This article was originally published on https://ublawsportsforum.com/. Jack Nicklaus, the world’s greatest golfer, and arguably one of the best course designers, finds himself in litigation against his old business partner, Howard Milstein. In 2007, Milstein bought Nicklaus’s intellectual property and golf course design services for $145 million. Milstein's business, Nicklaus Companies LLC, sued Nicklaus in May, alleging that he improperly went out on his own, and is now directly competing for golf course design projects and personally negotiating to re-up his endorsement deal with Rolex SA. This may seem reasonable, given Nicklaus’s noncompete agreement with the company expired in 2017, but the new world of name, image, and likeness (NIL) makes this increasingly more complex. The argument is not if Nicklaus can challenge Nicklaus Companies for design projects because the noncompete has run its course. Rather, the challenge for Nicklaus lies in the fact the judge ruled that there is no such end date for the transfer of Nicklaus’s NIL. Justice Cohen stated, "Whatever might be true under the noncompetition agreements, the plaintiffs own this intellectual property, and that isn't something that expires. The exploitative value of his name as an endorser of products and the like is where the line is drawn." The way this case is determined will likely have long-term effects on all athletes when it comes to their NIL. Although the company may own Nicklaus’s NIL rights, that does not mean they can do much with them without his willingness. This situation is tricky, and ultimately the only positive solution would be if the two sides were to come to a mutually collaborative resolution. Nicklaus is still heavily involved in the golf world and he seems to have the passion and drive to continue working to grow the sport. An important quote from the hearings was Nicklaus talking about the deal where he signed away his intellectual property rights. He stated, “he left the specifics up to his then-counsel Latham & Watkins LLP” and “To be honest with you, I didn’t read it, I was just told something I should do.” It should be noted that NIL was not relevant at the time, and it would have been challenging to foresee so much as to put a provision within a contract protecting this. This suit should act as a lesson for athletes, institutions, lawyers, and anyone involved in these contracts moving forward. This is an emerging landscape that has long-term ramifications unseen yet. Young athletes need to be mindful of the deals they are engaging in and the details involved. In Nicklaus’s case, he already went through a full professional career as an athlete and a businessman, but in the case of college athletes, a deal like this could keep them from earning money from their NIL that would change the dynamic of their lives and their careers. Any professional who is or intends to engage in the NIL landscape should follow this suit to see how the court acts on a dispute over one of the world’s greatest golfer's NIL and the precedent it sets for future athletes’ NIL. Michael Perlo is a law student at the University of Buffalo School of Law, Class of 2023. He can be found on Twitter @michael_perlo.

Two former Division I volunteer baseball coaches filed a class action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), alleging that the NCAA “engaged in an illegal buyer’s-side monopsony by conspiring to fix the compensation of an entire category of college baseball coaches at zero.” Specifically, the lawsuit entitled Smart v. NCAA seeks damages and targets eliminating the volunteer coach position allowed by NCAA Bylaw 11.01.06. NCAA Bylaws limit the amount of paid baseball coaches to three per team. However, under the NCAA Bylaws, teams may have a fourth “volunteer” coach. The volunteer coach receives zero compensation for their work. The plaintiffs (Taylor Smart and Michael Hacker) are two former volunteer baseball coaches at the University of Arkansas and the University of California, Davis, respectively. The coaches served as volunteer coaches for multiple seasons. According to the lawsuit, volunteer coaches perform many of the same duties as their paid counterparts, including working more than 40 hours per work and serving as on-field coaches during games. As the plaintiffs allege, due to the NCAA reducing the volunteer coach’s salary to zero, the NCAA has restrained the market for baseball coaches and engaged in anti-competitive behavior by price fixing the market. Thus, the NCAA has violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the plaintiffs include claims for violating California’s unfair competition law and unjust enrichment due to the NCAA receiving the benefit of the volunteer coaches’ work yet not paying them. Possibility Of Success A similar case against the NCAA reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In Law v. NCAA, another class action lawsuit, the NCAA instituted a rule limiting the salary of Division I entry-level coaches to $16,000. At the District Court, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court, finding that the NCAA’s rule had an anticompetitive effect due to the rule “lowering the price of coaching services.” The volunteer baseball coaches in Smart can find further support in NCAA v. Alston, which held that NCAA rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny. As a class action lawsuit, this matter could take years to resolve. In the end, we will likely see an end to the volunteer coach. 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.

