cup has created thousands of new soccer fans across the globe and especially new fans in America. The expanding market of American soccer fans has, in turn, helped Major League Soccer grow its own fan base too. This growth of new fans has led to expansion teams, new stadiums, and higher-skilled players coming to America. The past three MLS seasons have led to record high transfer fees and salaries that the league has never seen before. But, with all this new success, how does the MLS compare to larger and established leagues like the English Premier League? For starters, there is a serious difference in value when comparing the most expensive and least expensive teams’ annual salaries in each respective league. The most expensive annual salary of any team in the MLS is Toronto FC with an annual salary of over $33,241,969, while the top team in the Premier League, Manchester City, has an annual salary of $211,645,000. The lowest annual salary in the Premier League is Brentford, with an annual salary of $31,636,000. Only Toronto FC has a higher salary than Brentford and the lowest annual salary in the MLS is the newly created team Minnesota United FC is $10,284,693. The large wealth disparity between the Premier League and the MLS is a major issue when MLS teams are looking to acquire high-level talent when English Premier teams can offer double or triple the salary you are offering. Upcoming stars looking to continue their high level of play and be properly compensated for their skill will look at other stars around the world, what league they play in, and how much they are getting paid. The English Premier League’s highest player annual salary is the newly signed Erling Haaland, which Manchester City is currently paying an annual salary of $20,800,000. Haaland’s salary alone is more money than all but two MLS teams' entire annual salary. When upcoming stars see that they can earn a salary in the same ballpark as Haaland’s earnings, it is hard for MLS teams to convince a player to earn less money to come to play in America. The Premier League does not have a salary cap and allows owners to shell out millions of dollars to make sure they put out the best possible players and overall game. The MLS can bridge the gap in popularity if they can convince potential owners to invest in world-class players in order to become a top league in the world. Evan Lautato, 1L at St. John’s University of Law School, 1L Representative for the Entertainment and Sports Law Society, www.linkedin.com/in/evan-lautato-a4bb14178 Citations: https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/ https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/ https://www.spotrac.com/mls/cap/2022

Context: The Ultimate Fighting Championship (hereinafter “UFC”) President Dana White found himself on the end of substantial public backlash after a video surfaced of him slapping his wife, Anne White, in a nightclub on New Year's Eve. The video is linked below for those interested (TW Domestic Violence): https://www.tmz.com/2023/01/02/dana-white-wife-drunk-fight-slap-new-years-eve-nightclub-cabo/ After the video was released, Endeavor Group Holdings, which acquired controlling interest in the UFC in 2016, saw their stock drop 6%. White was criticized by many, notably UFC legend and commentator Daniel Cormier who stated he was no doubt in the wrong and that fighters should not be defending White’s actions. White publicly apologized and claimed that alcohol was the primary reason the incident occurred and that nothing like this had happened in the thirty years of his marriage. Ironically, White was slated to release his new Power Slap League on TBS which would involve two athletes taking turns slapping each other as hard as they can. The premiere was initially delayed after the controversy, but White recently released a promotional video for the league, hinting that there are still plans to debut the new league soon. White again received public backlash for releasing a video promoting a professional slapping league following the incident that occurred on New Year's Eve. Repercussions: White has stated in the past that there is no room in the UFC for fighters who commit domestic violence and that the UFC has a zero-tolerance policy in regard to these incidents. He was quoted as saying “there’s one thing that you never bounce back from, and that’s putting your hands on a woman.” [1] The language of the UFC’s official Code of Conduct regarding this is as follows: “Discipline may be imposed for misconduct, which includes without limitation, the following examples: Criminal offenses, including but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse…” [2] However, even though the UFC claims it holds its fighters accountable for those who commit domestic violence, as of right now White has faced no punishment from ESPN or Endeavor. This could change as recently the California Legislative Women’s Caucus (hereinafter “CLWC”) has called on Endeavor to remove White from his position as President of the UFC. [3]. The CLWC is composed of 17 state Senators and 32 state Assemblywomen and has one of their primary goals as sexual assault and domestic violence prevention. [4]. The CLWC released an official letter to the CEO of Endeavor, Ari Emanuel, formally requesting White be removed. The full letter can be read here. As previously mentioned, Endeavor and Emanuel have a controlling interest in the UFC meaning they have the majority of the voting stock and control over the decisions of the company moving forward. The removal of White would likely require a board vote, but since they have control of the shares, it’s basically up to Endeavor and Emanuel. My Thoughts: White is a very public and polarizing figure. There’s no denying that he’s been an imperative figure in the growth of the UFC and he frequently finds himself in media headlines. His influence on the sport and its popularity cannot be minimized, but his actions have put Endeavor between a rock and a hard place. White’s comments about domestic violence seem to declare his own punishment and it would be challenging for Endeavor to justify taking no action against White. It will likely not be a full removal, but a temporary suspension and a more in-depth policy against domestic abuse would be appropriate steps toward remedying the situation. White and Endeavor could just weather the storm and wait for the controversy to blow over, but the UFC has an opportunity to make a stand against domestic violence and show their fighters and the public that these sorts of actions have repercussions. I believe they must make a statement and deal an appropriate punishment to White, even if it's not complete removal from the position. If they don’t, it sends the message that their own rules don’t apply to certain people and could lose favor with fans and fighters alike. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He is also the Chief Editor for the legal analysis section of Conduct Detrimental. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin.

