It's old news at this point that IndyCar driver Colton Herta, who was being considered for a drive buy Red Bull and Alpha Tauri, will not be on the grid in 2023. While several factors influenced this final decision, one was certainly the difficulty and complexities around qualifying Herta for an FIA super license. Let's take a quick look at exactly what the regulations are, and why this was a problem for Herta. The FIA super license program was implemented in the wake of Red Bull signing Max Verstappen to Torro Rosso (now Alpha Tauri) In 2016. This was at the time a controversial move due to how young Verstappen was, completing his first race for the team before he had a road driver's license at the age of 17. The controversy that this created within the paddock prompted the FIA to adopt the “points system” they now use for attaining a super license, which is required by all drivers to compete. This points system awards drivers in various other racing series “points” depending on where they finish in the standings for that sport and require that a driver accrue 40 points before they can apply for a super license to race in Formula One. The issue with the system as implemented arises because this point system does not treat the different series as equals, with an obvious preference towards formula two and formula three, the lower “feeder” levels of Formula One With an apparent prejudice to the American racing series of IndyCar. The following graph, curtsey of The Race demonstrates the points that are awarded for finishing in the top 10 spots of F2, IndyCar, F3, and the FREC. For the sake of the argument, let's say you race in IndyCar, and finish 5th in the overall drivers standing for three years in a row. That would be a very impressive feat, as IndyCar is a professional racing series “on the same level” as Formula One (with its junior programs as well). After those three years in IndyCar, you would have accrued 24 super license points(8 per each year). Now let's say you finish first in the FREC, the “Formula Regional European Championship”—a well-contested but lower-level European championship between F2 and F3. Finishing 1st in that championship once leaves you with 25 super license points. Let that sink in for a moment—finishing 5th in a professional, well-respected, open-wheel championship in the United States is viewed as approximately 30% as valuable as winning an amateur but Formula One-affiliated championship. I'm not saying that finishing fifth should give the same number of points, but this demonstrates how undervalued IndyCar drivers are in this super license context. Another example would be finishing 5th in one season and 2nd your next season in IndyCar. This would still leave you 4 points shy of qualifying for a super license. Meanwhile, a driver could finish 4th and 5th in Formula 2 (an amateur feeder series) during that same time that you’re racing as a professional and be more than qualified for a super license (having 50 points overall) is frankly baffling. I understand that the hierarchy and pyramid structure of Formula One, formula two, formula three, etc. is important to promoting your in-house development programs, but the incredible discount shown to professional racing in IndyCar is eyebrow-raising at the very least. The FIA does have a rule that allows them to grant a super license if a driver has at least 30 points and is unable to otherwise qualify due to situations of force majeure, but they have never exercised this(and simply “not having enough points” isn’t force majeure), and it is obvious they did not plan to with Herta. I don't have the answers as to what would be a more appropriate award of super license points, but it is apparent that there is a negative bias that needs to be corrected within the rules. Especially as Formula One gains popularity in the United States and teams continue to look to drivers from the US to capitalize on this added interest, the disadvantage drivers have by participating as professional drivers in IndyCar needs to be remedied in some way moving forward. While the hopes for Herta in 2023 are dead on the vine, the FIA needs to be cognizant of these developments and issues with their current implementation of the super license system and work towards a “better” remedy. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

First Reported by A.J. Perez of Front Office Sports, John Gruden v. The National Football League, et al. returned to court on Thursday. After District Court Judge Nancy Allf denied the National Football League’s (NFL) motion to compel arbitration last week, on Thursday, Judge Allf rejected the NFL’s attempt to seek a stay of the lawsuit pending an appeal Judge Allf’s decision. With the NFL running out of opportunities to force Gruden to arbitrate, this case inches closer to discovery, which could reveal much more about the league. Background In October 2021, Jon Gruden resigned as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after the New York Times revealed emails from Gruden, which included racist, misogynistic, and homophobic comments regarding individuals throughout the league. The emails, which Gruden sent prior to Gruden’s January 2018 contract with the Raiders, surfaced after the NFL launched an investigation into the then-named Washington Football Team, which included outside counsel reviewing over 650,000 emails and interviewing more than 150 witnesses. Gruden later settled with the Raiders. Allf’s Decision On Arbitration “A court may order arbitration of a particular dispute only where the court is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute[,]” wrote Judge Allf (citing Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters). Pertinent to Judge Allf’s decision was the contract language. Specifically, Gruden’s employment contract states that the agreement is entered into “by and between the Oakland Raiders . . . and Jon Gruden.” Although Commissioner Goodell did sign the employment contract to indicate Commissioner approval, Commissioner Goodell was not a party to the contract, nor was the NFL a party to the contract. Further, Judge Allf quickly disposed of the NFL’s argument that the bylaws and constitution require arbitration, noting “[w]hatever ability the NFL Parties may have had to compel arbitration under the [contract] expired as soon as Gruden and the Raiders terminated the Agreement.” Lastly, Allf noted that Gruden’s emails and conduct occurred before his employment with the Las Vegas Raiders. Thus, Judge Allf denied the motion to compel arbitration. Allf’s Decision On Staying The Lawsuit In response to Judge Allf’s decision, the NFL immediately sought to appeal the decision. As a part of the appeal, the NFL sought a stay of the lawsuit pending an appeal. Typically, for a judge to grant a stay pending an appeal, the party seeking a stay must demonstrate “a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal.” Since Gruden’s conduct occurred before his return to the NFL, and the NFL was not a party to his employment contract with the Raiders, the NFL could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and Judge Allf denied the motion to stay. The NFL can seek a stay with the Nevada Supreme Court and likely will exhaust all options to avoid litigation. With Washington Football Team owner Dan Snyder under the microscope, the NFL is eager to avoid going to discovery and potentially revealing more information from the Washington Football Team investigations. 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.

Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the Chicago Bulls and White Sox. was prominently featured in the recent hit docu-series "The Last Dance" about Michael Jordan and the Bulls' dynasty. Reinsdorf now finds himself in hot legal water as a complaint has been filed against him in California. Here's a breakdown of the case: The Parties: The plaintiff is Tiana Waters, an African-American home health care worker hired by Reinsdorf to "render household services related to the care of his [ailing] sister," Judith. The Defendants in this case are Jerry Reinsdorf and unnamed defendants labeled DOES 1-50, who Ms. Waters believes are all responsible in some manner for the alleged events that caused the injuries and damages to her. Ms. Waters will seek leave of the Court so she can amend her complaint and reveal the names of DOES 1-50 and their capacities. Mr. Reinsdorf and DOES 1-50 were Ms. Waters' employers or other persons acting on behalf of the employer as defined by the Labor and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No.15 and Labor Code Section 558 and are therefore purportedly liable to Ms. Waters. The Jurisdiction and Venue: The Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Reinsdorf as he is either a citizen of the state, has sufficient minimum contacts in the state, or intentionally avails himself of the California market. Venue is proper because Mr. Reinsdorf conducts business in Los Angeles and the claims stem from Los Angeles. Facts: Mr. Reinsdorf hired Ms. Waters as a full-time employee in order to take care of his sister, Judth. During her time as an employee, Ms. Waters reported to Dr. Irwin Lehrhoff, an agent of Mr. Reinsdorf. Ms. Waters used medical tools and supplies provided in order to monitor Ms. Reinsdorf's health as well as provide further care. Ms. Waters worked at least five (5) days per week (Monday-Friday) from 7:00am - 7:00pm, occasionally working Saturdays and at times 24-48 hours straight. After a few months, Judith's daughter, Lara, came to live with Judith and began controlling the home healthcare workers including Ms. Waters. Dr. Lehrhoff was aware of and authorized Lara's conduct. During her employment, Ms. Waters was not encouraged to take a lunch break and when she did, was interrupted by the defendant who told her to perform work-related tasks during breaks. Ms. Waters did not receive compensation for the work done on her breaks. Ms. Waters was also required to track and email her hours the Katie Kermle, an assistant to the defendant. In July 2021, Lara requested Ms. Waters wear a baby monitor at all times or sit beside Judith during her shift to prevent her from experiencing seizures. Ms. Waters protested stating that stopping a seizure could result in death. Lara rejected this rationale and attacked Ms. Waters' culture stating her culture does not know when to "shut up" and should do their job. Ms. Waters brought this to the attention of Dr. Lehrhoff, however it changed nothing. Shortly after, Ms. Waters was fired. Ms. Waters states that she was incorrectly classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee which allowed the defendant to underpay her and deprive her of certain benefits given to employees. Complaints: Willful Misclassification (Labor Code §226.8) - Ms. Waters alleges that Mr. Reinsdorf wilfully misclassifed her as an independent contractor rather than an employee becauseMr. Reinsdorf and his agents retained control over the manner and means of accomplishing Ms. Waters business results such that an employer-employee relationship was established. Failure to Pay Compensation Due Upon Terminaion (Labor Code §201) - Ms. Waters alleged that she was not paid for all of the hours worked during her employment under Mr. Reinsdorf and alleged Mr. Reinsdorf willfully did not pay her after being fired. Failure to Pay all Wages for Ovetime (Labor Code §§519/1194) - Ms. Waters alleges that the defendant required and permitted her to work 77 (seventy-seven) hours per week and then failed to pay for the overtime associated with those hours. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (Labor Code §226) - Ms. Water alleges that the defendant failed to provide her with timely and accurate wage statements breaking down her gross salary, total hours, deductions made, and name and address of the employer. Ms. Waters also claims this was done knowingly and intentionally. Failure to Provide Rest Break (Labor Code §226.7) - Ms. Waters alleges that the defendant consistently interrupted her breaks and never encouraged Ms. Waters to take the break entitled to by law. Failure to Provide Meal Break (Labor Code §§226.7/512) - Ms. Waters alleges that she was not encouraged to and was interrupted during her lunch breaks. Waiting Time (Labor Code §§202/203) - Ms. Waters alleges that she has not been promptly paid following her termination of her employment on July 15, 2022 Unfair Competition (Business and Professions Code §17200) - Ms. Waters alleges that the misclassification as an independent contractor rather than an employer to avoid obligations of employee-protections is unfair and unlawful. Monetary Remedies Sought: For general damages of approximately $250,000.00; For special damages of approximately $250,000.00; For punitive damages of approximately $250,000.00 Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of Hofstra's Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He can be found on Twitter @Evan_Mattel21. Evan uncovered this lawsuit with Conduct's Jason Morrin. Jason is a Law Clerk (pending Bar admission) at Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

