In 2016, the UFC was sold for $4.025B but even before the lucrative sale, questions surrounding fighter pay had begun to permeate the mainstream. It’s fair to ask why some fighters are getting paid only $15,000 to show, while the company is generating such large revenue each event. And furthermore, why are fighters willing to fight for such a low number given the costs of putting on a legitimate fight camp, including paying coaches and a nutritionist, as well as the rest of the expenses involved in competing at the highest level? The answer lies partly in the amended complaint of the ongoing antitrust suit between a class of named plaintiffs led by former UFC fighters Cung Le, Jon Fitch, and Nate Quarry among others, and former owners of the UFC, Zuffa LLC. The complaint alleges that Zuffa “engaged in an illegal scheme to eliminate competition from would-be MMA promoters by systematically preventing them from gaining access to resources critical to successful MMA promotions…” The critical resource that Zuffa allegedly prevents access to is championship level fighters. That is to say, other promotions suffer because, among other things, the UFC has a stranglehold on the highest ranked fighters in each division. While there are a few fighters outside the UFC in the top 10 of each weight class globally, the UFC holds a vast majority of the highest ranked fighters under contract and champions in other promotions, In fact, according to rankingmma.com UFC fighters occupy 85% of the top 10 rankings across all weight divisions. Given the lack of highly ranked fighters, other promotions, try as they may, are hard-pressed to sell “world championship” fights when the competitors are not even ranked inside the top 10 globally. World championships are a true indicator of fighter popularity, as shown in the graphic below, depicting Google search prevalence over time for Michael Bisping, in blue, Robert Whittaker, in yellow, and Israel Adesanya, in red. Adesanya has become one of the biggest draws in the sport but each peak in search prevalence comes around the time that one of these fighters is engaged in a championship fight. The popularity garnered by winning a championship stays with the fighter while he holds the title which would explain why Adesanya, the current UFC Middleweight Champion is so highly searched right now. It goes without saying but the UFC is certainly aware that the highest ranked fighters make for the most popular fights and thus, the most money. What’s more, the biggest draws in MMA history have always been with the UFC. Beginning with the likes of Chuck Liddell and Tito Ortiz, to Georges St. Pierre, Brock Lesnar, Ronda Rousey, and now Conor McGregor and Israel Adesanya, the fighters with the biggest star power have always been under the UFC banner. It’s estimated that UFC 264, featuring McGregor vs. Poirier 3, sold 1.8M PPVs, which would make it one of the highest selling fights of all time. No other promotion can boast a star with drawing power even close to the aforementioned athletes which only further contributes to the UFC’s market dominance. All of this brings us to the ultimate question, why aren’t UFC fighters paid more? The average UFC fighter’s salary, of course that includes Conor McGregor’s as well as that of the least popular up and comer, is $166,000 per year. That number equals around 19% of total revenue generated by the UFC in a given year which pales in comparison to the revenue sharing arrangements that are collectively bargained for in other leagues. NFL players by comparison are set to earn at least 48.8% of revenue in the upcoming 17 game season, and NBA players make between 49%-51% of total revenue. Aside from the fact that UFC fighters do not have a union to collectively bargain on their behalf, the UFC uses the above mentioned vice grip on elite talent to essentially lure fighters into signing contracts that heavily favor the promotion in the hopes of eventually being able to reach the championship summit and capitalize on potential popularity in the future. The UFC has capitalized on this cycle by cornering the market of elite fighters and locking them into contracts that are more slightly more lucrative than their competition can afford, garnering what is referred to as monopsony power. Monopsony power essentially means that the UFC is, for all intents and purposes, the sole buyer in the elite fighter market. To illustrate that point, it is alleged in the ongoing lawsuit against them that the UFC has up to a 90% total share of the MMA market, which would equal an HHI of 8,100. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI, is a commonly accepted measurement of market concentration where anything in excess of 2,5000 is considered highly concentrated. A maximum HHI of 10,000 means the market is controlled by a single firm. The UFC’s alleged 90% share of the market affords them near sole control of the MMA market which, coupled with UFC President Dana White’s strong opposition to unionization, and the fighters willingness to fight for low pay in the hopes of joining the elite PPV draws, and the UFC is in prime position to continue dominating competitors and paying the fighters a meager percentage of the revenue they generate.