Last month, a California Federal District Court formally approved the settlement agreement reached between current and former players of the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT) and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) in the players’ class action lawsuit against the USSF. At the time, the judge was left to resolve one issue—the amount of attorney’s fees. Citing prior precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner reduced attorney’s fees to 25% from the over 30% requested. In October, Solo objected to the settlement agreement, noting a lack of clarity in the payout to each player. Specifically, Solo noted that the settlement agreement would allot $7.9 million to attorneys but did not detail a specific amount to each player. Ultimately, Judge Klausner approved the settlement. As to the attorney’s fees, Judge Klausner cited In re Pacific Enterprises Security Litigation, 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995), noting that 25% is typically the benchmark for attorney’s fees and that fees must be reasonable. Thus, Judge Klausner reduced the attorney’s fees award to $5.5 million, which is 25% of the $22 million common fund portion of the settlement. Two noteworthy items come out of Judge Klausner’s opinion: one is that the case is nearly over. The second point is most important for attorneys—in common fund class action cases, 25% is the standard. So, keep that point in mind when negotiating settlement agreements. 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.

There has been a changing trend in the top five leagues of European football, and it has led to some major economic developments within each league. This has led to power being removed from the hands of local supporters and businesses and placed in the hands of foreign investors and companies. [1] This has most recently been seen in the financial takeover of Newcastle United in 2021. However, this trend of foreign ownership and involvement in clubs has not necessarily been a bad thing. Since Manchester City was bought in 2008, they have experienced success that has been unprecedented in the history of their club. [2] The infusion of foreign funds into the budget of these clubs allows them to be much more competitive than ever before, which is specifically seen in the case of Manchester City. Six of their eight Premier League titles came after 2008 when they were purchased by the Abu Dhabi Group. The investment of foreign funds led them from being a relegation club in the late 1990s, to being a constant fixture at the top of the Premier League table in the 2010s to now. That said, there is most definitely a downside to the unequal distribution of funds created by foreign ownership in the football realm. It leads to an imbalance of which teams have the best players, and certain teams dominate the league. This can be seen most prominently in Ligue 1, the top league in France. Paris Saint Germain was purchased in 2011 by Qatar Sports Investments and has since dominated the league. [3] They have won the league 8 out of the last 10 years and finished second the two years they didn’t win. These results can be troubling since the extreme foreign investment makes it almost impossible for other clubs to challenge them for the league title. Another negative impact of foreign investment has been the inflation of players' transfer prices, and the impact that this has on smaller clubs. PSG alone has purchased the two most expensive players in football history, Neymar for €222 million and Kylian Mbappe for €180 million. These are transfer sums that are completely unprecedented and brought along via the increased trends of foreign investment into football clubs. This can be seen in the average transfer budget of all clubs in Ligue 1, which is around €120 million. [4] Consider that Paris Saint Germain’s budget was €700 million alone, and it can be easily seen how they are able to dominate the league so easily. The most recent critic of the European system is American