With the 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup in Qatar set to kick off in approximately one month, players from all 32 competing nations are preparing to compete at one of the world’s greatest sporting spectacles. Of the 32 participating teams, England is approaching this World Cup with a general sense of optimism, headlined by a core of established senior players and a generation of breathtakingly talented young players who have inserted themselves into the conversation of the world’s elite. Before the beginning of the calendar year, this generation included another prominent name – one who, at the peak of his performance, was being touted as the next great forward to represent the Three Lions. Nevertheless, due to an ongoing legal dilemma stemming from discoveries made just eight months ago, this player has not only been removed from the conversation of players to represent England at the World Cup but has also brought the status of his professional career to a screeching and potentially fatal halt. Last week, Manchester United forward Mason Greenwood was formally charged with attempted rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and controlling and coercive behavior. The charges stemmed from his arrests by the Greater Manchester Police on January 30 and February 1 on suspicion of rape, assault, sexual assault, and making threats to kill. In a statement following the arrests, Greater Manchester Police indicated that the arrests resulted from the force’s awareness of social media images and videos posted by a woman regarding various incidents of physical violence. Greenwood was released on bail the morning after the initial arrests and remained on bail in the months following. Before the announcement of the formal charges, however, Greenwood was arrested on October 15 over allegations that he breached his bail conditions. After appearing at Manchester & Salford Magistrates’ Court on October 17, Greenwood was remanded in custody once a district judge found that he had indeed breached his bail conditions over allegations of attempted rape and other offenses. Nevertheless, Greenwood was released on bail on October 19 after a private hearing at Minshull Street Crown Court, as he now awaits a court appearance before Manchester Crown Court to determine the merits of the charges placed upon him. Coincidentally, Greenwood’s court date falls on November 21 – the date of England’s opening World Cup match against Iran. Adding to the legal troubles surrounding Greenwood, his employer has now formally responded to his actions with official consequences of their own. On October 15, Manchester United released a statement acknowledging the criminal charges brought forth against Greenwood and confirming that Greenwood remains suspended by the club during the pendency of the judicial process. While such a statement officially confirms the club’s willingness to suspend Greenwood in light of the controversy surrounding the allegations, it must be noted that the club, while not having officially suspended Greenwood until October 15, has prohibited the forward from training or featuring in any games with the team since the date of the initial arrests. Interestingly, as part of the terms of the standard Premier League contract established by the most recent edition of the Professional Footballers’ Association’s collective bargaining agreement, Greenwood is still being paid by the club, as suspended players are only withheld from pay for a maximum of fourteen days. Yet while Greenwood still receives financial compensation from his employer, he has removed himself from contention for a place in the current Manchester United team and has seemingly lost any opportunity to lead his country in Qatar. While the legal outcome of Greenwood’s alleged actions remains to be seen, the nature of the situation demonstrates that such actions may indeed have consequences. If Greenwood’s alleged actions are indeed realized to be true, the importance must certainly shift toward the support and well-being of the young woman who brought forth the allegations rather than focusing on the implications of Greenwood’s professional career. Nevertheless, the mere fact that this possibility may be proven reality has proven enough to impede the ultimate dream of one of England’s once most promising talents – to play in a World Cup. Ultimately, this story serves as a lesson that, no matter who you are or what you do, a failure to treat others with the respect and decency they deserve may leave you with a court date rather than with the chance to lift one of the world’s most coveted sporting trophies. Bryce Goodwyn is a 1L at Regent University School of Law. He is a member of the Honors Program and 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.