Jon Jones is easily one of the biggest stars in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). He has had an incredibly successful career and amassed a record 28-1, with his lone loss coming by disqualification. Although wildly successful inside the octagon, outside it, Jones is no stranger to controversy. He has been in legal trouble throughout his career, failed several pre-fight drug tests, and feuded with fighters and fans online. However, this time, Jones has taken aim at the UFC and its leader Dana White. It all started in May of 2020 when negotiations began for Jon's upcoming fight. After Jon watched Deontay Wilder lose a boxing match and still walk away with north of $20 million in prize money, he was rightfully pissed off. Jones then fired off a series of tweets, claiming that the UFC has been ripping fighters off for years. And while Jones said he does not need the UFC to make it up to him, his message was very clear: Jones will not be fighting unless he makes what he deserves. Jones was willing to back up those statements having sat out since February of 2020. Meanwhile, Jones had been teasing that he would go up to Heavyweight, a move that was justified by him having cleaned out the Light Heavyweight division. He gave up his Light Heavyweight (LHW) title, a belt he defended a record 11 times since earning it in 2011. With no significant challenge in LHW and a vacant belt, it seemed Jones was ready to move on. Moving on does not mean letting go. Since Jones' initial dust-up with the UFC, he still has not booked a fight. Dana White continually gets asked in press conferences why Jones has not been booked, and his response always sounds something like: take it or leave it. White consistently dismisses the money issue when asked about Jones and claims that the UFC puts on fights every weekend. They would welcome Jones back at any time. The kicker? He will have to fight for whatever prize the UFC offers. The trick for superstar fighters, like Jones, is they know the money is there. Jorge Masvidal, Conor McGregor, and Khabib Nurmagomedov make huge sums of money when they book a fight. But when you compare their pay to the UFC's revenue, even on a single event, the disparity is clear. Often, just the ticket sales alone (called "the gate") is enough to cover the entire card of fighter salaries and bonuses. This is significant because the UFC does not make most of its money on the gate. The UFC lives on pay-per-view buys. In the most recent event, UFC 264, Dana White estimated that they sold 1.8 million PPV at $70 each. Quick and dirty $126 million. I think we all understand why fighters like Jones are done taking $500,000.

On Saturday night, Conor McGregor suffered a gruesome leg injury during his fight with Dustin Poirier. Toward the end of the first round, McGregor tried to plant on his left foot when his ankle and lower leg gave out and turned a direction that a leg is not supposed to turn. McGregor underwent a three-hour surgery to insert a titanium rod and repair a fractured tibia and fibula. After the fight, Poirier said he thought McGregor injured the leg when he landed a kick, even pointing to the leg right after it happened. McGregor, however, dropped a bit of a bomb on Thursday, with the following quote from a video posted on his Instagram: “I was injured going into the fight. People are asking me, ‘when was the leg broke? At what point did the leg break?’ Ask Dana White. Ask the UFC. Ask Dr. Davidson, the head doctor of the UFC. They knew I had stress fractures in my leg going into that cage. It was debated about pulling the thing out.” Before each fight in Nevada, all fighters are required to fill out a medical questionnaire. This process is followed by other states, including Connecticut, who just two months ago suspended Bellator fighter Derek Anderson for six months because he failed to disclose a kidney issue prior to his fight. Assuming McGregor failed to disclose his injuries to the Nevada State Athletic Commission, a suspension should certainly be on the horizon. The bigger issue, of course, is that McGregor claims the UFC and its Chief Doctor Jeff Davidson were aware of the injuries before the fight. If the UFC and Davidson were complicit in failing to disclose those injuries and allowed McGregor to fight, not only could we see fines and penalties from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, but they may be exposed to unthinkable civil liability. As the Chief Physician of the UFC, Davidson owes a duty of care to his fighters. When he breaches that duty by ignoring known stress fractures before a fight, and when a major injury occurs just minutes into the fight, the duty-breach-causation-harm circle is complete. Moreover, if UFC President Dana White was aware and let the fight happen, both he and the UFC are exposed to liability. Importantly, MMA fighters do not have a collective bargaining agreement, which means McGregor would not have to exhaust any potential remedies under a CBA before filing a lawsuit. Given his star power and ability to draw eyeballs every time he fights, the amount of damages in such a case could be astronomical if the injury severely impacts McGregor’s career. After the Kevin Durant achilles’ injury, Dan Lust pointed out that a potential malpractice lawsuit against Warriors team doctors could top $1 billion given Durant’s earning ability. McGregor’s earning power, however, dwarfs that of Kevin Durant. He is not just well-paid, he is the highest paid athlete in the world, earning over $180 million in 2020 alone. The UFC and Dana White have a history of pressuring fighters to perform through injury. Nevertheless, they would very likely assert the defense that McGregor had knowledge of the injury going into the fight and assumed the risk by not canceling the bout. While a viable lawsuit would inflict serious damage to the UFC’s finances and alter its operations, the international behemoth is likely capable of absorbing that big of a legal haymaker. John Nucci is a 3L at Penn State Law and a Summer Associate at Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP in Rochester, NY. He can be contacted at [email protected].