The answer to the title of this article is yes . . . sort of. Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”), the owner of the 2021 World Champion Atlanta Braves, recently announced that it would break the team up (and I am not talking about the potential non-resigning of star shortstop, and home-grown talent, Dansby Swanson this offseason after letting Freddie Freeman walk in the previous offseason). Liberty Media announced that the legal ownership of the Atlanta Braves would be bifurcated – a new company, Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc., would own the team itself and The Battery Atlanta (“The Battery”), as well as certain assets and liabilities associated with the stadium and The Battery[1] while Liberty Media would retain ownership of, essentially, everything else. This restructuring is nothing new in professional sports as the New York Knicks and New York Rangers are owned by Madison Square Garden Sports Corp and several major European football clubs employ a similar ownership structure.[2] Not to mention the most well-known example of all: the Green Bay Packers, which is a publicly owned company that has allowed fans in the past to purchase stock in the company (which gives the company funds and lets fans feel like they have a stake in the team).[3] What does the restructuring look like in practice? As part of a larger effort by Liberty Media to shift control of its assets, the corporation will redeem its existing common stock in exchange for shares of Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. and then recapitalize the remaining common stock into three tracking-stock groups.[4] After the split, Liberty Media Corporation and Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. would be two separate, although related, publicly traded companies. Look for stock in the Atlanta Braves to be available on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in 2023. But what does that actually mean for fans looking to buy into their favorite team, or invest in a professional team, and why exactly is Liberty Media restructuring at this point? Per Liberty Media’s press release announcing the restructuring, the goal is to “split off the Atlanta Braves into an asset-backed stock to better highlight its strong value.”[5] Liberty Media clearly believes that the Atlanta Braves as a business has value that is being left on the table by not listing it on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, and the restructuring allows for Liberty Media to still own and control the source of that value while creating a distinct entity to realize on that value. The restructuring also allows Liberty Media to shift its debt and equity ratio to improve its own finances. To an extent, Liberty Media is hoping that this move will allow them to take advantage of what they perceive is significant value in the brand of the Atlanta Braves while also improving financial conditions for it as a parent company: two financially strong companies are better than one. By restructuring, Liberty Media is likely hoping to offload certain debts in order to better protect the parent company. And by having a separate company encompassing the Atlanta Braves brand, Liberty Media is hoping that it can attract new sources of funding in the form of investors looking to purchase an ownership share in a Major League Baseball club. In a possible early sign that the move is paying off, Liberty Media stock was up nearly 10% after the announcement.[6] There is also speculation that splitting the companies up might be the first step toward selling the team…[7] Needless to say, the restructuring of the Atlanta Braves has a lot of significant implications, and Conduct Detrimental will seek to highlight just a few of those over the next few days. Grant Williamson is a graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law - J.D., Class of 2019. He can be found on Twitter @GrantWilli33 Sources: [1] You Can Soon Buy Stock Directly in the Atlanta Braves - WSJ. [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] Liberty Media Corporation Announces Plan to Split off Atlanta Braves and Create New Liberty Live Tracking Stock Group :: Liberty Media Corporation (FWONA). [6] Liberty Media to split off Atlanta Braves into separate publicly traded company (ajc.com). [7] Atlanta Braves to become a publicly traded company in 2023 (tomahawktake.com).

On Tuesday, a jury returned a verdict in Gee v. NCAA, the first chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) case against the NCAA to reach a jury, finding that the NCAA was not liable for Matthew Gee’s death. The NCAA will utilize the verdict to defend hundreds of pending CTE cases across the country. Matthew Gee was a linebacker for the University of Southern California from 1988 to 1992, winning a Rose Bowl for the Trojans in 1990. When Gee graduated from USC, he attended training camp with the Los Angeles Raiders. The Raiders cut Gee from the team, and Gee left football to run an insurance company and ultimately married his college sweetheart, Alana. According to the lawsuit, the Gees lived a normal life for 20 years. In 2013, Matt began to lose control of his emotions, drinking heavily and often unable to recall recent events—symptoms of CTE. Matt died on New Year’s Eve in 2018. Per reports, the cause of death was a combination of the toxic effects of alcohol and cocaine, plus other conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis, and obesity. After Alana donated Matt’s brain to Boston University’s CTE center, the CTE center diagnosed Matt with CTE. Later, Alana sued the NCAA, claiming negligence in failing to protect Matt from head trauma that ultimately led to his death. At trial, the NCAA leaned on the organization’s lack of knowledge surrounding CTE’s effects during Gee’s time at USC. It was not until 2005 that a sturdy revealed evidence of CTE in football players—far beyond Gee’s time at USC. Further, Gee never reported a concussion during his time at USC, and even in his application to play for the Raiders, Gee reported that he had never been knocked unconscious. Gee’s attorneys put on evidence that included a former teammate testifying that Gee took hits that left him confused and other evidence that the NCAA knew about the effects of head injuries prior to Gee’s time at USC but failed to implement rules to prevent the injuries. In the end, Gee’s evidence could not convince the jury that the NCAA knew or should have known about the long-term effects of trauma to the head. The verdict could affect athletes’ head injury claims throughout the country. Gee’s case is unique in that it is the first case to reach a jury verdict. In 2014, Ploetz v. NCAA went to trial but settled just days into the trial for an undisclosed amount. Importantly, Gee’s attorneys were not allowed to produce evidence at trial that Gee was one of five linebackers from USC’s 1989 football team to die before the age of 50—a fact that could have impacted the jury’s decision. While this may have been the first case to reach a jury, it likely will not be the last. For all future cases, focusing on the causation element will be critical. 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.