This past off-season’s 99-day lockout, the second longest of its kind in the history of MLB, resulted in major shifts favoring the rights of players. Minimum salaries for players and luxury-tax thresholds increased, respectively forcing, and encouraging teams, to invest more in the on-field product. The work stoppage was an ugly process. Both MLB and the MLBPA negotiated for weeks to save the 162-game season. Eventually, both sides compromised, and the season started just a week later than originally scheduled. However, both sides failed to establish a necessary and inevitable caveat: An International Draft. Most casual fans are aware of the domestic amateur draft that happens annually during the season; High School and College players, if selected, negotiate with the team that drafted them based on the slot value of where they were taken. Much less is commonly known about the international signing process. Essentially, most players outside of the US and Canada are permitted to sign with an MLB organization when they turn 16. However, many top-tier players, especially in Latin America, agree to deals with teams as early as the age of 13. According to Jeff Passan of ESPN, many elite players in the Dominican Republic drop out of school to pursue baseball careers at as early as ten years old. This incentivizes these young children, many of whom grow up impoverished, to take performance-enhancing drugs in the hope that an increase in performance will catch the eyes of MLB scouts and secure a large signing bonus. While an International Draft is not without its downsides, it would certainly limit the incentive for young children to drop out of school at such a young age and potentially hurt themselves with PEDs, as there would no longer be verbal agreements made with players under the age of 16. During the lockout, MLB proposed an international draft late in the negotiation process, to the annoyance of the MLBPA, who have long been opposed to the idea. To preserve the start of the 2022 season, both sides agreed to kick the can down the road, setting a July 25 deadline for the implementation of an international draft. In an effort to sweeten the deal for the MLBPA, MLB offered to end the qualifying offer system, which the players have loathed since its implementation in 2012. Essentially, players who have fulfilled their required service time to finally hit free agency can be extended a qualifying one-year offer by their team (worth $18.4 million in 2022). Players have the chance to accept the offer or to decline it and test free agency. Most players who are productive enough to be given a qualifying offer have waited six to seven years while being underpaid before they hit free agency and find long-term financial security. The qualifying offer complicates that mission for many players, as any opposing team that signs a player in free agency who declined a qualifying offer must forfeit their first-round pick in the following draft (teams drafting in the top ten forfeit a second-rounder instead). The draft pick compensation required to sign one of these players can destroy a player’s value, as was seen this past offseason with former all-star Michael Conforto, formerly of the New York Mets, who has still yet to sign with any team following his declining of the $18.4 million offer last November. The stage was set for the MLB and MLBPA to finally agree on an international draft. Both sides had much to gain from an agreement: dissipation of the corruption of young players in Latin American countries, and full value being awarded to productive players hitting free agency for the first time without the worry of draft pick forfeiture. All that was left was for both sides to agree on how total money was to be awarded to the 600 players taken in the international draft. Unfortunately, MLB and the MLBPA failed to come to an agreement on the total money that would be allotted to the players. According to Alden Rodriguez of ESPN, the gap between the two sides never reached less than $69 million. This is a very unfortunate turn of events for the young players in Latin America, who will not have a chance to be subject to an international draft until the implementation of the next CBA. While the use of an international draft as a bargaining chip by the MLB and MLBPA is not surprising, it still comes to the detriment of young players, who will still often be pressured to take PEDs to get a large signing bonus. Hopefully, MLB can find a way to decrease the corruption for the sake of these young players. Even so, the overarching issue is still apparent: At what point will MLB and the MLBPA, both part of a multibillion-dollar corporation, decide that the pressure put on these young Latin American players is not worth the proportionally small amount of money that separates the two sides?