With news that the College Football Playoff Board of Managers approved a study to see how feasible a 12-team playoff would be, the question arises: how will the new Name, Image, and Likeness laws affect the CFP? To start, let’s talk about the current CFP operation: there have only been four teams in the playoffs since the CFP started in 2014. Increasing the number of teams will likely increase viewership of the CFP, since many fans have been demanding an expansion to the original four-team practice. Twelve teams may not be the magic number that works, but an expansion is widely desired regardless. The ESPN and CFP contract currently averages $600 million every season. However, the suspected value of a 12-team playoff lies around approximately $1-2 billion per year. Now, NIL is coming into play. On July 1st, 11 states enacted NIL laws, joining Pennsylvania, who immediately granted NIL rights on June 30th. Oklahoma and Nebraska also enacted NIL laws, but where schools could give NIL rights immediately, but must do so before July 1st, 2023. Two more states, Arizona and Connecticut, are to enact NIL by the end of 2021. Since then, college athletes have already started announcing signed partnership agreements. Around the same time, the NCAA’s Board of Directors officially suspended the organization’s name, image, and likeness rules prohibiting athletes’ rights, and have created interim rules in its stead. State NIL laws vary, but the NCAA’s rules will now allow athletes to profit from their NIL in numerous ways, such as monetizing their social media accounts, signing partnership agreements, starting businesses, etc. Schools in NIL states are to follow their state’s law when dictating what their athletes are allowed to do. This comes into play especially with sports betting since states, like Texas (enacted NIL July 1st) still ban any type of gambling in the state. Schools in states without enacted NIL law are instructed to create policies on how their athletes will be affected by NIL. Since not all states have enacted NIL laws, we may see a large wave of transfers in the next coming years, as well as an even more competitive recruitment. Such a substantial number of transfers can drastically change a team’s dynamic, and the schools in NIL states, especially those with added NIL programs, will likely see better recruitment classes. An athlete whose school reaches the playoffs receives more airtime, and in turn, the bigger their brand and name becomes. Athletes can then receive higher earnings from their partnerships by playing in these playoff games. Athletes may also be more likely to stay in school longer in order to earn more money from partnerships. More teams in the playoffs would equal more players, and inevitably, more players with partnerships. Many of the schools who constantly dominate the CFP and repeatedly rank in the Top 25 are located in NIL states, like Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio. This makes them even more popular for incoming recruits and transfers. Will this create the uneven playing field that the NCAA was afraid of? Or really, does it just maintain the “norms” we see of the same teams competing for the championship every year? The expansion is meant to broaden the opportunities for more schools to feel the CFP spotlight, and with that, allow student-athletes to earn more from their name, image, and likeness rights. An expansion of the CFP is extremely likely with the amount of revenue that is almost guaranteed to follow. However, the expanded number of teams is still questionable. The CFP feasibility study is expected to be delivered near the end of summer, possibly at their September meeting. The expansion will likely bring substantially more revenue, but the question of how much NIL will affect the CFP is less clear.

