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.

On Thursday, December 29, 2022, Houston Rockets star guard Kevin Porter, Jr. was sued by former partner, Dinamarie Simone, in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas. Simone filed suit for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment of common law marriage; (3) defamation; (4) malicious prosecution; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to her complaint, Simone says she met Porter in December 2019 while he was a rookie on the Cleveland Cavaliers. She lived and worked in Cleveland. The two began “seriously dating” in March or April of 2020. Simone alleges, at the time they met, she made $60,000, plus tips annually and Porter made $1,290,960. When Porter was traded to Houston in January, 2021, Simone says she moved with him there. She alleges that because of her “excellent credit, coupled with Porter’s income” they were able to furnish two homes for themselves in Texas and finance, among other items, both Porter’s GMC and Simone’s Mercedes Benz. Simone argues, in support of her common law marriage claim, that she and Porter held themselves out to the public as a married couple. Specifically, “Porter regularly began referring to Ms. Simone as wifey,” introduced Simone to a Rockets member as his wife, used her credit and debit cards and they jointly purchased three pet dogs named Rain, Lava and Izy. Simone says that in February 2022, the couple rented a nicer home in Fort Bend County, Texas “using Ms. Simone’s credit,” and both parties’ names were on the lease. Simone was displeased with Porter during the move because he wasn’t helping and while Simone was in Home Depot, Porter texted her that “he was unhappy.” The following day, Simone says Porter suddenly kicked her out of their home without any of her belongings and immediately flew in another woman who began living there. Simone alleges her personal belongings remained at the home for several months, before ultimately getting “returned in deplorable condition not even worthy of shipping.” Despite the separation, Simone alleges that Porter has continued, even to the day of the filing, to use her credit cards. She says in hopes of resolving outstanding charges incurred by Porter on at least 3 of her credit cards, she spoke with Porter’s agent but had no success. Per Spotrac, the 22-year-old shooting guard is represented by Sam Permut, Joe Branch, and Roger Montgomery of Roc Nation Sports. Simone argues that Porter’s actions have caused her great economic hardship, including legal fees; a lower credit score; a collections notice for the GMC vehicle; and charges for AirBNB and hotel rooms with no place for her to live. Conversely, Porter claims to have suffered damages due to Simone’s actions. He even filed a lawsuit against her on June 23, 2022 in Texas state court alleging that Simone stole their dog Rain and for defamation of character. The parties moved to settle this matter but Simone claims that on November 2, 2022, she withdrew her consent and signature on the proposed settlement agreement. The purported settlement would have required Porter to (1) payoff all existing credit cards and debts; including Simone’s Mercedes; (2) remove Simone from the financing and ownership documents for the GMC and the home; (3) remove her credit cards from various technology accounts and utility accounts, etc.; and (4) return her personal property, including her essential day to day items, clothing, shoes, furniture, kitchen item and antiques she inherited.” Simone alleges that, while Porter paid her some monies under the attempted settlement, “most of those funds were for the physical return of Rain and for marital debts and legal fees." With that, Simone filed suit this past Thursday and seeks/alleges: A declaratory judgment that she and Porter satisfied common law marriage, entitling her to a portion of all marital property (including Rain); Defamation for knowingly, or recklessly made false statements to law enforcement, and likely other third parties, that Ms. Simone had stolen the dog Rain; a dog that they both owned and purchased together, from a home that was rented with both their names; Breach of the Settlement Agreement (if the court were to find it was not validly withdrawn by Simone) for failing and refusing to remove Simone’s name from the GMC financing and ownership documents, other continued use of Simone’s credit, and returning her personal property in a deplorable condition; Civil Malicious Prosecution; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Jason Morrin is a law clerk (pending admission to the NY Bar) at Zumpano, Patricios & Popok LLP in New York, a firm dedicated to litigation and business counseling including in the areas of sports, gaming and entertainment. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report and more.