Daniel Kaplan from The Athletic and Michael Rosenberg from Sports Illustrated reports that Alana Gee, the widow of former University of Southern California (USC) Trojan linebacker from 1988-1991 Matt Gee, is suing the NCAA for his wrongful death. She believes the onset of CTE, as a result from playing football, caused her husband to act differently in his waning years before his death. She is bringing a wrongful death lawsuit to prove had Matthew Gee not played football for USC and the NCAA, he would not have lashed out and changed behaviors after his football career was over. In 1989, the USC Trojans had twelve linebackers on its roster. Five would die all before turning fifty years old. The most notable linebacker from this Trojan team is Junior Seau, who was an All-Pro linebacker with the then-San Diego Chargers and the New England Patriots. He committed suicide in 2012, and doctors found he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is only found in the brain post-mortem, so after death. Alan Wilson, Scott Ross, David Webb, and lastly, Alana’s late husband, Matt Gee. Rosenberg dives into each person as their body turned against them before dying young. There are stories from each player’s life, and how similar the downward trends began. Alana Gee plans to use this story as evidence that her husband’s death is due to the NCAA not properly monitoring their football players at the scrutiny they are today. Alana Gee plans to have Dr. Bennett Omalu, the first doctor to diagnose CTE in a football player’s brain, testify as an expert witness should this case proceed to trial. The NCAA argues that an individual understands the risks of football before they participate in the sport. They argue there are known inherent risks such as injury. She counters that CTE is not an inherent risk, but one the NCAA should warn players about. The NCAA has implemented new rule changes after CTE was discovered, such as targeting, to crack down on head injuries suffered from playing football. The NCAA argues that Matt Gee suffered from alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other illnesses prior to his passing on New Year’s Eve, 2018. They argue Matt did not suffer from CTE at all, perhaps it was a different type of encephalopathy. He suffered from liver disease due to his alcoholism and drug use. He suffered from hypertensive and atherosclerotic heart issues. The NCAA argues these caused his death, not CTE, so they should not be held liable to Alana Gee in her wrongful death lawsuit against them. They argue their member schools, here USC, are responsible for the safety and well-being of their student-athletes. There is legal precedent as an NCAA CTE case from Texas settled in 2019, and there is another one in Indiana arguing the NCAA knew that football caused these injuries. They argue the NCAA did nothing until CTE was discovered to further protect their football players from the lasting effect of concussions and other head injuries. Other cases, such as one in California, was dismissed because science could not link former Pop Warner football players’ death to the league. The NCAA is seeking to block evidence, such as the Rosenberg article, and other media related to the 1989 USC team because this media could be damaging to their cause since five linebackers from that team died before turning fifty. They all died from their own downward spirals, whether it was suicide or binge drinking. The common theme all five linebackers had were that they suffered from mental illnesses shortly before death. This is likely CTE symptoms, but tests were not done on all five brains. Junior Seau is the only confirmed player that suffered from CTE after researchers studied his brain after his suicide in 2012. The merits of Alana Gee’s case are not frivolous, so this case should not get dismissed. However, if this case is brought to trial, and found in her favor, this could open Pandora’s Box to all those who passed away young or “before their time” after they participated in contact sports. Alex Patterson is a Thomas M. Cooley Law School graduate and works for Kerley and Talken PC as a paralegal. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

Daniel Kaplan from The Athletic reports the NFL will vote Tuesday on the person or people responsible for paying St. Louis the $790 million settlement fee. This settlement fee stemmed from the NFL not following its own relocation guidelines when the Rams applied for relocation in 2015. The Rams relocated to Los Angeles in 2016, but this relocation did not technically “occur” in 2016. It happened in 2013. In 2013, then St. Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams owner Stan Kroenke showed NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and other NFL owners the land he purchased in Inglewood, California. This land is the current land SOFI Stadium and its surrounding area sits in Hollywood Park. The relocation occurred in 2013 because the land was big enough for an NFL stadium, television studios, and more. Stan Kroenke is married to Anne Walton, a Walmart heiress, and he is personally worth around $7 billion. Goodell and the owners knew their best chance for the league to move back to the second-largest market in the nation was through Stan Kroenke and the Rams. Kroenke’s and the NFL’s plan to Los Angeles was set in motion. The Rams filed their articles of incorporation as a California company in 2014, while they were still located in St. Louis. This was done after the Rams won an arbitration hearing against St. Louis about which entity had the better stadium plan to renovate the then-named Edward Jones Dome. The “St. Louis” Rams still “competed” to 7-9 seasons in 2014 and 2015 before the relocation meeting occurred in Houston on January 12th, 2016. The owners voted 30-2 in Kroenke’s favor over another competing Los Angeles project in Carson, California brought forth by the then-San Diego Chargers and then-Oakland Raiders ownership groups. Stan Kroenke agreed to cover all legal “costs” that would incur from this relocation. Kroenke argues this only covers the legal fees, and every other owner has to pay their share for the $790 million settlement fee. Other owners, such as John Mara Jr., argue they would not have voted for Kroenke to leave St. Louis had they known this was the case. The NFL assessed a $7.5 million fee against each club in December for partial payment for the settlement fee. Earlier this year, Goodell created a five-member ad hoc committee to make a recommendation to him on who has to pay the settlement fee. This committee lost members, but it still stands. NFL owners disagreed with the NFL’s