head coach Jesse Marsch, who spoke to reporters about how the economic imbalance of clubs in the Premier League makes it difficult to compete. He was comparing the economic landscape of European football to that of sports in the United States, and the salary cap format that is used in American sports like baseball and football. When comparing the Premier League to the NFL and MLB he was quoted saying “We have salary caps and everyone has a chance when the season starts. I'm sorry, but the way European football works, that's just not the case.” [5] He is only the most recent critic, but his message has been echoed by other coaches of smaller clubs who have realized that they clearly can’t compete against bigger clubs with larger budgets. Overall, there are benefits and drawbacks to the increased trends of foreign ownership, and the effects it can have on leagues. If you are the club that is being invested in, things are looking good for you, and you are poised to win trophies. On the flip side, if you’re a smaller club owned by local fans and businesses, the competition just got a whole lot better. Jon Trusz is a Senior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a group of racetrack owners in Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. Thus, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s opinion remains in place, which found that jockeys can collectively bargain. Background Puerto Rico has one horse-racing track operated by Camarero Racetrack Corp. Jockeys are hired on a race-by-race basis and paid a minor $20 mount fee for each race, which is one-fifth of what jockeys receive in the mainland United States, and, if they finish within the top five, the possibility of sharing in the winnings. After negotiations between Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Hípica”), which represents the owners, and Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. (“Jinetes”), which represents the jockeys, over working conditions ultimately failed, the jockeys refused to race for three days between June 30-July 2, 2016. Due to the cancellation of races between June 30 and July 2, Hípica and racetrack owner Camarero sued the jockeys and Jinetes, alleging that they engaged in a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. First Circuit’s Opinion Judge Sandra L. Lynch found that the statutory labor-dispute exemption applied to the matter. Specifically, the exemption applies to “conduct arising (1) out of the actions of a labor organization and undertaken (2) during a labor dispute, (3) unilaterally, and (4) out of the self-interest of the labor organization.” While acknowledging that the third and fourth conditions were not in dispute, Judge Lynch reasoned that the first two conditions were satisfied because Jinetes is a labor organization advocating for jockeys’ terms of employment and seeking higher wages and safer working conditions. Thus, the exemption applies. Hípica appealed Judge Lynch’s opinion to the Supreme Court, citing different treatment among the appellate courts and asking the court to determine the following question: “Whether the statutory labor exemption from the operation of the antitrust laws in 29 U.S.C. § 113, which exempts ‘labor dispute[s]’ that ‘concern[] terms or conditions of employment,’ encompasses concerted action by independent contractors that does not relate to an employer-employee relationship.” Now, the Supreme Court has declined to review the question. The First Circuit’s opinion will stand, which required remanding the case to the district court for dismissal. Most importantly, the jockeys are able to collectively bargain. Allowing the First Circuit’s opinion to stand is significant for figures in other sports. The PGA Tour operates in a similar manner, considering golfers as independent contractors. Thus, golfers could utilize the opinion to bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. Expect to see this opinion resurface in the future. 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.