The pandemic thrust COVID-19 protocols to the forefront of football’s player safety agenda in 2020. All levels of competition were forced to make seismic shifts in day-to-day operations. The conversation was clear: ‘Return to Play’ safely. Youth football presented an array of challenges—and arguably the most daunting among them are parents. Parents largely fuel the dialogue of player safety in youth football and have even begun taking legal action against youth football organizations. Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell argued their sons’ posthumously discovered degenerative brain disease was linked to trauma sustained in Pop Warner. The case’s dismissal was an attenuation for future youth concussion claims, given the literature on C.T.E. in football is still evolving. However, state legislatures across the country are scrambling to protect youth football associations from imploding in liability: mandating state governing bodies redefine their concussion protocols which have in the past been challenged. Although the contact sports exemption in Karas makes the assumption of risk a robust defense for athletic associations, it is not an absolute bulwark. Nor are the developing protocols entirely sufficient. And while the state of Illinois, namely, has taken significant strides in updating its concussion laws, it is apparent to us that Concussion Oversight Teams (COTs) as defined by SB1692 can be improved. The law specifies no legal duty on their behalf, and administrative malpractice in under-resourced school districts may leave plaintiff-players with little recourse when the standard of care is compromised. Illinois identifies potential members of COTs for each district. Interestingly, at a minimum, a COT may be “composed of only one person [that] need not be a licensed healthcare professional.” Medical screening should be a legal function of a breach of duty and a causal connection to a present injury. Medical monitoring, a greater imposition of liability, was an overshot in Pierscioneck v. Illinois High School Association because only a tenuous link existed between the tortious acts of the defendant-association and the damages sought. Though the duty of a COT likely does not rise to that of a medical practitioner, athletes and parents alike should be assured that return-to-play protocols are designed by qualified individuals. A lack of district resources should not exempt the development of these protocols from medically driven standards. Illinois concussion law seems to be underwhelming in comparison to its peers. Texas’ HB2038 sets forth a stringent set of guidelines: COTs must include a physician, and athletes suspected of suffering a concussion must be cleared by a “physician skilled in concussions.” Illinois, on the other hand, allows athletes suspected of having a concussion to be cleared for play by an “athletic trainer, APN, or PA.” School districts will continue to center their risk management strategies around concussion education, prevention, and identification. Concussion liability, if not properly thwarted, could reshape and even dismantle the way under-resourced school districts showcase football competition and talent. Courts, as in Pierscioneck, often find youth concussion claims to be “nonjusticiable.” But if youth athletic associations want to continue to field football, they must find ways to solidify the standard of care among COTs. States such as Texas give their COTs force by requiring a physician without exception, while Illinois gives a way out. In this sense, it seems as if COTs in Illinois might be a display for public opinion to meet a legal standard of “reasonable care.” While we consider the athletes to be disadvantaged as a result, under-resourced districts can also suffer legal ramifications without any state financing of COTs. Perhaps this allows athletes to compete in an unsafe environment, putting these districts at legal risk that they are unequipped to combat.

It’s only been approximately two weeks since NCAA Student Athletes (“Athlete”) have been permitted to monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) and although the “Wild, Wild West” has quickly turned into an overused cliché it has lived up to the hysteria that the majority of stakeholders believed it to be. The NIL era is only in its infancy and has already been bountiful in providing us with a bevy of legal issues to consider in sports including contracts, intellectual property, and state law violations. Big or small, a contract is a legally binding agreement whether established in writing or as a verbal agreement (emails or DMs count) promising to perform an act or service in return for consideration regardless of the form of compensation. From free merch in exchange for a tagged post to a Boost Mobile endorsement in Times Square, a deal is a deal and there have been a lots of them! We’ve seen the paid sponsorship posts on social media, as well as the appearances and camps but what most of us don’t see behind the scenes are the terms that are agreed upon which raises some fundamental questions. Do both parties, especially those unrepresented 17-21 year old Athletes, understand what they are agreeing to? Do they know what they are prohibited from doing? Do both parties comprehend the risk and liability if either party breaches the contract? Undeniably, my younger self was not reading the fine print on agreements nor would I have appreciated the gravity of what may result from a breach a contract. Nonetheless, we’ve seen a lot of paid partnership and sponsorship deals. A prevalent story that has landed on the front page of sports law raised the legal warning flag when hundreds (if not, thousands) of Athletes licensed their NIL rights in perpetuity to Yoke Gaming with a lot of slack on how, when, and what purpose or manner the company may use the media. Keep in mind, the Athletes are not allowed to “capture, record, use, publish, distribute, display, post or share any portion of the Video Game Experience.” For transparency, I have not read the full terms of agreement, but it’s apparent from the sports law community that the consideration exchanged for the Athletes’ intellectual property was … less than optimal. Granted we give technology companies our personal data every day to when we agree to terms that we don’t read but something about these particular NIL deals for the use of exploiting royalty-free media didn’t sit well with me. Another topic starter that has taken the NIL era by storm involves Barstool Athlete’s last-minute venture to join the NIL train and sign players in exchange for free merchandise. The moment Dave Portnoy, Founder of Barstool Sports, held his emergency conference, the alarms began to sound on whether the Barstool name is too closely associated to Penn National Gaming, a casino and gambling company, which happens to own a 36% stake in Barstool Sports. This became an issue because certain state laws that govern NIL prohibit Athletes from endorsing or entering into agreements with companies that are associated with gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and others. The answer to this law school hypothetical likely falls under the safe harbor umbrella of “it depends” which is fair considering there is still no permanent NCAA NIL guidance (shocker!), various state NIL laws in effect, and individual university or college NIL policies that all have their own guidelines. Despite the looming questions, the benefit of allowing Athletes to exercise their right to monetize their NIL is here to stay and it’s been long overdue. Considering everything that has unfolded, it’s safe to say that ambiguities and conflict are part of the growing pains that were expected and despite it only being two weeks, it’s difficult to picture a world without the NIL era.