plan to assess a $7.5 million fee against them because this matter has not been determined yet. The meeting next Tuesday is scheduled to be in New York. Stan Kroenke can still personally sue Goodell and the finance committee, should it be determined that he is the sole person to pay the settlement fee. This meeting will likely turn owners against each other as it did last December after they found out about the indemnification clause Kroenke had in the relocation. The owners do not like to lose money, and if each owner has to fund part of their wealth for the settlement fee, this will not sit well with them. St. Louis has yet to announce how they are going to split the settlement money among the parties in the lawsuit, the city, the county, and the Regional and Stadium Authority. The good news for St. Louis is the city is receiving an Xtreme Football League (XFL) franchise, that will play its games at the Dome at America’s Center, marking football’s second return to St. Louis. The first return was the COVID-19 abbreviated return of the Xtreme Football League (XFL). This meeting will divide the owners into whether they are going to pay the settlement fee and turn on Stan Kroenke and Jerry Jones, the project’s voice, for forcing them into this situation, or whether they will rejoice in hearing that Kroenke has to fund the entire $790 million settlement fee by himself. If this happens, expect him to sue the NFL for misconstruing the word “costs” and turning on the word’s ambiguity. Alex Patterson is a Thomas M. Cooley Law School graduate and works for Kerley and Talken PC as a paralegal. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

Former United States Women’s National Team goalkeeper Hope Solo objected to 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. Solo cited the lack of clarity in the payout to each player as the basis for the objection. “Without knowing how much each player . . . will be paid, or when we will get paid, it’s impossible for players to determine whether or not the proposed settlement and whatever payment we each receive is fair, adequate, or reasonable,” Solo noted. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions, prior to any settlement, a court must determine that the settlement proposal is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Thus, Solo’s statement cites the elements a judge must use when deciding whether to approve a proposal. Settlement Agreement The dispute between USWNT players and USSF dates back to 2016 when multiple players filed a federal wage discrimination complaint against the USSF. In February, the players reached the settlement agreement, which included USSF paying out over $24 million and was contingent on USWNT ratifying a new CBA. In May, the USWNT and the United States Men’s National Team agreed to new CBAs with the USSF. With the new CBAs came a new standard of paying the athletes. For the first time, the teams agreed to an equal pay rate. Under the new structure, the USWNT transitioned to a non-salary model. For USSF-controlled games against opponents ranked in the top 25 of FIFA rankings, players will receive between $8,000 and $18,000, depending on whether the game is a win, loss, or draw. For all other games, the players will receive between $8,000 and $13,000. For World Cup matches, each player automatically earns $10,000 per game, plus $14,000 for a win or $10,000 for a tie. As a result of the new structure, the average annual payout for men’s and women’s players is expected to be $450,000. What is Next The court will hold a final approval hearing on December 5. Solo, either by herself or through her lawyer, is expected to appear at the hearing on behalf of her objection. The court will determine whether to approve the settlement or uphold the objection, which would send the parties back to the negotiating table. Until the court has ruled, the lawsuit will continue. 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.

Should I stay or should I go seems to be a question on many players’ and coaches’ minds across the NFL. According to @TomPelissero earlier this week, the NFL informed the clubs that if a game could not be rescheduled during the 2021 season due to a COVID outbreak among unvaccinated players, the team with the outbreak would forfeit the game and be credited with a loss. This news resulted in a rollercoaster of reactions across the league, from Deandre Hopkins questioning his future with the league, to Jerry Hughes publicly defending the vaccine and the scientists who created it. While the reaction from the players across the league was fiery, the action taken by coaches deserves attention as well. As a reminder, the players are not required to receive the vaccine, but the league has made it clear that the decision to remain unvaccinated could lead to massive consequences for an entire team. However, Tier 1 staff, which includes coaches, front-office executives, equipment managers, and scouts, are required to receive the vaccine. If a Tier 1 staff member refuses the vaccine, absent a valid religious or medical reason, he/she loses their Tier 1 status and cannot be on the field, in meeting rooms, or have any interaction with players. Surely an employment condition like that will not result in any newsworthy content, right? In the afternoon of July 23rd, 2021, Rick Dennison, OL coach and run game coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings reportedly left the team after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, per @CourtneyRCronin. When faced with the question of whether he should stay by receiving the vaccine and maintaining tier 1 status, or go, and lose his job altogether, Dennison chose the latter. Before there was clarity that Dennison chose to leave the team as opposed to being fired, many asked the question of whether it would be illegal if he was indeed let go by the Minnesota Vikings for his refusal to receive the vaccine. The short answer is no. Minnesota, like the majority of the United States, is an at-will employment state. At-will employment is an employer’s ability to fire an employee without reason or warning, except for reasons such as an employee’s race, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. The policy reasons for at-will employment are that if an employee is free to resign from a job without reason or warning, then an employer deserves the same right. Here, Dennison chose to leave the Minnesota Vikings, as he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine, which is his right. If it was the other way around, and the Minnesota Vikings fired Dennison for his decision, it would be their right as well.