On January 3, 2023, the NCAA Transformation Committee finally released its official 39-page document, giving recommendations for how they envision the future of Division 1 sports. Such proposals included but were not limited to the following: Expanding March Madness, for both men and women, to around 90 total teams Requiring every D-1 establishment to provide health insurance for all injuries related to athletic participation while in college and two years after graduation Allowing each sport to self-govern However, while such a report mentioned NIL, it never set standards. The NCAA has stated that with NIL, they need a "clear, stable framework under which to address them... and Congress is the only entity that can grant that stability." Thus, in the wake of the report and for guidance regarding NIL, Institutions, Student Athletes, Prospective Student-Athletes, and NIL entities will turn to the NCAA's updated guidelines published in October 2022. On October 26, 2022, the NCAA released an updated guideline regarding "Institutional Involvement in a Student-Athlete's Name, Image, and Likeness Activities." Such a guideline builds off the interim policies adopted by the NCAA on July 1, 2021, and the question-and-answer document released by the NCAA in November 2021. Accordingly, while the revised guideline is not exhaustive, there are some critical policy updates within it. Institutional Education and Monitoring Under the updated guideline, all Student-Athletes' NIL activities must be reported to the NCAA. Additionally, educational sessions (I.e., Taxes, financial literacy, social media, entrepreneurship, etc.) for Student Athletes, NIL Entities, Boosters, and Prospective Student-Athletes are permissible. Accordingly, no activities have been identified as impressible under the "Institutional education and monitoring" section of the guideline; however, that is subject to change. Institutional Support for Student-Athlete NIL Activity Permissible activities under the revised guideline include but are not limited to the following: Engaging NIL entities to inform Student-Athletes of NIL opportunities; Engaging NIL entities to administer a marketplace that matches Student-Athletes with NIL opportunities without the involvement of their Institution; Providing Student-Athletes information about opportunities that their Institution is aware of; Providing NIL entities with Student-Athlete's contact and other directory information; Providing stored photo/video/graphics, or stock to Student-Athletes or NIL entities; Introducing Student-Athletes to representatives of NIL entities; Arranging for a NIL entity and Student-Athlete to meet in institutional facilities and/or on campus; Promoting NIL activity, provided there is no value or cost to the Institution (i.e., retweeting or liking a social media post); Promoting Student-Athlete's NIL activity on paid platforms, provided the Student-Athlete or NIL entity is paying going rate for the advertisement (I.e., NIL entity pas for an advertisement on the video board); and purchasing items related to a Student-Athletes NIL deals that are de minimis in value and for the same rate available for the general public. However, there are also impermissible acts under the aforementioned guidelines, including but not limited to the following: Communicating with NIL entities regarding specific Student-Athlete requests/demands for compensation or encouraging NIL entities to carry out Student-Athlete requests; Proactively assisting in the development/creation, execution or implementation of a Student Athlete's NIL activity (i.e., developing products, developing promotional materials, ensuring Student-Athletes performance of contractual NIL activities) unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; Providing services (other than educational services) to support NIL activity unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; Providing access to equipment to support NIL activity further unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; and allowing Student-Athletes to promote their NIL activity while on call for required athletically related activities (I.e., press conferences, celebrations, practices, pre- and post-game activities). Institutional Support for NIL Entity/Collective Under the NCAA's current NIL guideline, institutions supporting a NIL entity are authorized to: Allow staff members to assist a NIL entity in raising money for itself (i.e., donating autographed items & appearances at fundraisers); Provide assets to a NIL entity under a sponsorship agreement, provided that access to the assets are available to and on the same terms, as other sponsors; Request donors to provide funds to a NIL entity (without directing funds to be used for a specific sport or Student-Athlete); and provide donor information or facilitate meetings between a NIL entity and donor. In contrast, institutions supporting a NIL entity are prohibited from: Subscribing to the entity and subsequently donating cash to the entity, regardless of whether funds are designated for a specific sport or Student Athlete; Providing assets to a donor as an incentive for providing funds to a NIL entity; and allowing athletic department staff members to be employed by the NIL entity. Negotiating, Revenue Sharing, and Compensating While the NCAA does not specify permissible activities for negotiating, revenue sharing, and compensating; the NCAA does provide a list of activities that entities, coaches, staff members, institutions, and/or departments are proscribed from: Athletic department staff member (or company owned by a staff member) representing enrolled Student-Athletes for NIL deals (including securing and negotiating deals on behalf of the Student-Athlete); Acting on behalf of the athletics department representing enrolled Student-Athletes for NIL deals; Entering into a contract with a Student-Athlete for the sale of product related to the Student-Athlete's NIL; Conference and Student-Athlete revenue sharing, including but not limited to, Broadcast revenue and NIL revenue; Staff members who own a business separate from the Institution, entering into NIL deals with a Student-Athlete; Compensating a Student-Athlete to promote a coach's camp; and Student Athletes receiving compensation directly or indirectly from promoting an athletics competition in which they participate in. Ultimately the hope is that the NCAA can continue to make strides and provide further guidance in the ever-evolving NIL space. Brandon Blumer is a 2L law student at New York Law School. You can connect with him via https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonblumer.