The creation of the European Super League sent waves across the footballing world on April 18. It was supposed to bring more money to these elite clubs that were invited into the league, but also potentially change the landscape of European football. The European Super League was supposed to replace the UEFA Champions League for the clubs invited. To put it into context with American sports, imagine all of the blue-chip college basketball teams creating their own tournament in lieu of the NCAA Tournament. It would certainly bring them more money, but would also change March Madness as fans and media love it to be. 48 hours after the Super League was formed, nine of the twelve teams decided to abandon the Super League amidst backlash from the fans and the media. These nine clubs were ordered to pay a “gesture of goodwill” by UEFA to benefit children, youth and grassroots football. Along with that, these nine clubs also agreed to face a fine from UEFA of 100 million euros if they seek to play again in an unauthorized competition or 50 million euros if they breach any other commitments to UEFA. A Spanish judge has now voided the order of the goodwill payment and the potential fine for these nine clubs for playing in an unauthorized competition. These clubs were also facing fines from their respective leagues, in which the judge specifically ordered the leagues not to take action. The English Premier League and the Italian Football Association cannot impose any fines or penalties according to the judge. The three remaining clubs left in the Super League, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, were threatened by UEFA with fines and possible expulsion from European competitions like the Champions League or Europa League. These teams cannot be banned from UEFA sanctioned competitions as stated in the judge’s original order in April. The judge claimed that punishments handed down from UEFA or FIFA could violate free competition laws. This is a big crush to UEFA, who has done everything in their power to try to stop these teams from forming a Super League. The creation of the Super League is a threat to UEFA as it would make the Champions League a lot less valuable for TV deals, sponsors, endorsements, etc. UEFA enjoy hosting the premier club competition in Europe and the Super League would threaten that hierarchy. The creation of the Super League would take away the top clubs that help make the Champions League the best club competition in the world. This is certainly something UEFA cannot allow to happen as it would diminish the Champions League and with that means the loss of a lot of revenue. It is very possible that a few years down the line we see the Super League try to make a comeback. Just like the Champions League has expanded to involve more teams to boost revenue, top teams will look to find ways to boost their revenue. The Super League would do just that as it guarantees these top teams the ability to play in the best club competition in the world while not having to worry to qualify for it. The teams in the Super League would be guaranteed qualification unlike the Champions League, where you qualify depending on how well you do in your domestic league. With the Super League, most teams would be invited in regardless of where they finish in their league, which was one of the main concerns of fans and media. A team could get relegated to the second division, but still compete in the Super League. The fans and media have won the battle of the Super League…for now.