Major League Baseball has a problem—inconsistent baseballs. This is not a “new” issue, with “juiced ball” and “dead ball” controversies extending back years. Most recently, Rob Manfred admitted to these differences before the All-Star game in 2022, citing “COVID-era manufacturing issues” at the Rawlings plant in Costa Rica for the 2020-21 seasons leading to different ball characteristics. The reasoning he gave is that MLB did design a new baseball, but due to the pandemic-related supply chain issues had to dip into an older stock of baseballs that shared different characteristics. In the same press conference, Manfred said that all of the baseballs for the 2022 season were manufactured according to the “new” specifications which resulted in a “more consistent baseball.” However, new evidence suggests the exact opposite. Instead of settling into using one consistent baseball, it appears that MLB in fact used three distinct baseballs with varying characteristics. Let's dive into what this actually looks like, what it means, and its implications for Major League Baseball as a whole. The “New” Balls: Meredith Wills, a Society for American Baseball Research award-winning astrophysicist, worked in conjunction with a team from Insider to accrue 204 baseballs used in 22 different parks during the 2022 season. When conducting tests on these baseballs, Willis found three distinct groups of baseballs—the “old” dead balls, the “new” balls that Manfred was referencing in his press conference, and interestingly—a third distinct group of balls her team dubbed the “Goldilocks” balls that fell between the “dead” and “juiced” ball weights. It is important to note that all three of these balls fall within the “official specifications” that MLB uses for its baseballs and so are “technically” legal. But, these “specifications” are so loose that a league-commissioned physicist, Alan Nathan, has been quoted as saying "The specs on Major League baseballs, they almost don't deserve to be called specs… They're so loose that the range of performance from the top end to the bottom end is so different." These wide specifications allow for a great variation in what is considered a legal baseball, but the baseballs that were tested in this study did not freely vary within the parameters in ways that would suggest a random distribution—which points towards Major League Baseball actively attempting to create these three distinct balls with unique characteristics. Unsurprisingly, both the MLB and Rawlings (which MLB purchased in 2018) have dismissed the findings of this study saying that they are “baseless” and “wholly inaccurate.” however, I am personally more inclined to trust the results of an independent study, especially one that was done against the wishes of the MLB. According to the article by Insider, an undisclosed player informed them that Manfred had instructed his top lieutenants to warn a player’s union official to not allow any players to send balls for third-party testing and warned that any non-union employee that was found to be doing so could be fired for assisting in testing. Information of this type seems to point out that the MLB did and does know about these different baseballs and was willing to go to some substantial lengths to keep this information from becoming public. After dismissing the results of this independent study and citing a league-commissioned report that had different findings, Manfred was asked to explain how he knew Wills' research was incorrect—to which he replied: "Honestly, I can't help you on that one" (how convincing). Below is a chart prepared by Insider to demonstrate these three distinct groups of balls. Where These Balls Were Found: According to two sources familiar with MLB's ball shipment process, MLB directs where its balls are sent, and it also knows which boxes its game compliance monitors–league employees tasked with ensuring each team adheres to league rules–approve and use before each game starts. An MLB source whose identity is known to Insider said that before each game, the league's game compliance monitors "[record] the batch number" – in this case, a six-character label placed on each Rawlings box – "and the quantity of baseball[s]... used for that game." Then, the league source said, compliance monitors send an email to their supervisors with that information. While the existence of these three distinct groups of baseballs is interesting and noteworthy on its own, even more interesting are the locations where these “Goldilocks” balls were found. Most of the Goldilocks balls were found in one of four distinct locations: Postseason games (including the World Series); The All-Star Game and Home Run Derby; Regular-season games that used balls with special commemorative stamps — such as a Texas Rangers 50th anniversary ball; and finally, the most interesting—from regular season Yankees games. All this is to say that the MLB knows what balls it is sending where, and has the ability to make a conscious choice about the destination of these “Goldilocks” balls—So what's the significance of sending them to regular season Yankees games? Targeted, Strategic Use? Now, before diving any deeper it's important to know and recognize