Earlier this week, Miami-Dade County filed a Motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, seeking to terminate the naming rights agreement between the county and FTX. FTX.US and its affiliated entities (“FTX”) filed for bankruptcy on November 11, 2022, which triggered a stay, preventing any entities from acting against FTX. Miami-Dade County is the owner of the arena that is home to the Miami Heat. In April 2021, the county and FTX agreed to a naming rights agreement whereby FTX would pay the county $135 million spread over 19 years. In turn, FTX’s name would be placed atop and throughout the arena. In the motion, the county identifies FTX’s failure to comply with federal and state laws as a default under the naming rights agreement. For further support, the county anticipates FTX’s future default by failing to pay over $5 million owed in January 2023. Thus, Miami-Dade County seeks to terminate the agreement and mitigate its damages. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a judge can only grant relief for cause, which a judge determines on a case-by-case basis. As the county cites, “To establish cause, the party seeking relief from the stay must show that ‘the balance of hardships from not obtaining relief tips significantly in [its] favor.”’ Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. American Classic Voyages, Co. (In re American Classic Voyages, Inc.), 298 B.R. 222, 225 (D. Del. 2003); In re RNI Wind Down Corp., 348 B. R. 286, 299 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006). Here, since FTX owes millions for the remaining years, it does not appear that FTX would suffer hardship from granting relief to the county. On the other hand, the county stands to lose millions if FTX fails to pay the remaining amounts due under the agreement. Thus, the county would suffer significantly more hardship, and the bankruptcy court should grant the county’s motion. If the court grants the motion, expect the county to move quickly for a new deal. The big question is, will it be for the same amount as FTX’s deal? 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.

As reported yesterday, high-profile athletic trainer Rob McClanaghan was arrested on charges of rape and drugging for intercourse. The suspect was transported by the BPD Fugitive Unit in coordination with members of the Warwick RI Police Department into custody and will be extradited on fugitive from justice charges. As a straight warrant was issued, at a minimum a clerk magistrate had to agree that probable cause existed. Additionally, with the high threshold of the Sexual Assault Unit of the Boston Police Department, it is believed that the evidence at this juncture must be very strong. However, how are rape and drugging for intercourse defined? Under Mass Gen. Laws Rape is defined in Chapter 265 § 22(b) while the enhancement is listed in Chapter 272 § 3. rape and drugging for intercourse is defined as whoever applies, administers to, or causes to be taken by a person any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower such person so as to thereby enable any person to have sexual intercourse or unnatural intercourse with such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison life or for any term of years not less than 10 years. As such, if convicted, Mr. McClanaghan must serve at least ten years in prison. Usually, rape is a crime punishable by not more than twenty years, but the drugging element enhances the charge to be punishable to up to life in prison with a ten-year minimum mandatory. How might the Commonwealth prosecute this case and how might McClanaghan’s attorney(s) defend it? The Commonwealth’s Case In any victim case, the case always revolves around the victim including credibility. Rape cases are especially victim-centric because, without victim testimony, there usually would not be a case to move forward with. The victim had to provide information to law enforcement for law enforcement to believe a crime had in fact been committed. That begs the question; what kind of evidence would have been provided? First, victim testimony is paramount to the successful prosecution in a rape case. I have to think there was a rape kit performed at the hospital after the incident as well as the victim’s medical records. What kind of drug was it? Was it a date rape drug? Were there independent witnesses? With the high-profile nature of this case, the prosecution can never have too much evidence. Remember the State has to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn’t need to prove anything, and a lack of evidence is grounds for the Defendant being found not guilty by a jury. The Defense’s Case The defense’s case is much different. As stated previously, the defense doesn’t have to prove anything. The burden never shifts to the defense. What could the defense be? It depends. It depends on what evidence the Commonwealth has. What is the alleged drug? Is it a date rape drug? That is important information to have when preparing for the defense. That is because the attorney is unlikely going to be able to argue consent as a defense if it is a date-rape drug. No jury is going to agree with it and the criminal defense attorney would likely lose any and all credibility with a jury by simply insinuating it. However, if the alleged victim took the drug knowingly and voluntarily (whatever the drug may be), the statute isn’t violated. However, if it is another type of drug then consent does become an option. That is because the statute doesn’t “extend to a defendant who merely shared drugs or alcohol with a person who knowingly and voluntarily accepted the drugs or alcohol.” Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 624. The words of the statute require some forceful action or deceit or trickery on the part of the defendant that amounts to more than merely supplying drugs or alcohol to a willing individual. Id. Every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is the foundation of our criminal judicial system. However, with the Sexual Assault Unit of the Boston Police Department intimately involved, I have to think the evidence in support of guilt must be substantial, if not overwhelming. Matthew F. Tympanick, Esq. is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury Law, and Sports Law. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick! 1(888) NOPANIC. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor, he prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. He has tried 41 jury and non-jury trials. He frequently appears on Law & Crime as a Legal Analyst and speaks nationally on sports law issues. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw.