After an interview with Piers Morgan criticizing Manchester United, Ronaldo terminated his contract with the club in November. This led to many clubs opening their doors to welcome the 37-year-old Portuguese superstar. There were many rumours across the world but Al Nassr saw their opportunity and made an offer to Ronaldo. On Tuesday, Ronaldo shocked the football world as he was officially unveiled by the Saudi Club. Ronaldo, who has won five Ballon d’Or awards and five Champions League titles, will now play outside Europe for the first time. He will now try to win a title in his fourth different country after winning seven domestic championships in England (Manchester United), Spain (Real Madrid), and Italy (Juventus). CR7 said it best: "this contract is unique but I’m a unique player, so for me it’s normal." Would you expect him to say anything less? The exact number is unclear. However, his total salary will be close to €200m per year, including a commercial deal. This makes him the highest-paid footballer in history. I mean he had to make some noise considering Messi may have solidified himself as the best footballer of all time with his recent World Cup victory. Let's put a pin in that debate until next time. There are rumours of a clause in Ronaldo's contract that allows him to go on loan to Newcastle United if they qualify for the Champions League. Eddie Howe's Magpies are currently sitting at 3rd in the table with 34 points after a magnificent season thus far. This seems like a pretty good deal for CR7 considering that the top 4 teams in the Premier League qualify for the Champions League at the end of the season. I will say, however, that there are many conflicting sources on the validity of this clause, but I would not be surprised if it is true. Hear me out: Newcastle recently became the richest club in the world following their £300m takeover in 2021. In other words, they are now able to afford a player with the star power and ego like Ronaldo. Ronaldo wants to prove, in addition to being the highest-paid footballer, that he is better than Lionel Messi. What better way to show that than competing in the most competitive stage in football? Let's face it: Saudi Arabia has never been known for their soccer clubs. This recent move by Al Nassr, however, shows that the Pro League is trying to make some progress into the Top 5 (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France). With his presence, CR7 will naturally bring publicity to Saudi soccer. This added attention could also help Saudi Arabia solidify their bid for the World Cup in 2030. Along with Greece and Egypt, Saudi Arabia recently submitted a bid to potentially hold the first World Cup in three different continents. Ronaldo is not getting any younger. Physically, he will not be able to continue to perform like he once was. Thus, it makes sense he made move to a smaller league and take his paycheck just like many aging players do. Look at the bright side, Ronaldo can always say that he made more money than Messi, unless PSG decides to spice things up. Thanks for stopping by, Matt Matthew Marino is a 2L at Elon University School of Law.

Much of the animosity between the PGA Tour, LIV Golf, and certain players over the last two years has been the ability of golfers to play on multiple tours simultaneously. LIV Golf (and some defected golfers) have argued that the PGA Tour has unfairly restricted competition by suspending certain players that play in LIV Golf events that are held at the same time as PGA Tour events. Conversely, the PGA Tour argues that such rules are necessary to ensure that they are able to put forth a reliable supply of quality golfers and keep sponsorship and broadcast dollars coming in, which are critical to the Tour’s overall success. At the heart of this push and pull has been the PGA Tour’s reliance on their own handbook, which players agree to abide by when they join the Tour. One regulation in the handbook generally restricts Tour players from participating in events when there is a PGA Tour event taking place at the same time. According to the handbook, players who play a minimum of 15 events in a season are eligible for three conflicting-event releases per season, which can be denied at Commissioner Jay Monahan’s discretion. The PGA Tour has, obviously, taken the position that playing in LIV Golf events is a significant enough breach of its regulations that they have denied these release requests and suspended players who have joined LIV. Some sports lawyers, including Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal, have stated that the PGA Tour’s response of a suspension or ban for players who violate the handbook restrictions “has the feel of a non-compete” which may intend to prevent players from performing for competitive leagues. Employers generally impose non-compete agreements to reduce turnover, prevent employees from taking all their knowledge and moving to a competitor, to protect trade secrets, or simply to improve leverage in employment negotiations. Non-compete clauses have long been a source of contention among politicians, and not necessarily along party lines. Many believe non-competes are necessary to protect businesses from key employees taking all their knowledge and information and going to a direct competitor. Others argue that they suppress