While the Games of the 32nd Olympiad have been all the talk over the last couple of weeks, it seems that the International Olympic Committee is actually seeking to suppress that talk. This is at least true in the social media space. Since the beginning of the games on July 23rd, many users on various social media sites, especially Twitter, have attempted to discuss the games through various highlights posted by users. This was followed up by a quick “strike” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, deleted posts, and even some suspensions or bans. In short, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") is a law which was passed during the Clinton Administration (read: It’s very outdated in internet years). The main purpose of the Act, in the Copyright realm, is to shield those who host content on the internet by creating a scheme where if the content hosters put in measures to make sure they limit potential infringement on their site, they they will be shielded from being liable from Copyright infringement under a “safe harbor” doctrine. Under this oppressive striking regime, social media has seen popular users from twitch.tv and Twitter reportedly banned for watching, posting and/or commenting on highlights on their platforms . However, the counterbalance to any Copyright claim are claims of fair use. Fair use allows a potential infringer to claim that they were using the work for (among other things) criticism and comment. This creates a friction where the content hosts have a hair-pin trigger to delete, suspend, and ban users who are posting content without giving a proper basis to explain why they believe they are in the right. From a marketing standpoint, the over-policing of the DMCA is a perfect way to turn away potential new eyeballs from discussing your event. We currently live in the most digital age we ever have. Cable television has given away to streaming, and (for better or worse) articles have given away to twitter threads. The elimination of allowing small clips as a medium of displaying comment for the Olympics will eliminate the potential for people to watch an event they may not have tuned into because they saw something great on social media. From a legal standpoint, the DMCA needs review, as it has truly been primed for an update in the new age of twitter and live streaming.This applies beyond the realm of sports highlights. People are getting removed from platforms that have become their livelihood (especially on twitch) for instances which could be determined as fair use. The lack of review and jurisprudence on the DMCA can lead to a slippery slope where “Sports Twitter” has a potential to implode because of the consistent action against highlights. Obviously, the Olympics hold a lot of value in intellectual property, but there needs to be a balance struck where people can comment on, repost, and watch legally posted highlights without users sticking their necks out. It should be a gold medal for all of those involved, but the IOC and related parties are insistent on removing eyes from their events. Maxwell Tajerstein, Esq. is a NY practicing attorney. He is a graduate of St. John's University School of Law and holds a degree in Sports Management from St. John's University. The overlap Sports and Intellectual Property Law is the main focus for his writing.

A complicated legal fight in California civil court, involving Manny Pacquiao continues and now, the future Hall of Famer is counter-suing his brief, marketing partner, Paradigm Sports. First, Paradigm has escalated things by wanting a California judge to give them an injunction and stop Pacquiao's mega-fight scheduled for later this month in Las Vegas against Unified Welterweight champ, Errol Spence. But, the "Pac man's" legal team is firing back by saying Paradigm has been misrepresenting everything to the Filipino hero the whole way. Boxing insider Dan Rafael has written extensively about the legal "back and forth" for World Boxing News, From his latest item for them, "On Friday, Pacquiao filed a cross-complaint in the same court against Paradigm Sports in which he accused Paradigm of breach of conduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, among other allegations. “Manny Pacquiao’s cross-complaint filed (Friday) reveals in detail the complete sham nature of Paradigm’s complaint,” Pacquiao attorney Dale Kinsella said in a statement. “We look forward to exposing Paradigm’s conduct in front of a jury and recovering both general and punitive damages.” His item goes on to detail that Pacquiao believes he was lied to about the making of a fight with UFC star Conor McGregor, also repped by the Los Angeles-based Paradigm. And, that Paradigm also didn't live up to the lucrative endorsements they promised Pacquiao to sign with them. As we wrote previously, Paradigm says the gave Pacquiao a $3 million advance towards making his next fight and they want it back. That's now part of the dispute, as well. The agency filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in late June against Pacquiao in Orange County civil court, claiming breach of contract among other things. They further claimed in writing that they were able to negotiate a $25 million fight purse for Pacquiao for a bout with former Jr. Welterweight World champ Mikey Garcia that would have taken place May 15, 2021, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Paradigm further contends Pacquiao was to receive a $5 million purse advance for the proposed Garcia fight. That deal fell apart after Pacquiao attempted to make that $5 million advance a guarantee, even if he did not compete, per the complaint. “Pacquiao knew full well that Paradigm had exclusive rights to schedule his next two immediate fights,” Paradigm attorney Judd Burstein wrote in the complaint. “Nevertheless, in bad faith and material breach of the parties’ contracts, Pacquiao, upon information and belief, had surreptitiously entered into a contract to fight Spence.” Back to whether Paradigm has a legitimate chance at an injunction to stop Pacquiao-Spence? The short version is: that's highly unlikely. Pacquaio is attempting at 42 years old, to come off a two year layoff and beat one of the top lower weight fighters in the world. The bout is highly anticipated and is scheduled for the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas and on PPV. Still, Rafael reported that an assigned Orange County civil judge will hold a video conference hearing on Thursday to hear both sides. As for the wrangling on the money advanced to Pacquiao, that will take months and maybe years to figure out and settle. Originally posted on Big Fight Weekend.