On November 21, 2022, the District Court of New Jersey granted the NFL’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit originally filed in 2019 by former New York Jets’ defensive back and special teamer, Rontez Miles. According to his complaint, Miles (“Plaintiff”) suffers from an autoimmune disorder called alopecia areata. Such a condition, he claims, causes him to “experience ocular photosensitivity and photophobia and limits his ability to see well in sunlight or artificial light.” With that, for at least three seasons, Plaintiff played with a protective shield on his facemask that helped him navigate the field. That came to a halt, starting in a 2017 preseason game when an NFL equipment judge told Miles that he was not permitted to play with the shield. Miles played the game against the Detroit Lions without his protective shield — and promptly suffered a broken orbital bone of the right eye. In his complaint filed 2 years after the injury, Plaintiff alleged that, “due to the lack of protection from the stadium lights, [he] did not see an opposing player approach, and hence, was unable to take defensive maneuvers.” His causes of action included: Count 1: Violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”); Count 2: Violation of Section 12101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for failure to provide reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff; and Count 3: Negligence Here is where labor law encroaches on Plaintiff’s (as with so many other parties governed by a CBA) federal law claims: §301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), a provision readily accessible in the proverbial holster of the league. §301 of the LMRA preempts claims based in state law brought by union-represented employees. Miles falls squarely in that category, as he was represented by the NFLPA during the underlying cause of action. The NFL claims that Miles’s claims are preempted by Section 301 because “the allegations are inextricably intertwined with the CBA and incorporated Official Playing Rules.” Miles — like the Broncos’ Aaron Patrick — seeks to skirt the CBA. Plaintiff argued that the NFL waived application of the CBA after the league allowed him to play for at least 3 seasons utilizing a protective shield without specific approval. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, his claims do not require the court to interpret the CBA, an action that the court is preempted from doing. Collective bargaining agreements make labor law the unrivaled king in sports law. The NFL argued that the court would need to analyze the CBA and its playing rules to “determine whether the NFL had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its alleged refusal to permit Plaintiff to wear the shield.” Miles argued in response that the CBA had no bearing on his claims. The court was not convinced, as it ruled in favor of the NFL on Monday, dismissing Miles’s lawsuit. The court reasoned that “[t]he CBA governs the respective rights and responsibilities of the NFL, the Clubs, the NFLPA, and the players with respect to, among other subjects, player health and safety, player attire and equipment, and the remedies and benefits available to players in the event of an injury sustained while performing services under an NFL Player Contract, including during the course of an NFL game.” With respect to Plaintiff’s claims arising under the ADA, the court held that Miles failed to first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an administrative requirement. Thus, this claim was dismissed as well. Time and time again, we are reminded of the power the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement holds. Miles will have to seek a remedy within the CBA, not state law. Rontez Miles last played in the NFL in 2019 (the same year he filed this lawsuit) and ended up playing in 13 games that 2017 season. All 6 of his professional years playing football were for the New York Jets, who are making headlines for some other (Zach Wilson) reason today. 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, and more.