that the data assembled by this test was by no means a random sampling. The study acquired baseballs using whatever means that they were able to, which was obviously hampered by the MLB's apparent “direction” to limit third-party testing of baseballs. However, based on their findings, the appearance of these baseballs at Yankees games, especially in August and September, does raise some eyebrows. As I'm sure many baseball fans are aware, Yankees outfielder Aaron Judge was engaged in a historic season that saw him set the American League record for most home runs in the regular season at 62. In no way do I mean to diminish the enormity of this accomplishment for Judge—but the fact that these Goldilocks balls, which were more responsive and easier to hit further than the dead ball that MLB claimed to be used across the league—seems to indicate that the MLB purposefully sent these balls to Yankees games in greater numbers than they appear to send them to other parks to increase the likelihood of home runs. Again, the sampling used by this study was not random, and there is no way to know exactly what category the balls that Aaron judge hit during this season—but it does not take an overactive imagination to connect the dots between Judge’s historic home run record chase and the appearance of these balls at Yankees games in greater quantities than they were seen elsewhere in the league. This paired with Manfred's continued denial that there is any difference in the baseballs suggests these balls might have been at Yankees games on purpose. What Does This Mean for the MLB? Since the MLB acquired Rawlings in 2018, questions about the purposeful manipulation of baseballs have persisted. Because MLB now controls the company that produces the baseballs that it uses to produce its product, there would be an obvious temptation to purposefully tamper with the attributes of these balls to increase the drama (and therefore popularity, which equates to more money for the MLB). However, the expense of (theoretically) tampering with the balls in this way is the undermining of league credibility and the validity of achievements during this time. Since this study cannot be called conclusive due to the “compromised” non-random sample, it's still unclear how accurate speculation about the intentional use of the Goldilocks ball is. Theoretically, the ball could have been used in more widespread games, but since the MLB denies the existence of the ball it is unlikely that we will ever get an actual answer as to where these balls were used, or how often. Regardless, this is not a good look for the MLB. Manfred can plead ignorance and deny the existence of these balls all he wants, but when a well-respected and award-winning physicist points to the existence of these balls denial doesn't get you anywhere, and continues to give ammunition to people that think the MLB is manipulating baseballs and continues to ruin Rob Manfred's already minuscule credibility as a league commissioner. What comes next is not clear, but I would put some serious money on the fact that this is not the last time we'll hear about controversies surrounding the manipulation of baseballs within the MLB, And I seriously doubt a meaningful resolution will be reached anytime soon. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is now a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. Source: https://www.insider.com/mlb-used-two-balls-again-this-year-and-evidence-points-to-a-third-2022-12

The Equal Pay for Team USA Act (S. 2333) passed the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 350 to 59. Now the bill has passed through both chambers and will make its way to the President’s desk for signature. The bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and co-sponsored by Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) requires the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and National Governing Bodies to compensate male and female athletes equally if their sport includes male and female athletes. Compensation includes medical care and travel arrangements. Notably, the bill only applies to funds from the committee or National Governing Bodies. To ensure compliance, the Olympic and Paralympic Committee and National Governing Bodies will have to submit an annual report to Congress, including information regarding the amount of compensation provided to male and female athletes. The bill comes after the United States Women’s National Team signed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which set equal pay for both the men’s and women’s national teams, including an equal distribution of World Cup prize money. The first-of-its-kind CBA has set a new standard for equal pay and served as a catalyst for the Equal Pay for Team USA Act. After addressing equal pay for United States athletes serving at the international level, Congress could set its sights on the disparities in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in future sessions. Either way, the passage of the Equal Pay for Team USA Act is a victory in addressing disparities in wages, medical care, and travel for male and female athletes. 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.