As many of us know, many student athletes across the nation have been profiting from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) as of July 1, 2021. This overdue policy amendment has allowed hundreds of thousands of student athletes enrolled in a postsecondary educational institution – college or university – to monetize their NIL. For years, the focus of NIL rights was shining on NCAA athletes, and ignoring the conversation of affording the same intellectual property rights for high school athletes (HS Athletes). Some of the most fundamental arguments against NCAA’s previous NIL policy rested on the idea that every student (non-athlete) enrolled in school has the right to profit from their NIL. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, every student athlete should enjoy that benefit similar to their peers and not be stripped of their rights of publicity simply because they play a sport for their school. Reasonably, since college athletes are permitted to monetize their NIL rights, then the same proponed arguments should equally apply to the NIL restrictions that govern the student athletes at the high school level. Currently, the only state that expressly permits HS Athletes to monetize and profit from their NIL is California. Among the jurisdictions that have passed NIL legislation, the state legislature is either silent on the applicability of NIL rights to HS Athletes or it defers the issue to the bylaws or policies of the applicable high school athletic associations (HSAA). Conversely, there are a few states including Illinois, Mississippi, and Texas (arguably the largest state where HS Athletes could benefit from NIL) that go as far as explicitly prohibiting HS Athletes from entering into NIL agreements. Further, even if a HS Athlete is fortunate enough to live in a state that does not prohibit them from NIL activity, there is the red tape from HSAA that may prohibit or limit the types of activity that HS Athletes may engage in to remain eligible. Meanwhile, there are a number of state laws and HSAAs that are unclear or ambiguous on whether NIL activity is permitted. With over 5 million followers across social media platforms, North Carolina high school basketball athlete Mikey Williams is projected to earn millions of dollars through endorsement deals after have recently signed with a sports management agency. Williams has been able to skirt the restrictive grips of the NC HSAA because he attends a private institution and plays for a program at an academy that is not part of the HSAA and thus not prohibited from engaging in NIL opportunities. For the majority of the HS Athletes whose situation is not as fortunate as Williams’, they must comply by the HSAA or state laws such as Texas high school football athlete Quinn Ewers who is a five-star quarterback recruit committed to the Ohio State University. However, Ewers officially announced on August 2, 2021 that he will enroll into Ohio State early and forego his senior year in high school. Such a move allows Ewers to avoid Texas University Interscholastic Leagues’ NIL prohibition by graduating high school early allowing him to engage in NIL opportunities that could yield earnings upwards of seven-figures. Source: https://twitter.com/QuinnEwers/status/1422237898989088768/photo/1 In light of recent high-profile HS Athletes using alternative avenues to capitalize NIL opportunities, the HSAAs may be sharing the same hot seat that the NCAA once endured. Although the overall impact of NIL for high schools may not amount to the level of the NCAA, due to the difference in economic markets there will be regional and local areas in states where high school football is an integral part of communities (e.g. California, Florida, and Texas). With HS Athletes finding ways to work around the HSAAs NIL restrictions, the implications behind NIL limitations may force the highly recruited HS Athletes to make drastic decisions that may negatively impact the local small-business economy. Such decisions could resemble the Williams’ or Ewers’ route, whereas other HS Athletes may decide to move to a NIL-friendly state or avoid the bureaucracy of traditional education institutions and join an organization such as Overtime Elite. Unfortunately, it may be awhile before we start seeing any progress on the NIL front for HS Athletes considering the optics and public policy against young(er) teenagers being exposed to shady characters, legally binding contracts and vulnerability to unfair terms. Additionally, there are other complications with both legal and moral aspects that are tied to business deals involving brands and minors. However, it’s almost certain that there will be a tipping point where public policy that supports strict NIL governance for HS Athletes will be outweighed by the negative effects in level of competition, prestige and economic opportunity lost due to the same hill that the NCAA was once ready to die on. Sources: https://www.outkick.com/the-fight-for-nil-rights-reaches-a-new-class-high-schoolers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/07/31/uncertainty-remains-for-high-school-student-athletes-on-nil-rights/?sh=391ae84f4e00 Photo: CBS Sports You can find Alex Castro on Instagram @_castro_alex and Twitter @castro_alex__