competition by restricting employees from working for whoever they want, thus suppressing wages and hurting workers. The FTC apparently believes the latter. On January 5, they proposed a rule to ban non-compete clauses, arguing that they “hurt workers and harm competition” and estimate that the new rule could increase workers’ earnings by nearly $300 billion per year. Specifically, the FTC’s proposed rule would make it illegal for an employer to: (i) enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete with a worker; (ii) maintain a non-compete with a worker; or (iii) represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a non-compete. Most notably, the proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also require employers to rescind existing non-compete agreements and actively inform workers that they are no longer in effect. Finally, the FTC has stated that “other types of employment restrictions could be subject to the rule if they are so broad in scope that they function as non-competes." The proposed FTC rule could spell trouble for the PGA Tour. Although the competing event restriction in their handbook is not a non-compete, it may have the feel and effect of one. Ultimately, whether the proposed rule would affect the PGA Tour if ultimately adopted would turn on whether the FTC determines that the PGA Tour’s competing event policy is “so broad in scope that it functions as a non-compete.” Conversely, the PGA Tour can likely argue that golfers who have defected to LIV for hundreds of millions of dollars are clearly not harmed by the rule, whose ultimate purpose is to protect workers and increase wages. However, the FTC is now investigating the PGA Tour for a second time since 1995, and the two entities do not have the most amicable relationship. The public comment period for the rule, which will surely produce no shortage of comments, will be open soon. It remains to be seen, however, whether this rule will ultimately be adopted or whether it would apply to the PGA Tour’s competing event policy. This is one to keep an eye on. John Nucci is a 2022 graduate of Penn State Law and a Corporate Associate (pending admission) at Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP in Rochester, NY. He can be reached via Twitter at @Jnucci23 or by email at [email protected].

On the morning of December 12th, the college basketball world was rocked when Texas coach Chris Beard was arrested and charged with assault on a family member. Every time we hear a prominent athlete or coach involved in a legal matter like this, it’s always disturbing and unfortunate in and of itself. But for it to be Chris Beard, one of the best acting coaches in the sport, was shocking, to say the least. After the reports surfaced, the University of Texas suspended Beard indefinitely and announced that Rodney Terry would serve as acting head coach for the Longhorns. Prior to his arrest, Beard’s team was off to one of the program’s best starts to a season in program history. The Longhorns had already knocked off two top-ten opponents and were ranked seventh in the country by the AP Poll. Over the past two weeks, however, all the attention on the Texas men’s basketball program has shifted toward the status of Chris Beard moving forward. In the immediate aftermath and fallout, the common sentiment was that Beard had coached his last game at Texas. In a statement released following the incident, Austin police spokesman Brandon Jones said Beard was accused of choking the victim, which turned out to be his fiancée, Randi Trew. According to Austin Police's Dec. 12 affidavit, after the 9-1-1 call dispatched officers to Beard's residence, Trew told law enforcement authorities that Beard "choked me, threw me off the bed, bit me, bruises all over my leg, throwing me around, and going nuts." Authorities noted multiple wounds and scratches on Trew's body that morning. In reading that, any reasonable person could conclude that Beard’s coaching career was in serious jeopardy. For around ten days, no new information surfaced to the public as the Longhorns continued to complete the non-conference portion of their schedule. However, on December 23rd, Trew released a statement that added some complexity to the situation. In a statement sent to The Associated Press by her attorney, Randy Leavitt, Trew said she is "deeply saddened" by the incident and said Beard was acting in self-defense from her. "Chris and I are deeply saddened that we have brought negative attention upon our family, friends, and the University of Texas, among others. As Chris' fiancée and biggest supporter, I apologize for the role I played in this unfortunate event. I realize that my frustration, when breaking his glasses, initiated a physical struggle between Chris and myself," Trew said in the statement. In addition, she backtracked on her original comments, saying that "Chris did not strangle me, and I told that to law enforcement that evening. Chris has stated that he was acting in self-defense, and I do not refute that. I do not believe Chris was trying to intentionally harm me in any way. It was never my intent to have him arrested or prosecuted. We appreciate everyone's support and prayers during this difficult time.” While Trew’s statement might come as a surprise and obviously help Beard’s outlook, it’s very common for these