Two days ago, New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, signed into immediate effect the “New York Collegiate Athletic Participation Compensation Act” (S.5891F)[1]. This legislation gives student-athletes in New York the ability to be compensated for the use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. This bill, introduced by Senators Parker, Bailey, and Jackson in late March 2021, was expected to be effective in January 2025. New York becomes the 32nd state to propose and enact a Collegiate Name, Image, and Likeness Bill since the NCAA started allowing amateur athletes to profit from their NIL in July of 2021. The New York bill is similar to other state NIL legislations, including provisions such as “no athletic association, conference, or other groups shall prevent student-athletes from earning compensation from the use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness,” and “an athletic association, conference, or other groups shall not prevent student-athletes from obtaining professional representation in relation to name, image, or likeness contracts or legal matters….” Provisions of the bill also restrict students from entering into contracts with brands that are similar to or compete with school partnerships or with brands that the school is already partnered with. Additionally, students cannot formulate deals that conflict with their responsibilities and time commitments as student-athletes. There are two provisions of note included in New York’s NIL bill. 1. Requiring any professional representation obtained by a student-athlete to be registered pursuant to article thirty-nine-E of the general business law[2] or to be a licensed attorney. And arguably, more importantly – 2. a provision requiring any student-athlete who enters into a NIL contract to disclose the contract to the designated college official IN ADVANCE of the contract being executed. Currently, only Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Illinois, and Michigan have provisions similar to this one. Other states require students to disclose their deals to their respective colleges but do not specify when the contract must be disclosed by. This provision in combination with the state’s requirements to provide financial literacy training will be a great preventative measure working to protect student-athletes from signing predatory contracts. As of August 2022, at least “450,000 student-athletes across the United States entered into NIL deals by partnering with businesses and promotions.”[3] That is 450,000 students who went from having no ability to profit from their NIL in 2021, to signing some sort of contract to be compensated for the use of their rights with little to no contractual or financial training. New York requiring student-athletes to disclose potential NIL contracts to a college compliance official prior to signing will help make sure the deals they are making are legit and follow both state and school regulations. However, it is also interesting to note that the New York bill does not say anything about contract duration extending beyond the student’s participation in an athletic program at a postsecondary educational institution. One of the initial concerns revolving around NIL rights was companies structuring their contracts so that if a college athlete becomes professional the company will receive cheap endorsement or might even take a cut of any subsequent contracts the athlete signs. It is so important that student-athletes and their guardians are educated on the dangers of signing some of these contracts and the full weight of what “legally binding” can mean. Thankfully, more and more schools are starting to provide NIL contract education and financial literacy training for their student-athletes. States like Texas and Florida require this training to be completed at the start of the athletes’ first and third years of eligibility. Prior to the NCAA’s “change of heart” in 2021, prohibiting students from receiving payment for competing and working for the school was often regarded as unfair and exploitative. Student-athletes take significant risks to benefit their colleges and were not allowed to be compensated for those risks beyond scholarships. Which was often below their cost of living and far below the revenue they produced for the school.[4] The passage of the New York bill will open the door for so many athletes who might not have had the ability or resources to make ends meet solely relying on scholarships to close that gap. Assemblymember Michaelle Solages said, “Today, we stand with student-athletes, former student-athletes, their families, and legislators in taking a giant step in the right direction for our student-athletes.” Holly A. Summers is a 2L at New York Law School and a Junior Staff Editor for the New York Law School Law Review. Sources: [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S5891?intent=support [2] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/gbs/article-39-e - Requires that athlete agents register with the State of New York. [3]https://en.as.com/ncaa/how-much-money-can-college-athletes-make-with-nil-marketing-endorsement-deals-n/ [4]https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislation-allow-collegiate-student-athletes-receive-compensation

As we approach kickoff of the first matches of the 2022 World Cup, an expected five billion viewers will watch as brand-new stadiums and the luxuries of Qatar built on the backs of forced labor are put on display. How should we, as global citizens and sports fans, handle the moral and ethical implications of consuming the World Cup this month? First, we must address the context and background of the 2022 Qatar World Cup. The concept of a Qatari World Cup has been tainted from the start. In 2010, FIFA announced its decision to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia and, surprisingly, the 2022 World Cup to Qatar. In 2011, Phaedra Almajid, a former media officer of Qatar, alleged that Qatari representatives bribed three football officials $1.5 million each to secure the country’s bid. An investigation by FIFA into their own conduct found no foul play and then-president Sepp Blatter emphasized that the bid decision was final and irreversible. In 2011, Qatar began construction on its World Cup stadiums. The government obtained laborers for this project under the Kafala system, mainly coming from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal. Kafala is a form of forced labor authorized in Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Put simply, the Kafala system binds a worker to a Kafeel, or sponsor, who has full control of their contract, wages, working conditions, and immigration status. Kafala has been widely criticized as “21st-century slavery,” and in 2014 Amnesty International exposed human rights violations occurring in Qatar such as “appalling living conditions,” delayed salaries, inability to leave the country, and threats to their lives if they try to leave. Following global criticism, Qatar implemented reform laws removing exit permit requirements, setting a non-discriminatory minimum wage, and removing requirements for employer permission to change jobs. However, while