Just when you thought this story couldn’t get any better… As I reported previously, the Cleveland Indians baseball team should have never underestimated a roller derby team. But they did, and now it’s bringing to light what is apparently a history of other leagues stealing roller derby names without any recognition or compensation whatsoever. The Cleveland Guardians roller derby squad is one of 65 members in a league called, the Men’s Roller Derby Association. Per reports, the Cleveland baseball team claims they knew the Guardians roller derby team was in existence and active. Yet, they chose to only complete their due diligence on the New York Guardians XFL team and Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy – seemingly ignoring the local Cleveland roller derby team with the exact same name, the Cleveland Guardians. And now, I think we may have found out exactly why this was not properly dealt with. When we broke the story, #DerbyTwitter fled our replies and DM's here over at Conduct Detrimental HQ. And now, with help from our new friends over at the Women’s Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA), the Conduct Detrimental team has learned that this is not the first time a professional sports team has outright copied a derby team name from the same geographical market... without paying them a single dime. Let’s start with a little background on the WFTDA to paint the full picture. The WFTDA is the international governing body of women’s flat track roller derby representing more than 450 member leagues on 6 continents. The WFTDA sets the international standards for rankings, rules, and competition each year, and provides guidance and resources to the sport of flat track derby. Yes, they are a pretty big deal. More specifically, two roller derby leagues in the WFTDA caught our attention: Angel City Derby and Gotham Roller Derby. Angel City Derby was founded in 2006 by a collective of skaters, and the league is composed of nearly 200 members that compete against teams from the state of California and internationally. Angel City was one of the first leagues in Southern California to become a member of the WFTDA, joining in December 2007. Meanwhile, Gotham Roller Derby is based in New York City, and is the first flat track roller derby league in the metropolitan New York area and a founding member league of the WFTDA. Gotham is one of the preeminent leagues in roller derby, having won five WFTDA championships. Well, why am I telling you all of this? Because there is a women’s soccer team with a familiar name that will be the Los Angeles area’s first women’s professional team since the Los Angeles Sol folded in 2010. You guessed it… Angel City FC is a planned National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) expansion team that is expected to begin play in 2022. According to the LA Times, nearly four dozen of the team’s 60-plus investors are women – including actress Natalie Portman and champion athletes Abby Wambach, Serena Williams, Lindsey Vonn, and Candace Parker – making it the largest female ownership group in U.S. sports history. For an incoming women-led team that has outwardly stated to Sports Illustrated that their mission is to “provide an opportunity to some of the best professional female athletes in the world to play on a stage as powerful as Los Angeles [and] send a strong message to young girls in the community and beyond,” you’d think they would be lifting up other dominant female sports teams. But it seems like the opposite could have been the case. In fact, the announcement of the Angel City franchise caused backlash on social media among women’s sports fans and particularly roller derby fans due to the long-standing existence of the championship winning Angel City Derby. On October 21, 2020, the club officially confirmed it was keeping the name Angel City FC. Despite the outrage that was brought to the soccer club’s attention, the derby team was not approached about the name whatsoever before the decision was made. In 2021, another NWSL team was rebranded to don a familiar name to the roller derby community: Gotham FC. Formerly known as Sky Blue FC, the club rebranded to NJ/NY Gotham FC and revealed a new crest and color scheme to go with it. On both occasions, not a single dime was given to these clubs for blatantly copying their names within the same market. Is this beginning to sound familiar? Looking at you, Cleveland Baseball Team... Executive Director of the WFTDA, Erica Vanstone expressed that “Angel City and Gotham are two of [the WFTDA’s] biggest teams. Gotham is the former number one team in the world. It’s hard to believe the NWSL didn’t know they existed.” Vanstone went on to say that following the unveiling of these two women’s soccer clubs, she “did not expect to learn about the lack of advance outreach to these teams, especially from a women’s franchise coming into the market in which there had already been teams of the same names for over a decade.” When Vanstone was asked about the derby community’s reaction, she felt that “it presented a good opportunity for Angel City FC or Gotham to work with these teams to co-promote. Partnerships are the best case scenario to uplift women’s sports in general. But to my knowledge, no one was given the chance to have these conversations in advance, which was just disappointing. In my mind, regardless of IP conversations, these were such missed opportunities to build fans and engage the community around a brand launch – that’s the valuation mistake here.” Is this past history of other professional sports teams taking names from roller derby just a coincidence? I think not. Despite the fact that women’s roller derby is more widely-played as a sport