Outrage reigned supreme amongst American track and field enthusiasts, casual supporters, and agnostics when they heard the news of Sha’Carri Richardson’s suspension for a positive THC test. U.S. House Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin penned a letter to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) requesting an overturn of the ban. We don’t need a pandemic to say that we are living in unprecedented times. She ran with a flair and style that was reminiscent of a combination of Florence Griffith Joyner and Gail Devers, so why wouldn’t there be outrage? The outrage is of course compounded by the fact that marijuana laws have become so relaxed in so many different states, including the one she was competing in – Oregon – despite being against federal regulations. So, what’s the law here? USADA is a signatory to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and WADA mandates a minimum of a one-month suspension for a positive THC test, if USADA decided to ignore it, then the entire USA’s team could be banned from the Olympics and future international competitions. Let’s also consider that marijuana is still illegal as a recreational drug in more countries than it’s not, which may offend some sensibilities because Americans will have to cope with the notion that there is a very wide world outside of America, and that America makes up 4% of the world’s population. So, what’s the real issue? Firstly, in my opinion, marijuana should not be a banned substance; however, to say it’s not performance-enhancing is misleading. Marijuana severely decreases anxiety in a lot of persons and that can improve performance. Anxiety and other mental health issues have come forward as major health concerns in athletes thanks to Brandon Marshall, Marin Cilic, Kevin Love, Demar DeRozan, Naomi Osaka, and the list goes on. In track and field, anything remotely performance-enhancing has the opportunity to give you an edge, which is why we have seen athletes being banned for taking cough medicine or using a nebulizer because of an asthma attack before a race. It may seem ridiculous (it is), but to ensure that there’s a level playing field then there must be strict and unwavering enforcement. The last thing any of us should do is cry for Ms. Richardson, because she has gained way more notoriety, attention, and support for herself than she would have ever gotten if she had gone to the Olympics. Nike has stood by her, unlike back in the day when marijuana was viewed as untouchable for corporate America. She’s doing national television gigs, she was at the Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly (ESPY) Awards, she’s getting offers of 250k to be a spokesperson for a cannabis-based company, Dr. Dabber, and she’s still only 21 year old with a long and lucrative career ahead of her. Sha’Carri will be just fine, how she progresses as an athlete is entirely up to her, but she’s getting her money and a lot of it. I just hope for her sake that it doesn’t all go up in a cloud of smoke.

On July 20, Oakland City Council is set to meet and vote on the Howard Terminal Stadium. While Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval has made it clear for the franchise to stay in Oakland, he has also recently expressed that the A’s have their eyes set on two sites in the Henderson, Nevada area for possible relocation. This potential relocation could have big implications on not only the Oakland A’s, but on the MLB as a whole. Generally, under Major League Baseball Rules, any request to move a franchise must be voted upon by the other team owners. The current rules require an affirmative vote by three-fourths of the clubs in the league affected (i.e., American League) plus a majority vote in the other league (i.e., National League) to approve movement of a franchise. However, there are exceptions to his rule. The two exceptions are when: (1) three-fourths of the clubs in the unaffected league must consent when a club relocates to a city with a population less than 2.4 million in which the unaffected league has a club; (2) If a club relocates to an area near an existing team, that team has veto rights over the move. The Commissioner is also involved in this process and is empowered to investigate any charged or suspected act not in the best interests of baseball. This power has been interpreted to extend to issues pertaining to a proposed relocation that may affect the MLB. One big potential implication of this relocation is that it could increase their brand appeal to young fans who are heavily consumed in sports and entertainment options. As we all know, Las Vegas is the premier spot of legal sports betting. Over the past few years, the MLB has built business relationships with many fantasy sports providers, and now has partnerships with sports betting companies, such as FanDuel, MGM Resorts International, and DraftKings. MLB Network and other broadcast networks include odds in the television presentation and Bally’s Sports has the rights to regional baseball broadcasts in many of the biggest markets in the United States. With the presence of the NFL and NHL already in the city, the arrival of MLB to Las Vegas seems destined to take place. However, there may be a big headache coming MLB’s way in the form of a lawsuit if the A’s do relocate out of Oakland and into Henderson, Nevada. At least that is what recent history tells us. For example, the NFL is currently in a legal battle with the city of St. Louis over the relocation of the Rams. And it looks like barring a settlement that this will culminate with a full-blown trial as according to Randy Karraker of 101 ESPN in St. Louis, a St. Louis judge ruled that the city of St. Louis has the ability to investigate the net worth of the NFL, Commissioner Roger Goodell, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Giants owner John Mara, and ex-Panthers owner Jerry Richardson. The general complaint in the 2017 lawsuit was the Plaintiffs claim the NFL broke league protocol and the league’s relocation rules by permitting the Rams departure from St. Louis and misled the public about staying in St. Louis, which allegedly cost the city millions in ticket and earnings tax revenue. If the Oakland City Council’s vote does fail and the A’s do relocate to Henderson, Nevada, it is a big gamble that MLB would be taking.