these laws provide optimism for the future, they were put in place after nine years of World Cup stadium construction had already taken place. Additionally, it is difficult from the outside to perceive the strength of the enforcement of the laws. For example, the Qatari government reports that of 15,000 deaths in the country by non-citizens, less than forty were related to work or working conditions, but independent investigative reports have found the number of work-related deaths to be approximately 6,500. Further, Qatar claims that there have been zero deaths in the construction of World Cup stadiums, but critics argue this number is illegitimate. Typical construction death rates over such a long period of time are approximately 1%. In Qatar’s published reports, 69 to 80% of deaths of migrant workers have been attributed to “natural causes,” and therefore under Qatari law, no autopsies were conducted to find the true causes of death. So, how should we react? It is important we acknowledge both the history of oppression and the modern steps being taken toward progress. Qatar’s successful World Cup bid directly resulted in an influx of migrant laborers under the Kafala system, thousands of whom lost their lives. However, the Kafala system was in place long before the World Cup bidding process began and continues to propel a modern-day slavery system in many Gulf countries. Because of the global spotlight put on an oft-overlooked country with a population of fewer than three million people, real legislative progress has been made. Criticism and subsequent change did not happen overnight and came only after a decade of oppression, trafficking, and wrongful death. But the reality is that today Qatar stands at the forefront of labor reform among Lebanon and the Gulf Cooperation Council. While the sacrifice of lives in Qatar cannot be quantified or justified as “worth it” because no lives should be lost to implement these changes, we can acknowledge the positive changes to Qatari society in which the World Cup has played a role. Further, we must keep in mind that Qatar’s progressive reform and leadership do not mean it is living up to a moral human rights standard. Even since these reforms, either because of ineffective enforcement or continued governmentally authorized oppression, many laborers in Qatar are still not being treated fairly or given fundamental freedoms. Instead of taking this momentum of progress to drive further change, FIFA has urged the competing nations to “focus on football” and depoliticize the tournament. This is the exact opposite of global social accountability, and further tarnishes FIFA’s already sullied reputation, adding to the long list of corruption and controversial errors shadowing the governing body. Fortunately, many countries are pushing back by announcing plans to wear armbands in support of anti-discrimination, create a worker’s compensation fund, and wear all-black uniforms to mourn migrant worker deaths in Qatar. In addition, Fox, the official broadcast partner of the World Cup in the U.S., has agreed to “avoid coverage of Qatar’s controversial treatment of migrant workers during World Cup broadcasts.” This disappointing decision, clearly tied to revenue and likely under pressure from FIFA, severely limits the free speech rights of announcers and commentators whose platform will reach millions of potentially uninformed viewers. To combat this stifling of information flow, it is critical that other media outlets and we as viewers make a point to keep this conversation alive. The power of the internet and social media can be leveraged toward driving further progress in the wake of dismantling the Kafala system and ultimately achieving a positive social impact out of a World Cup that has historically had disastrous effects on the lives of laborers. Therefore, this month, I hope we all choose to watch the World Cup in an engaged and passionate manner, not only as fans but also in advocacy of the social and human rights implications of the tournament. Matteson Landau is a JD Candidate (Class of 2024) at Pepperdine University Sources: https://frontofficesports.com/fifa-expects-5b-viewers-for-qatar-world-cup/ https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/16/whistleblower-phaedra-almajid-hits-back-fifa-confidentiality-complaint https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/thousands-migrant-workers-died-qatars-extreme-heat-world-cup-forced-reckoning https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/kafala-labor-system-reform-and-the-2022-world-cup/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/03/qatar-world-cup-of-shame/ https://uniglobalunion.org/news/qatars-new-labour-reform-key-to-dismantle-the-kafala-system/ https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/4782322/world-cup-worker-died-qatar-suffering-to-survive-e60 https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/4790519/fifa-on-qatar-world-cup-nations-told-to-stick-to-footballnot-politics https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/fox-avoid-world-cup-off-field-controversy-qatar-91475419

Currently, Braves Holdings, LLC is publicly traded under the broader umbrella of The Liberty Braves Group (NASDAQ: BATRA, BATRK). Liberty Media Corporation has announced a split-off of Braves Holdings, LLC (owner/operator of the Atlanta Braves) and the connected real estate development, The Battery Atlanta, from Liberty Media Corporation. The new company will be called Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. Unusual in baseball, publicly traded teams give us a peak into the massive profits professional franchises earn. The Braves release an earnings report each season. In 2021, the Braves enjoyed a $104 million profit. The Braves are not the only team that releases an earnings report. The Toronto Blue Jays release an earnings report since Rogers Communication, inc. (NASDAQ: RCI) owns the team. The earnings reports produced by the Braves and Blue Jays, which show millions in profit, contradict Commissioner Rob Manfred’s assertion that owning a franchise is less profitable than buying stocks. Since all other teams are privately owned, they do not release their earnings. Additionally, Major League Baseball passed a rule preventing new franchises from going public (Major League Baseball excluded the Braves and Blue Jays) since Major League Baseball rules require having a controlling owner with ultimate authority and responsibility for team decisions. Tax advantages are additional incentives for privately owned teams. As detailed by ProPublica, a provision in the tax code allows owners to deduct the sale price against their income during ensuing years since owners are purchasing assets that depreciate over time. Thus, even when franchises are profitable (and often are), owners can utilize the tax code to save on taxes. The Braves split-off must be approved by Major League Baseball. If it happens, the Braves will utilize the market boost in financing to invest in salaries, Truist Park, and the Battery, which is exciting for the team and fans alike since almost all other Major League Baseball franchises are privately-owned. 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.