than its men’s counterpart, Vanstone opined that “this is the third time this has happened and some members of our community are pointing out that folks are only just caring about it now because [the Cleveland Guardians] are a men’s team, which is a valid frustration for women in sports.” Yet, the first two times this type of branding conversation happened it came from other women’s sports teams: Angel City FC and Gotham FC. Certainly, the baseball team spent a lot of money researching the name and identifying potential legal hurdles. Baseball claims they knew about the roller derby team. And you would have to imagine that as part of their research, they learned about the above-mentioned history of other leagues copying the names of roller derby teams in their market and not paying them a single time. Assuming they knew that, it is conceivable -- if not plausible -- that Cleveland Baseball assumed that the Roller Derby Cleveland Guardians would go away quietly... just like Angel City and Gotham. But that's not the case here as we've seen since the July 23rd announcement. So now we can ask the question: What's more likely did the baseball team not Google, "Cleveland Guardians," or did they intentional look past them and figured they would cut corners and save costs since there was seemingly no precedent for pay a roller derby team in recent history... which we now know from our friends in the roller derby world. The baseball team made a critical oversight here. There's no way around it. The question now is are they willing to pay a roller derby handsomely to clean up the mess... or is it time to change the name and start over. Stephanie is a recent graduate of New York Law School and a law clerk at Geragos & Geragos. You can find her on Twitter @SWeissenburger_ and Instagram @Steph_ExplainsItAll

In the late-night hours of July 13, 2021, Richard Sherman’s wife, Ashely Sherman, called the King County Sheriff’s Office out of concern for her husband. Eventually, Richard Sherman was arrested outside his in-laws’ home and was then booked at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle. Sherman faces multiple charges, with suspicion of domestic violence underlying the charges. The reason for the domestic violence component of his charges is because he is related to the occupants of the residence where he was arrested; however, it should be clarified that nobody at the residence was ever harmed, and Sherman never entered the residence. When Ashely Sherman spoke to the media after her husband’s arrest, she stated, “ . . . he didn’t harm anybody” and “[m]y kids were not harmed in the incident. He’s a good person and this is not his character. We’re doing all right, just trying to get him out. I want people to know no one was injured.” Sherman’s initial hearing took place on July 15. At that hearing, the judge released Sherman on his promise to return to court for subsequent proceedings. The judge stated, “I see Mr. Sherman is a pillar of this community. He is a business owner. He is a husband. He is a father.” This sort of statement from a judge is refreshing because it establishes a sense of humanity and dignity that was lost during the initial reporting on Sherman’s struggles off the field. The initial reporting painted Richard Sherman as a domestic violence perpetrator and a substance abuser that drove while intoxicated, but the reality is that the situation is a much deeper issue of a struggling man with mental health concerns that the media all but forgot about in preying on his downfall at the outset. The initial reports failed to emphasize that he didn’t harm anyone or that his family was genuinely concerned about his mental health – instead he was depicted as a criminal because he was no longer seen as the famous idolized athlete that society and the media want him to be. Before the background of Sherman’s struggles came to light, he was viewed as a criminal through reports and first-hand Ring video surveillance that had zero surrounding context of what Sherman was going through and continues to go through. Eventually there were reports that expressed sympathy and put his arrest into context; however, that occurred much too late in the game only after those who knew him spoke out. Richard Sherman is tremendous community member and family man, and for the media to disregard his struggles and his privacy in perpetuating the leaks of what should’ve been private videos was a difficult frenzy to observe. To me, this is a prime example of society willing to praise athletes when they’re winning super bowls and changing their communities but then letting those same athletes drown with cinder blocks as soon any personal struggle ensues. We routinely engage in a superficial idolization of athletes – rather we should be cognizant of their lives as real people with real problems and real struggles. On an end note, I want to make it clear that I’m not saying we shouldn’t hold domestic violence perpetrators responsible, but we should just keep mental health and privacy concerns in mind when we attempt to delve into the personal lives of athletes as we know nothing about their mental state or their private lives. We glorify athletes’ fame and accolades, yet we drag them through the scrutinous limelight when they have any slip up and prey upon their downfall in a way that demonstrates a lack of sympathy for someone who’s struggling. We can – and should – do better in how we discuss athletes’ private lives and their personal struggles.