types of situations to play out this way. As time passes, many victims of domestic assault realize the magnitude of the consequences involved and recant their original allegations. Despite Trew’s comments, Beard is by no means off the hook legally as we sit here in late December. Given this is a domestic violence case, Texas prosecutors still have the right to pursue the third-degree felony charge against Beard, even if Trew requested that the charge be dropped. With the timing of Trew’s statement, (Friday evening the weekend of Christmas), Austin Police's public information offices were closed, and no authorities were available to officially comment on the case. It will be interesting to follow what happens as it pertains to Beard’s legal standing moving forward. But what about Beard’s standing as Texas’ coach? Following Trew’s comments, the University of Texas released a statement saying "We are reviewing the statement from Randi Trew. This matter is the subject of an internal investigation, and the university does not comment on pending investigations.” As of December 29th, Beard remains suspended without pay. Obviously, how the Austin Police Department handles the case will play a big role in determining if Beard will coach again for the Longhorns. But what if all charges are indeed dropped and he is legally exonerated? Does Texas reinstate him immediately? Does he stay suspended for the remainder of the season? Does Texas fire him for cause? Is this a situation where there is a negotiated buyout? That’s where things get tricky. The language in Beard’s contract might play a significant role in how this is handled. When Beard arrived in Austin in 2021, he received one of the largest contracts in all of college basketball. His seven-year, $35 million deal trails only Bill Self, Jon Calipari, and Tom Izzo. The deal is fully guaranteed, except if Texas fires Beard with cause. Obviously, the million dollar (or $27 million dollar) question now is: Does this situation constitute as cause? The answer might come from a clause in his contract. Per the Austin American Statesmen, the University of Texas has a “clause in the contract allows the university to terminate or suspend Beard with cause if "Any conduct (a) that the University administration reasonably determines is clearly unbecoming to a Head Coach and reflects poorly on the University, the Program, or The University of Texas System; or (b) resulting in a criminal charge being brought against Head Coach involving a felony, or any crime involving theft, dishonesty, or moral turpitude." Given that Beard was in fact charged, this clause would likely spare the university from paying Beard the remaining amount of money on the deal. While the language might suggest Texas can easily fire Beard for cause, it’s far from being a simple process. Beard’s attorney stated that “He should never have been arrested,” and that “The complainant wants him released immediately and all charges dismissed. It is truly inconceivable.” Those comments suggest that Beard and his legal team won’t back down if Texas decides to terminate him without any buyout. Therefore, the big question remains: how will Texas handle this situation? I believe they can go one of three ways. First would be reinstating Beard as their head coach. Second would be adhering strictly to the language of the contract and terminating him for cause. And third would be still terminating Beard, but negotiating a settlement with Beard and his camp. In the meantime, Texas continues to win games under associate head coach Rodney Terry. The Longhorns are set to begin conference play in the coming days. Will Beard return as their coach? That’s yet to be seen. However, Texas does have the contractual capacity to terminate its second-year coach for cause. Will they use it? When millions of dollars are at stake, things get very complex. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The Robert Sarver saga has finally come to an end. Just thirteen months after an ESPN story broke outlining heinous accusations about the Phoenix Suns owner, Sarver has sold his controlling portion of the team to Mat Ishbia. When the allegations became public, I wrote about the potential ramifications here. The sale comes three months after the NBA released findings of an independent investigation into Sarver’s history with the Suns. The investigation, conducted by an independent law firm, found many of the accusations to be substantiated. On the heels of the investigation, the NBA fined Sarver $10 million and suspended him from all league activities for a year. However, the NBA did not force a sale of the Phoenix Suns. When questioned why the league didn’t come down harder, Adam Silver cited several reasons his hands were tied from taking further action. My thoughts on how the light punishment protected other owners can be found here. So that leads us to the final chapter. Following the punishment, public outcry for Sarver to sell the team heightened. Prominent players such as Suns point guard Chris Paul, and LeBron James tweeted their dissatisfaction with the penalties issued against Sarver. The backlash and uncertainty became too radioactive for sponsors. PayPal, the jersey patch sponsor for the Suns, threatened to end their corporate partnership with the Suns if Sarver remained associated with the team.