What is the MLB Luxury Tax? The latest news from the MLB's off-season was the 12-year $315 million deal Carlos Correa made with the New York Mets on the same day the San Francisco Giants released they were not announcing the Correa deal because of concerns over Correa's physical examination. The deal with Carlos Correa and the Mets puts the club's payroll at $495 million. That price tag includes payroll and the luxury tax amount. Luxury tax is the commonly used phrase for the MLB's Competitive Balance Tax ("CBT"), which places a tax on every dollar a club spends during a year above a predetermined payroll threshold—for 2023, the threshold is $233 million. The Mets' expected payroll for 2023 without the luxury tax is about $384 million, thus the club will pay an additional $111 million in luxury tax. Clubs are subject to an increased tax rate for each consecutive year they exceed the payroll threshold. First-time offenders pay a 20 percent tax. Then clubs exceeding the threshold for a second consecutive year pay a 30 percent tax, and for a third or more consecutive year, clubs pay a 50 percent tax. Additionally, clubs have to pay a surcharge depending on the amount the club's payroll exceeds the threshold. The surcharge is determined using additional thresholds set at $20 million, $40 million, and $60 million above the base threshold. The surcharge increases the tax owed regarding the consecutive years a club exceeds the base threshold, so a first-time offender with a payroll exceeding the base threshold by $20-$40 million has their luxury tax increased from 20 percent to 32 percent—for a second consecutive year, it's raised to 42 percent and 62 percent for the third year. The last level of surcharge is $60 million above the threshold. This level is now dubbed the "Cohen Tax" and gets its namesake unsurprisingly from the Mets owner, Steve Cohen, because of his well-known lustrous spending even before this offseason. Under the Cohen Tax, when a club exceeds a payroll of $60 million above the base threshold, it pays 80 percent the first year, then 90 percent for the second, and 110 percent by the third year. Is the Luxury Tax Actually Holding Owners Back from Large Spending? The luxury tax's purpose is to maintain a competitive balance among the MLB clubs. Typically, sports leagues implement a salary cap—a limit to how much a team may spend on its payroll each year—to promote competitiveness and prevent large market teams from gaining too much control, however, baseball is the only major professional sport in the United States that does not have a salary cap. Thus, the question is if the MLB should establish a salary cap as opposed to a luxury tax. It is clear MLB clubs have no intention to stay below the base CBT threshold, likely because an extra $20-$50 million is pocket change for most clubs, especially if the owner has a net worth in the billions of dollars like Steve Cohen. The San Diego Padres and Philadelphia Phillies are new clubs that have jumped into the spending field these past couple off-seasons alongside common culprits like the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers. One thing this offseason has shown is clubs are more willing to pay unprecedented salaries to get the players they want. This means that if you are a billionaire who wants to own an MLB ball club, you can likely go buy whatever player you want—the luxury tax is not stopping you. This may be good or bad for baseball. At first, it might seem like a billionaire owner going out and buying whatever players they can to build a team of all-stars will make the game more exciting. Unfortunately, the likely outcome is the only team baseball fans will see competing for the World Series are those that call major cities their home. That is already the case now, as it's uncommon to tune into the MLB playoffs and not see the Atlanta Braves, Dodgers, Yankees, or Astros. The days of the Big Red Machine in Cincinnati and Randy Johnson leading the Arizona Diamondbacks to a World Series title are quickly fading away. A salary cap may stop team owners from building teams of all the best players on the market and raising the value of contracts, leaving the rest of the clubs who cannot afford those contracts out of luck and out of the competition. But, will a salary cap stop clubs if a luxury tax does not scare them? The salary cap is effective in leagues such as the NFL because it does not limit punishments for exceeding the salary cap to monetary sanctions. The NFL punishes its teams that exceed the salary cap by taking away draft picks, or canceling contracts and rejecting trades that put a team over the cap. Those punishments encourage teams to make cap space at the beginning of each year. A luxury tax is solely monetary, with an additional punishment for a club that exceeds the threshold by $40 million or more. In such a case, that club has its highest draft pick moved back 10 places, but that is not much of a punishment because the MLB draft is not like the NFL or NBA draft. It can take many years for a team to see their draft pick at the major league level, and many draft picks are used as trade pieces. What is successful in one sport may not be successful in another, so even if the MLB were to implement a system of stricter punishments for clubs exceeding the CBT threshold, the nature of the game of baseball may make those attempts futile. The Large Market Monopoly in Major League Baseball Large market clubs like the Mets are forming a monopoly that controls the player market. The willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars above the luxury tax, which removes all the top talent in free agency, is exclusionary conduct that may create an anti-competitive effect within baseball. Small market teams such as the Cincinnati Reds, whose owner's net worth is a mere $400 million, cannot compete with large market teams—frankly, they stand no chance and the historically poor season the Reds had in 2022 indicates that anti-competitiveness. Purchase power has led to unmatched player market domination. Howbeit, an allegation of monopoly formation falls under U.S. antitrust law, which the MLB is the only professional sports league to boast an exemption from. Origin of the MLB Antitrust Exemption In 1922, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs.[1] The opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, concluded that the business of baseball was just a game and not interstate commerce, thus it was exempt from the regulations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2] Then, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the exemption in 1953 with the decision of Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.[3], and again in the opinion of Flood v. Kuhn in 1972.[4] The Flood opinion determined that the MLB's antitrust exemption is entitled to the benefit of stare decisis—established precedent.[5] It May Be Time to Lift the MLB Antitrust Exemption For the benefit of America's pastime, MLB clubs ought to be subject to antitrust laws. The MLB has very little intimidation when it comes to suppressing clubs that ignore what it means to have a competitive sport and instead buy their way to forming baseball's version of the Miami Heat's Big Three. The antitrust exemption does not have to be lifted for all aspects of the business of baseball, as some features of the sport benefit from the exemption, such as the minor league system. MLB Commissioner Bob Manfred sent the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee a letter outlining the negative impact subjecting the MLB to antitrust laws would have on minor league players. However, Commissioner Manfred has not been consistent with his support of the exemption. During the 2022 All-Star break, Manfred stated he could not "think of a place where the exemption is really meaningful, other than franchise relocation." Therefore, the relevancy of the MLB antitrust exemption is more case by case than broad protection. The bottom line is that the game of baseball is being threatened by big pockets. That is not to say players should deserve less, but select MLB clubs are rising above others with their spending in ways never seen before. That trend is pointing more and more toward monopolistic control that may not be stopped by simply adding a salary cap. Jared Yaggie is a 2L at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or on Twitter @JaredYaggie. Sources: [1] Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). [2] Id. at 208. [3] Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953). [4] Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). [5] Id. at 269-285.

For many attorneys and law students aspiring to utilize their legal degrees to work in the sports industry, an in-house position with a professional organization is considered the peak of an arduous climb to the top of the sports law world. Oftentimes, legal positions in some of the mainstream sports in America, namely football, basketball, and baseball, are typically those that are sought after by the sports enthusiasts in the legal world. Nevertheless, due to the exponential growth of its popularity and the constant expansion of its professional leagues, the path toward in-house positions in American soccer has never appeared more open for those aspiring to work within the beautiful game. As an incoming law student who ultimately hopes to attain an in-house counsel position within professional soccer, I wanted to learn from those who are currently in positions toward which I and several others passionate about the intersection of soccer and the law aspire. Accordingly, I decided to start a process that I wanted to document by way of Conduct Detrimental to share with all who are interested – an interview with a member of the legal counsel at every MLS club. From these interviews, I hope to be able to provide insight into the nature of legal counsel positions in professional soccer. And at the end of this process, I hope that we will all be more knowledgeable on what it requires to successfully convert our greatest passions into a dream occupation. This interview, though, is slightly different from my first interview and will be different from those that follow. Nonetheless, it will still provide invaluable information about a position within one of the most prominent organizations in professional soccer. For this interview, I had the privilege of speaking with Michaela Clicque – senior legal counsel for the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). A graduate of the University of Vienna and Instituto Superior de Derecho y Economia (ISDE) in Spain, Clicque has worked with UEFA for just under eight years. Her words were incredibly insightful, and it was a pleasure to learn from her. 1. BG: Tell us a bit about your story – what led your interest in working within soccer to develop and what were some of the career steps you took that eventually placed you in your current position? Also, for those in America unfamiliar with UEFA, could you please provide us with a brief description of the federation and its role within FIFA and global soccer as a whole? MC: Since I was a kid I was always very much interested in football and it became quickly my dream to work in this world. Therefore, once I had finished my studies of law in Vienna I found a university in Spain which offered a master in sports law. Through this master I have managed to score a great internship in one of the best law firms in Spain which specialises in sports law. Not