The life of a New York Giants fan offers you the highest highs and the lowest lows. I still romanticize the joyous memory of David Tyree catching a football on his helmet in Super Bowl XLII, but I am still haunted by the Deshaun Jackson’s punt return to win the game aka Miracle at the Meadowlands II. August 3, 2021 will not have the same imprint, but after a giant brawl (pun intended) occurred at training camp, it is safe to say that will be added to the column of bad memories. Football is a collision sport, violence is part of the nature of the game, and unfortunately that violence goes beyond a six second play. So where is the line for athletes? When do their actions go from, “it is the name of the game,” to legal ramifications? While the law tends to embrace the abstract, we do have a few cases that can help guide you when the next brawl happens. The case of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals raised the issue of does a professional football player assume the risk of injury, thus denying him recovery of damages? The facts of this case are simple, Dale Hackbart, a member of the Denver Broncos, claimed he received injuries after an altercation from Charles Clark, a member of the Cincinnati Bengals.[1] The court ruled in favor of the Cincinnati Bengals raising the following point: even if Clark acted beyond the capacity of his professional duty, the high frequency of physical and emotional violence in the game was standard for the league. In laymen’s terms, you are playing a physical game, it comes with the territory. But for those of you that may be looking up the year of the case, you might proclaim, “Austin that was in the late 1970s, the league has changed!” Well, I am here to offer more examples to further draw the line. Let’s use an example from Nov. 2019, the Myles Garrett-Mason Rudolph fight. For this article, we will not discuss what was allegedly said and we will only use what was available to the naked eye. The odds of Garrett receiving criminal charges were low to begin with but using the legal definition of assault in the state of Ohio, the location of where the brawl occurred, the elements of assault must have the following: knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm on another person, with imminent apprehension. These elements are met. However, there is glaring absence in American jurisprudence of professional athletes being charged with assault-like crimes for incidents that occur during games. Prosecutors fear that charging individuals with these crimes would cause a complete disruption to the games itself. So where is the line? We will need to jump to a different sport, hockey to find an athlete being charged and convicted of assault. The incident I am referring to is Marty McSorley. Marty McSorley used his hockey stick that sent Vancouver Canuck, Donald Brashear, to the ice. Commissioner Gary Bettman stated, “clearly, this incident was not representative of NHL hockey or NHL players.” While it cannot be proven, McSorley was a regaled enforcer in the league, and since that ruling, the enforcer player, the “goon,” is slowly turning into the likes of the dodo bird, extinct. Like the many fears prosecutors had with the game of football, perhaps their worries came to fruition in the likes of hockey. Interestingly, this ruling occurred in Canada, so while there is similar jurisprudence to American law, it cannot be said that they are the same. Now, to answer the initial question, where is the line? Judging from rulings and how courts have interpreted the game, a brawl would need to go beyond fists and helmets, the crime itself would need to become so egregious that it went beyond the cold tundra, examples may be: a player, I do not know how this would happen, bringing a deadly weapon on to the field, or something to that extremity. If you are a professional athlete, my non-expert, non-legal advice is this, do not get into a serious brawl in Canada. Even with potential injuries, sports are the modern-day version of Roman gladiators, if you have the willingness and courage to step on to the professional field, to quote Public Enemy, “welcome to the terror dome.” [1] Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, 435 F. Supp. 352 (D. Colo. 1977).