After a frustrating first round of The Open last week, Bryson DeChambeau had some negative remarks towards his equipment, in particular his driver. In a post-round interview, DeChambeau said, “If I can hit it down the middle of the fairway, that’s great, but with the driver right now, the driver sucks. It’s not a good face for me, and we’re still trying to figure out how to make it good on the mis-hits.” He went on to say, “It’s literally the physics and the way that they build heads now. It’s not the right design, unfortunately, and we’ve been trying to fix it…” This understandably did not sit well with the people at Cobra Golf, who sponsor DeChambeau and manufacture his drivers. Ben Schomin, Cobra’s tour operations manager and a recent caddy for DeChambeau, told Golfweek, “Everybody is bending over backwards [for DeChambeau]. We’ve got multiple guys in R&D who are CAD-ing this and CAD-ing that, trying to get this and that into the pipeline faster. [DeChambeau] knows it. It’s just really, really painful when he says something that stupid. He has never really been happy, ever. Like, it’s very rare where he’s happy.” It’s not very often that professional athletes get into feuds with their sponsors, but when they do, the remarks made by the athlete could have significant ramifications including termination of the sponsorship. Almost every athlete endorsement agreement has legal language covering this exact type of scenario. Brands want to protect themselves from paying an athlete a good amount of money to endorse their brand and then have the athlete turn around and disparage the brand. Legally, a brand often includes language in the Termination section of an endorsement contract such as: “Brand may terminate or suspend this Agreement or withhold payment to Athlete in the event: (i) Athlete disparages Brand or its Products by Athlete’s words or conduct.” Some brands will even include a entire Non-Disparagement section in the endorsement contract that could read something like this: “Athlete hereby agrees that during the term of this Agreement and for ninety (90) days thereafter, Athlete will not make any statement or take any action that disparages, is derogatory, or is otherwise damaging to Brand and/or its subsidiaries. Violation of this provision is hereby deemed an incurable, material breach allowing for immediate termination of this Agreement.” Please note that these are not actual examples from DeChambeau’s agreement with Cobra, rather common language found in various athlete endorsement agreements. Although, it is very possible that Cobra includes similar language in their agreements with athletes. DeChambeau’s conduct almost certainly rises to the level of disparaging and derogatory towards Cobra. Although he did not expressly mention the Cobra brand in his rant, it was pretty apparent who he was talking about. Depending on the exact wording in his agreement with Cobra, it is cenceivable that DeChambeau’s actions rose to the amount of a breach of his endorsement agreement. DeChambeau later took to Instagram to apologize and walk back some of his comments. It remains to be seen if the relationship between DeChambeau and Cobra can be repaired. Of course, there are other factors involved when dealing with these situations but it is most likely the case that brands can suspend, withhold payments, and even terminate sponsorships over events like this one. Matt Haage is an attorney that has worked for four different sports agencies. He has reviewed hundreds of endorsement contracts for athletes in a wide variety of sports. Matt can be reached at [email protected].

There are few things that scare NHL fans more than not making the playoffs. There is the trade deadline, free agency, offseason trading and expansion drafts. All of these come with the possibility of a fan’s favorite player being traded to another organization. However, some trades are made with the player’s best interests in mind and can benefit the player in the long run. In recent weeks trade rumors have been surrounding the expansion draft for the NHL's 32nd team the Seattle Kraken but also the fate of Jack Eichel. Eichel is the current captain of the Buffalo Sabres and was drafted by the organization in 2016. He is the face of the Sabres and the organization’s highest-paid player. Eichel signed an 8 year / $80,000,000 contract with the Sabres. With five years left on his contract, Eichel may be looking to part with the Sabres after the handling of his neck injury. Eichel has not outright said he wants to be traded. However, teams like the Ducks, Flames, Wild, Golden Knights, Bruins, and Rangers are looking to acquire Eichel if he is traded On March 7, 2021, in a game against the New York Islanders, Eichel took a hit in the game that would ultimately end his season. Following the hit, Eichel was examined by team doctors and diagnosed with a herniated disc. While the injury ended his season, how to treat the injury is causing the most trouble. The Sabres organization is recommending a 12-week rehab, but Eichel is requesting surgery after seeking a second opinion. The surgery that he is requesting is a cervical disk replacement surgery, which has never been performed on an NHL player. Recovery time for this surgery is an average of 4 to 6 weeks. Eichel and general manager Kevyn Adams are at ends with each other despite trying to find common ground. However, a trade deal and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) may be on Eichel’s ticket to getting the surgery. The new CBA was approved in July of 2020 and is in effect until 2026. The CBA is a legal contract between the NHLPA and the NHL that sets out the terms and conditions of employment for all professional hockey players playing in the NHL, as well as the rights of the NHL Clubs, the NHL, and the NHLPA. Sections 32 to 50 lays out the Medical – Legal Issues of the agreement. Section 34 Second Medical Opinion List – Selection and Removal is applicable in Eichel’s situation. Attachment C of Section 34 says; “A Player may seek a second medical opinion regarding a diagnosis made by a team physician or a course of treatment (including the timing thereof) prescribed by a team physician ("Second Medical Opinion") from a list of medical specialists with outstanding reputations and experience in their area of expertise...”.[1] This allows Eichel to seek a second opinion after receiving a diagnosis or treatment from the Sabres’ medical team. Eichel was in his legal right to seek a second opinion after not agreeing with the team doctor’s recommendation for treatment. Potential teams looking to acquire Eichel may permit him to get the surgery that he wants. But it doesn’t seem likely that the Sabres will relent easily. The team is looking for young players and that could require teams to give up prospects and high-level draft picks to get Eichel. The complicated part of this is that the Sabres could limit teams’ access to Eichel’s medical records unless the trade is serious. If access to medical record is limited, teams may walk instead of going through the hassle. In the coming hours, days, and weeks, it will be interesting to see whether Eichel stays in Buffalo or is sent elsewhere. Either way, this will create fascinating NHL precedent moving forward. A trade could happen any second – stay tuned. [1]Collective Bargaining Agreement, The PA | NHLPA.com, www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba.