only have I learned a lot there but it opened me a lot of doors through great networking opportunities. Once I have finished this internship, I was probably in the right place at the right time as there was just an opening in UEFA. I must say, though, that a crucial reason why I was chosen for this position was the fact that I was speaking all three official languages of UEFA (plus two other ones). Briefly about UEFA: UEFA is a Confederation, covering the European area (and a bit further), which organises its own national team and club competitions. In the pyramid structure of football, it is located below FIFA. However, there is no direct reporting line between the confederations and FIFA. FIFA is in charge of its own competitions and has jurisdiction over all its member associations in matters which are regulated by FIFA. In the same way, UEFA is in charge of its own competitions and has jurisdiction over its (55) member associations as well as clubs for matters which are under UEFA’s competence. 2. BG: What does a typical workday look like for you as legal counsel at the UEFA? Is your position more of a consultancy role, or do you primarily serve as the club’s representative in all pertinent legal matters? MC: In general, I would say we are advising all national associations and clubs as well as our colleagues internally on all statutory and regulatory related matters. This may relate to a specific question with regards to the application of a rule, or more general, to the revision of a set of regulations as well as ensuring that any kind of process launched within UEFA is in accordance with the relevant UEFA regulations. Apart from that, there are always new things landing on our tables which makes the job so interesting and diverse. 3. BG: As UEFA is a continental federation, we see employees originating from various countries, which may be influenced by the flexibility afforded to workers from member nations of the European Union (EU). Does this flexibility play a role in the international diversity within UEFA’s personnel? MC: Yes, UEFA is a great working place in this regard, as you will find colleagues from a lot of different places. This allows a great cultural exchange. However, one thing that we then all have in common is the love for the game. There is always a great atmosphere when a major football tournament is on and everyone is rooting for its own country. It is true that the majority of UEFA employees may come from EU countries but there are still quite some employees coming as well from outside of the EU. Switzerland, the country where UEFA is based and where, I believe, still the majority of UEFA employees comes from, is not part of the EU. 4. BG: Could you explain the licensing process for attorneys in Europe, at least from your experience? MC: This is a bit of a complicated one, as every country has its own system. As football related matters are mostly resolved in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it is not necessary to be a qualified lawyer from a specific country. Lawyers from all over the world are arguing cases before the CAS. 5. BG: If you could list 3 of the most important skills necessary to work as in-house counsel for UEFA and provide a brief explanation for their importance, which skills would you choose? MC: A good knowledge of football and its politics. In order to be able to properly understand all regulations (be it competition regulations or rather more technical regulations), a good knowledge of UEFA’s competitions in general is of paramount necessity. Moreover, it is important to understand how the whole football model, with the relevant member associations, leagues and clubs is designed and interacting. Apart from that, due to the international character of the work, it is always helpful to speak more than one language. 6. BG: Do you think there exists a possibility for Americans aspiring to work in the soccer industry to obtain a position at UEFA or as counsel for a European club? In your mind, what would be some of the steps necessary to realize this aspiration? MC: Yes, and I believe there are already some Americans working in legal positions in certain clubs in Europe. We have as well some employees within the UEFA legal division which are not from Europe. It is true that the world of sports law, and, in particular football is rather small, and it always helps to know the right people in order to get into this world. But without having a good knowledge of the competitions, and the game itself, even the best contact cannot help. It is important to always stay humble and sometimes maybe accept a position which may be a bit below your expectations at first, but which would allow a step into the football world. 7. BG: What is the one critical piece of advice that you could offer from your experience to law students aspiring to work in-house not only in soccer but in sports as a whole? MC: It might be tough at first to get in, but you should never give up and be persistent. There will be this one little door which will open and then you have to give it your all and show that you deserve to be there. Special thank you to Michaela Clique for her contributions to this article. She can be found on LinkedIn at Michaela Clicque. Bryce Goodwyn is a 1L at Regent University School of Law. He currently works as a Dean’s Fellow completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the East Region Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