NCAA sports have been on summer break, but that has not stopped collegiate athletics from making headlines. On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), unanimously striking down an NCAA restriction on the education-related benefits a college can offer student-athletes. Then, on July 1, numerous state laws and an NCAA rule change went into effect that allow college athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). While those developments have left their mark, what’s coming next may have an even bigger impact on the NCAA. Enter In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (a.k.a. In re NIL Litigation), a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The story of In re NIL Litigation begins on June 15, 2020 when Grant House, a swimmer from Arizona State, and Sedona Prince, a basketball player from the University of Oregon (who later went viral for other reasons), filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Power Five Conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC). About three weeks later on July 8, 2020, Tymir Oliver, a former defensive tackle for the University of Illinois with the same local attorney as House and Prince, filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the NCAA. House, Prince, and Oliver (the Plaintiffs) challenged the NCAA’s prohibition against student athletes receiving compensation for their NIL, arguing that the prohibition violates antitrust laws because it constitutes a conspiracy to fix the amount student athletes may be paid for licensing and selling their NIL at $0, and because it prevents student athletes from accessing the market for the licensing and/or sale of their NIL. On behalf of all current and former Division I student athletes who competed during the four years prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the NCAA’s restraint on NIL compensation. On behalf of athletes in the Social Media Damages Sub-Class,[1] the Plaintiffs sought social media earnings athletes would have received if not for the NCAA’s NIL restraints. And on behalf of athletes in the Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class,[2] the Plaintiffs sought the share of game telecast group licensing revenue athletes would have received absent the NCAA’s NIL restraints. Fast forward to today. On July 14, 2021, the District Court entered an order combining the House and Oliver lawsuits into In re NIL Litigation. On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint added a Lost Opportunities Damages Sub-Class[3] and a Former Players Damages Sub-Class,[4] and added players on FBS football teams at independent schools to the definition of the Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class. The Amended Complaint also cites the Alston decision, pointing out that the unanimous Supreme Court rejected the NCAA’s position that its amateurism restraints are not subject to traditional antitrust analyses. The NCAA had argued that NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 119 (1984) contemplated an antitrust exemption for the NCAA’s amateurism model. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument, instead finding that the NCAA is subject to rule of reason antitrust scrutiny because it exercises monopsony (i.e. a single buyer controls the demand for goods or services) power in the market for student-athlete services. Based on this finding, the Alston court rejected the existence of an amateurism exemption and found that the NCAA’s restraint on education benefits violated U.S. antitrust law. While Justice Neil Gorsuch made sure to state in his majority Alston opinion that it was only intended to apply to the contested restriction on education benefits, it is not difficult to see how the Supreme Court’s rejection of an amateurism exception to antitrust law could extend to the challenged NIL restraints in In re NIL Litigation. Further, Justice Kavanaugh was not so restrained in his concurring opinion, specifically addressing the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules and stating that they should each be subject to a rule of reason analysis without the benefit of an amateurism exemption. He even went so far as to acknowledge that the NCAA is “suppressing the pay of student athletes” by engaging in price-fixing of the athletes’ labor, suggesting that he believes it violates antitrust law to prevent athletes from being paid directly for their labor. The NCAA has 21 days to answer the Amended Complaint, a deadline that falls on August 16, 2021. This will be the first in-court opportunity the NCAA has to take a position on the Supreme Court’s Alston decision and how it affects their amateurism model. One can expect the NCAA to argue that the Alston decision is limited to the educational benefits restraint it specifically addressed, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the NCAA should pay damages for past NIL benefits class members would have received if not for the NIL restraints. But with the rejection of the antitrust exemption in Alston and Kavanaugh’s questioning of whether any price-fixing measure put in place by the NCAA survives antitrust scrutiny, it’s hard to see how the NCAA’s defense holds up. We could be looking at the complete restructuring of the NCAA amateurism model, and the young athletes of today are here for it. [1] The Social Media Damages Sub-Class is defined as all current and former student-athletes who compete on or competed on an NCAA Division I team in a one of the Power Five Conferences at any time between four years prior to filing the lawsuit and the date of judgment. [2] The Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class is defined as all former NCAA athletes who competed on a Division I athletic team at any time between four years prior to filing the lawsuit and the date of judgment. [3] The Lost Opportunities Damages Sub-Class is defined as all current Division I athletes in the second or later year of eligibility (or first year of eligibility after receiving a red shirt the prior year) who receive NIL compensation for all or any part of the period between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022. [4] The Former Player Damages Sub-Class is defined as all former NCAA athletes who competed on a Division I athletic team at any time between June 15, 2016 and the time of trial who would have receive NIL compensation if not for the NCAA’s restraints.