Revolutionary changes came to college sports earlier this month. For the first time in the NCAA’s inequitable history, its student-athletes were afforded the opportunity to profit off of their names, images, and likenesses... legally. With that, everyone and their mother looked to enter into this unmarked territory, presenting business opportunities for brands without total understanding of potential ramifications. Granted, attempting to act in compliance with NCAA’s cryptic policy and scattered state/school regulations gives one less confidence than when filling out a March Madness bracket. Barstool Sports, a popular digital media(?) company, wasted no time jumping into the fray. Founder Dave Portnoy announced that the company would create an athletics arm with the intention of signing college athletes. Student-athletes were immediately attracted to this idea. The Twitter handle Barstool Athletics (@stoolathletics) had garnered over 23,000 follows by July 3. However, Portnoy quickly became the target of criticism and doubt - not a new concept for him. This public skepticism largely stemmed from comments he made during Barstool Athletics’ inception. Portnoy recalled, “Barstool Athletes, Inc. is the most barstool thing ever. No thought put into it. No clue what we were doing.” Such a statement doesn’t exactly ring well in the world of compliance. In fact, the compliance office at American International College explicitly stated that working with Barstool is prohibited activity for its athletes. The stated fear centered around a perceived Barstool connection to gambling and its sportsbook, which is an activity that student-athletes definitively cannot endorse. Barstool made an attempt to combat this complication by forming a separate entity, Barstool Athletes, Inc. Portnoy, now seemingly aware of a host of implicated issues in his program, spent the last few weeks exploring avenues to safely commence his program. Today, he sent an update to all Barstool Athletes. Conduct Detrimental received a copy of said update, which is depicted below. One thing is clear: they are still figuring it out and have a ways to go. It appears that Portnoy is planning on giving signed athletes a rewards card for discounts at stores and restaurants. “Chipotle said no which sucks,” brutal news for any offensive lineman in the program, among others. Portnoy tells athletes to expect merchandise soon. While the above benefits of Barstool Athletics are neat, the real profit potential likely comes in the form of apparel sales. Per Portnoy’s email and this article, Barstool athlete Spencer Lee created a t-shirt that Barstool will sell. 80% of all proceeds will go directly to Lee. Barstool has had a ton of success with apparel in the past, turning current events in sports and entertainment into wearable laughs. This line of apparel may be a tougher sell, though, as many Barstool athletes aren’t particularly well-known. Lee, on the other hand, is a renowned wrestler at The University of Iowa who will likely see success in this sale. As the shirt alludes to, Lee went viral after winning the 2021 National Championship just days after experiencing his second ACL tear. “I’m wrestling with no ACLs.” Truly an unbelievable feat. “Excuses are for wusses” is a fitting phrase for the t-shirt. Further, according to Josh Gerben, Lee has filed a trademark for the slogan. In the email update, Portnoy writes, “we’ve been working on player specific ideas with some athletes but compliance officers at some schools has been a major issue and setback.” “It’s almost like the schools don’t wanna see their athletes make money.” Dave, I would counter by saying it’s almost like schools want to see their student-athletes continue to play sports without risking eligibility. Your 'head-first dive' mentality has proven successful in almost every arena of your work. But this is a new space with ambiguous regulations that are changing as we speak. It really won’t hurt to proceed with caution. Compliance officers are not the issue; they are doing their jobs.