On November 17, 2022, Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”), the public corporation that owns the Atlanta Braves and certain real estate projects associated with the club, announced that its board of directors authorized management to pursue a split-off of the team and its assets and liabilities into a new tracking stock to be known as Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. The move is pending approval from the current Braves holding company, Braves Holdings, LLC, and Major League Baseball. Stated differently, this move will create a separate entity that will own the Braves and all associated liabilities and assets. A stock spin-off occurs when a publicly traded company separates part of its business into a second public company and distributes its shares in the new business on a pro-rata basis to existing investors. Under this spin-off, Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. will hold all the businesses, assets, and liabilities currently attributed to the Braves Group, including Braves Holdings, LLC, which is the direct owner and operator of the Atlanta Braves Major League Baseball Club. Additionally, Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. will control certain assets and liabilities associated with the Atlanta Braves’ stadium and mixed-use development project, The Battery Atlanta, and corporate cash. Historically, Liberty Media has had three divisions with their own Series A, B, & C common stock: SiriusXM, Formula One, and the Atlanta Braves. The most notable difference between the different classes of common stock is the voting rights assigned to that particular series or class of stock. For example, a shareholder of Class A common stock shares could have their vote count thrice, whereas the holder of a Class B or even Class C would count twice then once respectively. This, of course, can and likely would vary from company to company. In order to make this happen, Liberty Media will trade common stock shares in the divesting company, Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc., in exchange for shares of its Series A, B, and C shares of the current Liberty Braves common stock. It is expected that as it relates to the intergroup interest in the Braves held by the Liberty SiriusXM and Liberty Formula One groups, these interests would be extinguished in a yet-to-be-determined fashion. What is a publicly traded company? A publicly traded company is a corporation whose shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. Through the free trade of shares on stock-on-stock exchanges or over-the-counter (OTC) markets, ownership of a publicly traded company is distributed among general public shareholders. These corporations are registered with the Secured Exchange Commission (SEC) and sold the initial stock to the public via an Initial Public Offering (IPO). Generally speaking, a company goes public in order to raise funds from the general public as opposed to a collective such as a private equity firm or just from one person like an angel investor. The advantage is that it becomes a publicly owned entity and has potential access to albeit at a slower pace, a larger influx of cash. The downside, however, is that the public entity is subject to more scrutiny from regulating authorities such as the SEC. Are there any other publicly traded sports franchises? There are three other United States-based sports franchises listed on public stock exchanges: the Green Bay Packers, the New York Knicks, and the New York Rangers. While the Packers are not actually publicly traded, the organization is not owned by a small ownership group as is common with professional franchises, but rather by a publicly held non-profit corporation comprised of 537,000 shareholders. The New York Knicks and Rangers, on the other hand, are not individually listed but are owned by Madison Square Garden Sports Corporation which is listed. Madison Square Garden Sports Corporation had a split that led to the creation of Madison Square Garden Entertainment. This split-off branch created a publicly traded company for its entertainment ventures including the venues Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall. While it is unclear why Madison Square Garden Sports Corporation and Madison Square Garden entertainment had a spin-off, one could rationally assume that it was to consolidate the assets of each branch and also to offset any potential losses. While the spin-off has been talked about going as far back as 2015, it is interesting that this happened in April 2020, during the “Covid Era.” Given that live performances and the sorts were not happening for the foreseeable future, but sports could resume in due time, and the sports teams drew in large sums of money from media rights, separating the assets and liabilities of the sports and entertainment entities seems like a rather logical move. However, worth noting, this is not the actual reason but merely a theory as to why it finally happened five years after the initial talks of it. As it stands now, it appears that this new Braves organization will take a form similar to that used by Madison Square Garden Sports Corp and its ownership of the Knicks and Rangers. Namely, by separating the different “classes” of assets and liabilities. Formula One is proving to be quite lucrative, as is The Braves organization and its related ventures, especially coming off its World Series title in 2021. SiriusXM, on the other hand, has seen its subscribers decline over the years, with its peak being in 2019 after its acquisition of Pandora Radio. Again, this is also just a theory, this in no way means SiriusXM is going under or even really facing financial difficulties as it is hard to discern what goes on in the boardrooms. However, this theory does at least seem rational. Either way, the team is venturing into a Brave New World by becoming now the second publicly listed and traded sports organization in the United States, and it will be very interesting to see how the stock performs in the years to come.