[1] It didn’t take long for Sarver to announce he would begin fielding offers to sell his controlling portion of the Phoenix Suns. Who is Mat Ishbia? Mat Ishbia is the CEO and president of United Wholesale Mortgage, a mortgage lending company based in Michigan. Ishbia is a former walk-on at Michigan State and won a national championship as a member of the 2000 Spartans. Along with his purchase of the Suns, Ishbia will also become the owner of the WNBA Phoenix Mercury. Ishbia is well-known in league circles and has a close relationship with NBA commissioner Adam Silver. He reportedly had been seeking an ownership opportunity with the NBA and NFL for several years. Sarver’s reputational destruction seemed to be the golden opportunity Ishbia was looking for. The Suns are widely considered one of the crown jewels of the NBA. The budding economy of the greater Phenix area, as well as the proximity to Los Angeles and Las Vegas, make the Suns extremely appealing to deep-pocketed individuals looking to own an NBA team. The sale sets a record for an NBA purchase at $4 billion. The previous high was set when Joe Tsai purchased the Brooklyn Nets for $2.9 billion in 2019. Justin Ishbia, Mat Ishbia’s brother and founding partner in Shore Capital, will make a significant investment in the purchase and serve as alternate governor alongside Mat. The sale will still take some time to be finalized, but both sides have acknowledged the outstanding steps are mere formalities. Ishbia will have to undergo a background check and a vote of approval from the NBA board of governors. In a statement concluding his eighteen-year ownership tenure, Sarver welcomed Ishbia to Phoenix stating, “Mat is the right leader to build on franchise legacies of winning and community support and shepherd the Suns and Mercury into the next era.”[2] Takeaways The book is closed on Robert Sarver and the NBA. The NBA is pleased to rid itself of the black cloud and quickly transition to Mat Ishbia. But the NBA can learn several lessons from this saga to better position themselves moving forward. In the last decade, the NBA has had two major scandals involving owners. Donald Sterling was permanently banned from the NBA and after a tumultuous legal battle, his ownership stake in the Los Angeles Clippers was sold in 2014. Both Sterling and Sarver have caused insurmountable strife throughout the league. Just as the NBA considers players and coaches as representatives of the league, owners must be treated the same. Therefore, owners must be held to a certain behavioral standard that is expected of anyone associated with the NBA. We’ve seen firsthand with Robert Sarver the difficulty of removing an owner from an NBA team. Under Section 13 of the NBA Constitution, a 3/4 vote of other owners is required to remove someone from ownership: As was the case here, other owners aren’t looking to lower the precedent for removing ownership because it could mean their team is next on the chopping block. So, the NBA had to rely on public pressure and corporate sponsorships to squeeze Sarver hard enough until he “voluntarily” decided to sell. While outside pressure can be a viable formula, the NBA shouldn’t rely on players bashing ownership as a tactic to force a sale. The optics get messy. In order for the league to not go down this road again, the vetting process for new owners must be extensive. Ishbia seemingly has a clean track record and strong relationships throughout the league so he shouldn’t be a concern. But the NBA must be able to eliminate high-risk ownership candidates at the outset. Furthermore, one of the troubling aspects of the Robert Sarver allegations was the duration they spanned. Sarver had been involved with the Suns since 2004 and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately throughout his tenure. There’s no excuse for the league to wait until 2021 when the allegations were made public to investigate Sarver’s franchise. At best the lack of action amounts to negligence. The NBA failed to have any procedures in place to identify the problematic conduct and prevent it from continuing. That must change moving forward. As the league moves forward, labor negotiations with the Player’s Association around a collective bargaining agreement continue. The players will take note of the eyepopping $4 billion sale price as a sign of the financial success of the league. Phoenix isn’t even considered an NBA market on the level of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. If anything, Ishbia’s high purchase price may make the players more money in negotiations. The new CBA is just one example of how the ripple effects of Robert Sarver will be felt throughout the NBA for years to come. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate of Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com Sources: [1] Jack Stebbins, PayPal threatens to sever partnership with Phoenix Suns if owner Sarver returns, CNBC (last visited Jan. 2, 2023) https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/16/paypal-threatens-to-sever-partnership-with-phoenix-suns-if-owner-sarver-returns.html. [2] Adrian Wojnarowski, Mat Ishbia agrees to Suns purchase for record $4 billion, ESPN (last visited Jan. 2, 2023) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/35292815/sources-mat-ishbia-finalizing-suns-purchase-4-billion.