The official free agency period in the National Hockey League (NHL) began on July 28th and the first few hours have been busy. The flat cap of $81.5 million could not restrain teams any longer as teams spent more than four times the amount in the first two hours of free agency compared to 2020. The salary cap used to be tied to hockey-related revenue under the collective bargaining agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players Association; teams would forecast how the cap would rise with revenues and budget. Unfortunately, this model was disrupted when the coronavirus pandemic abruptly ended the sports season. This added a new wrinkle for general managers as cap space is now seen as a premium luxury. This leads to this article’s main discussion; would a luxury tax resolve the issues of the flat cap? The NHL’s salary cap was introduced in 2005 to bring more parity to the league. While the intention of parity should be welcomed zealously, over the past decade the NHL has had the least amount of parity for championships. The NHL had six unique champions compared to the NBA at seven and eight each for the NFL and MLB respectively. The salary cap prevents teams from keeping their current stars, for example, Dougie Hamilton, the former defenseman for the Carolina Hurricanes, who just signed with the New Jersey Devils a whopping seven-year, $63 million for an average annual value (AAV) of $9 million per season. Or for better illustration, the Las Vegas Golden Knights traded their star goalie, Marc André Fleury to the Chicago Blackhawks for virtually no return.[1] The league shouldn’t see teams trade away their own cornerstones in the name of salary cap. So how should the NHL resolve this? An outright removal of the salary cap would probably yield another lockout, and no one wants that, I certainly do not wish to see this as the NHL kept me sane during the national lock down. Instead, a moderate solution should be proposed. A few ideas may consist of a soft cap in which would give teams more flexibility, but a bolder move would be a luxury tax. The luxury tax would aid the revenue-sharing practice the NHL currently uses.[2] The luxury tax would apply a tax for salaries above a certain threshold. As a result, the revenues generated from the tax would be reallocated to teams playing in smaller markets. This would create better efficiency than the current revenue-sharing models. Imagine the Tampa Bay Lightning signing back all their players from their past two championships, and the money beyond the luxury threshold would go to a team like the Columbus Blue Jackets. This money could serve as a draw for players that would have considered leaving the small-market team. On the other hand, as great as that fantasy might sound, let’s look at Major League Baseball (MLB) a league that embraced the luxury tax. Only eight teams in 2019 surpassed the luxury tax and small-market teams still seem to suffer. Perhaps this narrative does serve as a warning for those that are against the luxury tax proposal. The goal of parity seems to be an ideal, virtually unattainable but always worth striving for. I am sure endless proposals and counterproposals have been made, but as a fan of the game, we should want as many teams as possible competing for championships, when the league benefits, all of us fans benefit too. Austin is a rising third year law student at Washington College of Law, Am. U.; M.S., Finance, Am. U.; B.A., Geo. Wash. Univ. [1] Filipe Dimas, Abandoning the salary cap for a luxury tax would benefit the NHL more than just the Leafs, THELEAFSNATION, https://theleafsnation.com/2021/07/28/abandoning-the-salary-cap-for-a-luxury-tax-would-benefit-the-nhl-more-than-just-the-leafs/, Jul. 28, 2021 (last visited Jul. 29, 2021). [2] Dimas, supra.

Should high school players be allowed for forgo their senior year of high school to enroll early in college for NIL opportunities? Before you say yes, stop and at least consider the following. According to the Dallas Morning News, Southlake QB, Quinn Ewers, is considering skipping his senior year to enroll early at Ohio State to earn nearly a million dollars in NIL deals.[1] As the number 1 overall recruit in the nation (according to 247Sports), Ewers naturally draws a lot of attention. Sounds great, right? I live adjacent to Southlake. I’ve watched Quinn play. He’s electric. Box office. Worth the price of admission. Why does that matter? Well, a lot of high schools benefit from big names drawing in additional ticket sales. If the best players are removed, schools that struggle with funding may have to find other ways to compensate. Here in Texas, high school football reportedly produced 1.62 million dollars a year in 2017-2018.[2] Who knows what that number will be if the best players begin leaving early. Football is a huge revenue generator for high schools across the state. You may say that these players aren’t responsible for that problem. Perhaps they should only look out for themselves and their families. I won’t argue that point. Instead, I simply ask each person reading this to consider the ripples that come from those decisions. Another such ripple you should consider is what it means to have that much money early. This is a concern heard across the country for NIL. Are we really that eager to get hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in the hands of 17/18 year-olds? Just think about it. It’s currently their right, but the psychological research on decision-making for people that age screams that it’s a bad idea without restrictions or boundaries. And I can support that assertion because I’m also a licensed psychotherapist with a specialization in sports psychology. But that discussion and the potential solutions are beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, I want you to think long and hard about what you would have done with that money at that age. I doubt you had the financial literacy on your own to make educated decisions. To conclude, I’m all for options and opportunities, but with additional regulations and legislation that protect people from themselves. In this instance, if we are going to endorse highly rated high school athletes like Quinn Ewers to leave early, we should at least CONSIDER how to protect them from themselves financially and how we are going to help the communities that may lose a substantial amount of money. Quinn Ewers may be one of the first, but he won’t be the last. [1] https://www.dallasnews.com/high-school-sports/football/2021/07/28/southlake-carroll-5-star-qb-quinn-ewers-considering-skipping-senior-season-to-profit-off-nil/ [2]https://www.dallasnews.com/high-school-sports/football/2020/04/26/the-financial-ramifications-of-canceling-spring-hs-sports-and-what-no-football-would-mean-for-uil-area-schools/