Coming off a division one-leading 14 win season with 179 strikeouts in 122 innings,[1] Vanderbilt pitcher Kumar Rocker finds himself without a contract after being drafted 10th overall by the New York Mets with a $6 million signing bonus. Though his stock fell as the draft neared, Rocker was still regarded as one of the top pitchers in college baseball, rivaled by fellow Commodore and 2nd overall pick, Jack Leiter. What went so wrong between draft day and the signing deadline that one of the top pitching prospects going into the draft was left without a chance at the majors until 2022? As with many top prospects, Rocker was selected for the pre-draft MRI program which would have made his medical information available for all thirty MLB teams. Skipping this program is not uncommon; in fact, Scott Boras - who represents Rocker, amongst other Major Leaguers and Major League hopefuls - advises his clients against participating in it. Following his selection, Rocker completed his physical examination with the Mets which led to concerns over the health of his arm.[2] Boras maintains that his client is healthy, but to no avail as the parties were unable to come to new terms prior to the signing deadline.[3] Though issues with physical examinations cannot always be predicted ahead of time, many have criticized the Mets for not anticipating this outcome, as Rocker’s velocity was noticeably down later in his junior season at Vanderbilt.[4] With that being said, selecting Rocker in the first place was not necessarily a bad move for the Mets, but how they handled the rest of the draft and their draft pool was. Described as “arcane” by one reporter, the draft pool warrants its own explanation so we can truly understand where the Mets went wrong. It’s your birthday, cheers to you! Your grandparents sent you an assortment of gift cards, each one with a different value. Let’s say you got a Dunkin’ gift card for $25, a Cava gift card for $15, and a Target gift card for $10. In all you have $50 to spend, but because they are gift cards and not cash, you can only spend them at their assigned business. Now say the Dunkin’ in your town closed down, so you can no longer spend your $25 gift card. You don’t lose any money, and the money on the gift card doesn’t go away, but you don’t get to use it elsewhere. You still have $50 in gift cards, but with the ability to spend only $25 of it. That’s essentially how draft pools work. The Mets had about $9 million in their draft pool, with each pick in the draft having a slotted value - in the 2021 Draft, the 10th overall pick had a slot of about $4.7 million. The Mets spent that $4.7 million “gift card” on Rocker when they drafted him 10th, but lost out on it when they decided not to sign him. While this money doesn’t necessarily come out of anyone’s pockets, it can’t be utilized elsewhere. So the Mets chose not to sign Rocker and lost out on using $4.7 million of their draft pool, but it doesn’t stop there. Rocker’s slot value can be thought of as a sunk cost, which refers to costs that have already been incurred and are unable to be recovered. As soon as the Mets drafted and decided not to sign Rocker, that $4.7 million signing bonus became a sunk cost. Where the Mets continued to make mistakes is offering Rocker a signing bonus $1.3 million overslot, for a total of $6 million. In order to do this, the Mets had to sign six of their remaining nine picks in the first half of the draft underslot.[5] Now, not only are they unable to use the $4.7 million gift card, they lost out on being able to spend the $1.3 million gift card as well. There is a way this could have been avoided: by taking out an “insurance policy” in the second half of the draft. Scouting sources from various teams have noted that it is “standard operating procedure” to draft a player in later rounds to redirect any overslot value should a situation like Rocker’s arise.[6] If the Mets took an insurance pick, Rocker’s $4.7 million slot would have still been a sunk cost, but the $1.3 million would have been available for redirect to that insurance pick. Unfortunately for the Mets, they had already agreed to terms with their 11th-20th round picks and were not able to divert Rocker’s overslot money to them. In the end, the Mets lost out on utilizing $6 million of their $9 million draft pool. While the Mets won’t get Rocker, they will get the 11th overall pick in the 2022 draft as a compensation pick for not signing the pitcher. Typically, in order to get a compensation pick, teams have to offer the unsigned player 40% of his slotted bonus. Sources have stated that the Mets never even put a contract on the table for Rocker to accept or reject, but Rocker’s decision to forgo the pre-draft MRI program means the Mets can still get the compensation pick without offering Rocker anything.