One issue that has not been greatly addressed with respect to student-athletes being able to monetize on their rights of publicity (i.e., name, image, and likeness – NIL) is how will universities and colleges monitor the use of their intellectual property (IP). Universities are very protective of their trademarks, copyrights, and any IP that is associated with the university. Time and time again, these institutions have asserted their rights against any number and type of organization or individual who attempts to use some aspect of a university’s IP, or something too similar, in a commercial manner. This could include logos, colors, names, mascots, likeness, or other that would be copyrighted or trademarked by the university or would readily associate with a university. For example, universities have gone after high schools for copying their logos or having too similar of a logo, have gone after apparel companies for using their trademarks and/or copyrights without permission, gone after breweries/distilleries for using a university’s likeness, and so on. With athletes now able to monetize their NIL, something to watch is how the athletes associate themselves with their universities, and how much leeway the universities will give the athletes. It is a given that at least some of the value of an athlete’s NIL is directly associated with his or her university. Fan bases, alumni, and even rivals know that athletes have short terms with a school, and thus, tend to root for or against a school as much as the athletes themselves. While it is true that some athletes may have greater popularity than the schools themselves, these are likely rare. Therefore, it will be beneficial to the athletes to be able to market themselves as an extension of the school itself, which may require use of colors, logos, names, or other IP of the school. The rulings of the Supreme Court and legislative acts to not allow for unmitigated use of a school’s IP for an athlete. Thus, it is likely that any attempt by an athlete to use an aspect of a school’s IP in a commercial manner will fun afoul of the university’s policies, and the university or other institution may need to make a determination whether to act against its own athlete and require them to stop use of the unlicensed IP, or to potentially take action and sue the athlete and any entity compensating the same as part of their use of their NIL. It will be a bit of a catch-22 for the universities – enforce their IP rights and risk athletes choosing to go elsewhere, or allow the unlicensed use of the IP, which could open the door to the weakening of the IP rights and inability to prevent others from using their IP. An easy solution will be education and working together between the universities and athletes. Bringing potential opportunities to the universities will allow them to evaluate the potential use of the university’s IP, and may even allow the university to license use to both the athlete and third-party working with the athlete, which can provide another revenue stream for universities. Take the following example, QB1 gets an opportunity to make money by selling t-shirts with their nickname. The t-shirts will include reference to QB1’s school in the use of the color schemes and helmets with logo. The school could license the use of the color/logo to QB1 and the apparel company, and all three could obtain a cut of any money made by sale of the shirts. Without the logo, the school would likely be able to stop any and all sales for violations of their trademark and/or copyright rights. While it is great that athletes are able to start making money on their rights of publicity, the universities will still be able to have at least some control on how they are presented. However it pans out, it is going to be a busy time to be in compliance and IP law associated with universities. UPDATE: On July 20, 2021, the University of North Carolina Tarheels announced a voluntary, Group Licensing Program for its current student athletes. The Program is intended to allow the athletes to “benefit from their NIL in conjunction with UNC's official trademarks and logos.” However, the athletes are not obligated to join this program, and are still able to negotiate their own licensing opportunities outside of the program.