In November 2022, the United Soccer League (USL) and United Soccer League Players Association (USLPA) announced that they have achieved the first Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for USL League One. Under the hierarchical pyramid of the USL, USL League One is the second-highest league, preceded by the USL Championship and followed by the semi-professional USL League Two. Remaining below the MLS, then, USL League One is effectively American soccer’s third division, which makes this CBA the first of its kind for such a division in both the United States and the Americas as a whole. The establishment of this CBA follows the establishment of the USL Championship’s CBA in 2021, meaning that every professional league in the USL now possesses a CBA between the league and its players. USL President Jake Edwards celebrated the establishment of this CBA, using its ratification to emphasize the “deep commitment of [the USL’s] Board of Governors to the player experience.” Proponents of the CBA have noted that the terms of the agreement significantly advance player protection, compensation, and working conditions for all League One players. Upon evaluating the terms of the agreement for myself, one of the more notable provisions was Article 14(J), which concerns the reimbursement of relocation expenses incurred by a player who signs with a new club. Upon signing a new player to a standard player agreement, a club must reimburse the player for up to seven hundred fifty dollars of reasonable and necessary relocation expenses, provided such expenses are documented. Generally, many USL contracts only span a duration of one year, meaning that players under these contracts must find a new team during the off-season and, if they are successful, relocate themselves and their families to a new city. Such a venture is often costly for League One players, so the reimbursement of relocation expenses helps ease the perpetual transition for players having to move from city to city to continue playing professionally. Additionally, Article 14(A)(1) of the Agreement protects the financial interests of players who are either traded, loaned, or transferred to another USL League One Club without having provided their consent to the deal. According to this provision, deals completed by clubs without the consent of the players in controversy must afford the player (1) the same salary and (2) benefits materially similar to those provided in their previous contract (i.e., health insurance or stipends toward the purchase of the same that would result in reasonably similar out of pocket costs as compared to the previous benefits received). Article 14(A)(2) provides that, in the event of a player being loaned, traded, or transferred between USL clubs without their consent, the player will be reimbursed for all reasonable, necessary, and documented relocation expenses in relocating to the new club or back to the old club upon being recalled from a particular loan spell. Most significantly, Article 14(A)(2)(c) provides that such players shall be reimbursed for reasonable, necessary, and documented expenses associated with “the termination or settlement of [their] lease obligations” on residences in the cities where they originally lived, for a total that cannot exceed the lesser of four months’ rent or $4,500. With these guarantees, it appears that players who are involuntarily uprooted from their homes via the business of their former clubs will not be forced to navigate through the logistics of relocation without assistance. While these provisions seem to indicate that the newly-ratified CBA is a complete victory for the players, there also exist nuances with the CBA that suggest certain concessions that must be given by players as well. In a brilliant article on the subject, Chris Deubert, Senior Counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, highlights that Article 24(F) of the CBA requires a player to split the costs of arbitration resulting from a dispute between themselves and their club. This provision seemingly contradicts both the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS), which both require employers to pay arbitration costs unless the employee can afford them. This exception is potentially inapplicable to the majority of USL1 players on their current salaries, so it will be interesting to observe whether any problems arise from the enforcement of this arbitration provision. Regardless of these concessions, however, it is certainly true that the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement for the third division of American professional soccer is a tremendous step in the right direction for the support of the players in this country. USL1 is a league close to my heart, as some of my former collegiate teammates and coaches are currently part of the league’s Greenville Triumph. I’ve seen firsthand the work they and countless others have done to establish a sustainable infrastructure within that level of American soccer, and they deserve to be supported. With the ratification of the CBA, that support has now been codified, and as 2026 looms at the forefront of American minds, it will be for the betterment of the sport in this country. Bryce Goodwyn is a 1L at Regent University School of Law. He currently works as a Dean’s Fellow completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the East Region Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.