This past Saturday at UFC 281 in Madison Square Garden, Israel Adesanya squared off against former kickboxing foe Alex Pereira. Adesanya was attempting to avenge two of his five losses during his illustrious 75-5 kickboxing career as well as his only knockout defeat. But how did these two former kickboxers find themselves rematching in a different sport at the most famous arena in the world? Both Adesanya and Pereira began their careers as kickboxers respectively from New Zealand and Brazil. The two fighters began tallying up wins and knockouts until they were finally matched to fight one another. The first fight between the two took place in China in 2016 where Pereira, somewhat shockingly was declared the winner by decision. In their second bout, which took place only one year later in Pereira’s home country of Brazil, Pereira became the first person to ever knockout Adesanya with his famous left hook. Pereira would finish his kickboxing career with a 33-7 record, winning Glory kickboxing championship belts across multiple weight divisions. This is where Pereira earned the nickname “Poatan” which translates to hands of stone. Following this knockout loss to Pereira, Adesanya decided to make a change in his career and attempt to fight in the UFC. UFC is different than kickboxing as it includes mixed martial arts and wrestling. The differences in fighting styles and lack of wrestling skills that Adesanya possessed from his kickboxing career left his future in fighting and in particular the UFC in question. Would Adesanya’s fight style of being an unorthodox elite striker work or allow him to flourish in the UFC? Well, it did, and “The Last Stylebender” (Adesanya’s nickname) went from making his UFC debut against Rob Wilkinson to fighting Kelvin Gastelum for the interim middleweight title in just 426 days. Less than 100 days later, Adesanya was triumphant as the undisputed UFC middleweight champion of the world. Prior to UFC 281, Adesanya held a ridiculous 23-1 record in the UFC with his only loss coming to Jan Blachowicz when Adesanya tried to move up a weight class and become the fourth UFC fighter to hold championship belts across multiple divisions. The only other four fighters to accomplish the feat of being a double champion were the famous Connor McGregor, Daniel Cormier, Amanda Nunez, and Henry Cejudo. However, lurking in the shadows was Pereira, the man who defeated Adesanya kickboxing not once but twice. Pereira decided like Adesanya to make the jump to the UFC and made his debut in November 2021. And like Adesanya, Pereira’s fighting style would be questioned as he was a kickboxer with elite striking abilities and not a grappler or a wrestler. However, just like his former foe Adesanya, his fighting style flourished in the UFC, and in just 371 days, he was given the chance to fight Adesanya once again, but this time for the UFC middleweight title. This past weekend, on November 12, at UFC 281 Pereira and Adesanya squared off in the main event of the evening in what was touted as one of the most anticipated fights of the year. As someone who was personally at this event, I can tell you this fight along with the rest of the fight card absolutely lived up to the hype. In fact, there were seven first-round finishes which tied a UFC record. UFC 281 was also the 2nd highest-grossing event in Madison Square Garden all-time, behind only another UFC event. Through the first four rounds, it seemed as if Pereira had almost no chance. In fact, the scorecard of all three judges had scored the contest 39-37 (in favor of Adesanya) and Adesanya’s live odds of winning the fight were -1300, meaning a bettor would have to risk $1,300 to win just $100. However, Pereira’s corner told him what he had to do in the fifth round to win the fight and the rest was history. Pereira started teeing off on Adesanya throwing a flurry of punches and kicks and in the final round of the fight, Pereira secured a TKO win with his signature left hook. The same left hook he used to previously knockout Adesanya back in 2017. And just like that Pereira became the new UFC middleweight champion of the world. Now, just days after losing the UFC middleweight title and the opportunity to avenge kickboxing losses against his biggest rival, Adesanya faces another troubling opponent: the law. On Wednesday, November 16, just four days after the most crushing loss of Adesanya’s career, he was arrested at JFK Airport for criminal possession of a weapon. Adesanya had brass knuckles while going through a TSA screening near the American Airlines terminal around 2 pm. It is unclear whether or not Adesanya was carrying the brass knuckles, or if they were stored in his carry-on bag, however, carrying brass knuckles is a class A misdemeanor according to the state of New York. Under New York Penal Law § 265.01(1), certain objects are automatically considered weapons regardless of whether or not you had the intent to use that object unlawfully against another person. Therefore, one could be arrested for being in possession of “metal knuckles” or brass knuckles. Supposedly, Adesanya threw away the brass knuckles and cooperated with the authorities. Adesanya’s manager responded to his arrest stating, “Israel was handed a gift by a fan, which he put in his luggage. He complied accordingly, the matter was dismissed, and he is on his way home.” However, there have been no statements made as to whether Adesanya was issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (“DAT”) which means he may have to return to New York for a criminal court case. Receiving a DAT is an alternative to forcing Adesanya to “go through the system” being processed and potentially spending some time in jail. Why does any of this matter? If Adesanya received a DAT, the first issue is that Israel Adesanya isn’t a United States citizen. He is only a citizen of his home country New Zealand. Secondly, Adesanya would likely have to hire an attorney to make an appearance for him in the state of New York because he returned to New Zealand. Finally, the judge could decide that either Adesanya needs to make an appearance, which is rare, or that Adesanya’s attorney may have to take a plea deal. Again, we are unsure if Adesanya did in fact receive a DAT because the only people who know about receiving one are Adesanya himself, likely his manager, and the police department. However, if he did receive one, which seems likely since he continued his travels home to New Zealand, we may see an attorney come forward and represent him sometime soon. Based on the reports and information available to the public, it looks like this was just a simple misunderstanding between Adesanya, his manager, and the law. However, according to the law, Adesanya didn’t need to have any intent (mens rea) to use the object, and therefore, Adesanya still violated the law. Adesanya will likely not serve anywhere near the maximum sentence of 1 year in jail or three years probation that results in committing a class A misdemeanor in New York, but Adesanya will likely have to pay some sort of fine. So, for those UFC fans, this will likely not cause a delay in a potential 4th fight between Adesanya and Pereira. Maxwell Popkin was born and raised in Boca Raton, Florida. He went to the University of Florida and graduated in 2016 with a Degree in Bachelor of Science in Business Administration-Management. He's currently a 2L at New York Law School and is involved in the Sports Law Society Club and had the pleasure of taking Dan Lust's Sports Law Class last semester. He can be reached on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/maxwell-popkin/.

This article was originally published on the https://ublawsportsforum.com/ Before the 2021/22 MLB regular season, both the owners and the union went through a lengthy collective bargaining negotiation. A key aspect of these negotiations was to encourage teams to promote their top prospects, or to ensure certain players secured a full year of service time, regardless of their actual games played. The goal of this was to eliminate service time manipulation by teams. Service time manipulation is when teams keep their top prospects in the minor leagues for more than 171 days to secure the team a guaranteed seventh year of control over that player. An encouraging sign that the incentive in the new CBA was positively impactful in some way is Orioles star catcher, Adley Rutschmann. Rutschmann finished runner-up in this year’s American League Rookie of the Year race. In prior seasons, this would be nothing but a disappointing second-place finish, but with the “prospect promotion incentive” Rutschmann earns a full year of service time for the 2022 season.[1] What this incentive spells out is that any prospect with less than 60 days of MLB service coming into this season who placed on at least two preseasons top Top 100 prospect lists at Baseball America, ESPN or MLB Pipeline now receives a full year of service time if they can finish the top two in Rookie of the Year voting.[2] This is beneficial for Rutschmann, and any future player that finds themselves in that position because it expedites his path to salary arbitration and free agency by a year. Although this clearly benefits players like Adley Rutschmann, Julio Rodriguez, Michael Harris II, and Spencer Strider, it is unclear whether the new prospect promotion policy is disincentivizing service time manipulation as a whole. One thing that is now clear to teams is that if they have confidence a prospect is a legitimate contender for Rookie of the Year, then there is no point for a team not to have that player on the big league roster on day one of the regular season. In turn, teams are incentivized to be more competitive from the start of the season. In some of the games, young and rising stars will get their turn at salary arbitration and free agency sooner than in years past and fans will get to see their favorite team’s best prospects much sooner. The “prospect promotion incentive” on its face is a positive implementation of the 2022 CBA and something that fans and players were desperately hoping for. At the outset, it seems as though it was successful in the year of its inception because of big-name players like the ones mentioned above accruing a full year of service time for their performances. However, it is hard to really determine if this new policy is protecting a majority of the game’s top prospects, or just the best of the best. In the coming years, this will be something noteworthy to follow to see if this could again be a talking point when the league and the union sit at the bargaining table in 2026. Michael Perlo is a law student at the University of Buffalo School of Law, Class of 2023. He can be found on Twitter @michael_perlo. Sources: [1]https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/11/adley-rutschman-earns-full-service-year-with-rookie-of-the-year-runner-up.html [2] Id.