[7] As for Rocker, he will be able to enter the 2022 MLB Draft but cannot sign to a Major League team in the meantime. Though he is eligible to do so, reports have stated that Rocker has ruled out returning to Vanderbilt for his senior season, leaving him with a few options: sign to an independent or international team, or continue to practice and host open workouts as the 2022 Draft nears.[8] This last option is an attractive one for former Commodores, as Vanderbilt has a locker room specifically for professional players - including David Price, Sonny Gray, and Mike Minor - returning to campus to workout. Rocker’s former teammate, Jack Leiter, plans to spend the fall working out at Vanderbilt while continuing his progress toward his degree as opposed to pitching in the minors or playing in the Arizona Fall League.[9] While the Mets’ mishandling of the 2021 Draft should serve as a lesson to the organization, it should also serve as a red flag to the MLBPA. Professor Mark Edelman notes that the next round of collective bargaining between the league and the players association should include creating less restrictive rules for first-year draft picks.[10] He suggests an updated draft system that would automatically create a contract between a player and the team who drafts him, or a supplemental draft should a team decide not to sign one of their picks.[11] In the end, the ones who suffer the most as a result of this blunder are, of course, Rocker, and baseball fans everywhere who will not have the opportunity to see him pitch in the majors for upwards of another year. Jake Mintz of The Ringer Podcast Network pointed out that the Mets are facing very few repercussions for botching this draft; sure, they lost the chance to use two-thirds of their draft pool, but they still came out of this with the 11th overall pick in the 2022 Draft, whereas Rocker is left “out in the wind.”[12] Let’s hope the MLBPA considers this in their next round of collective bargaining so they can protect future draft picks from ending up in “baseball purgatory.”[13] Rebekah Ansbro is a second year law student at George Mason University where she is the outreach & social media chair and events chair for the Mason Sport and Entertainment Law Association. You can connect with Rebekah about sport and entertainment law on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebekah-ansbro-21a24115a. [1] Statistics, D1 Baseball (2021). https://d1baseball.com/statistics/ [2] McDaniel, K., Passan, J., New York Mets don't sign first-round draft pick Kumar Rocker before deadline, ESPN (Aug 1, 2021). https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31934790/new-york-mets-plan-sign-top-pick-kumar-rocker-concerns-physical-exam-sources-say [3] Ibid. [4] Anderson, R., How the New York Mets botched their Kumar Rocker selection in the 2021 MLB Draft, CBS (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/how-the-new-york-mets-botched-their-kumar-rocker-selection-in-the-2021-mlb-draft/ [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] McDaniel, K., Passan, J., New York Mets don't sign first-round draft pick Kumar Rocker before deadline, ESPN (Aug 1, 2021). https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31934790/new-york-mets-plan-sign-top-pick-kumar-rocker-concerns-physical-exam-sources-say [8] Anderson, R., What’s next for Kumar rocker after Mets fail to sign former Vanderbilt star?, CBS (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/whats-next-for-kumar-rocker-after-mets-fail-to-sign-former-vanderbilt-star/ [9] Gerson, A., 'Forever thankful': Jack Leiter lauds Vanderbilt baseball after signing with Rangers, Tennessean (July 28, 2021). https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vanderbilt/2021/07/28/jack-leiter-vanderbilt-baseball-after-texas-rangers/5408387001/ [10] Edelman, M., Unsigned New York Mets Draft Pick Kumar Rocker Can Place Some Of Blame On MLB Players Association, Forbes (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/08/02/unsigned-mets-draft-pick-kumar-rocker-has-union-partially-to-blame/?sh=12b5aa8d2cb6 [11] Ibid. [12] Mintz, J., Who Actually Has a Shot at Winning the World Series?, The Ringer (Aug 3, 2021). https://www.theringer.com/2021/8/3/22608384/who-actually-has-a-shot-at-winning-the-world-series [13] Edelman, M., Unsigned New York Mets Draft Pick Kumar Rocker Can Place Some Of Blame On MLB Players Association, Forbes (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/08/02/unsigned-mets-draft-pick-kumar-rocker-has-union-partially-to-blame/?sh=12b5aa8d2cb6

On July 28, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver made a historic announcement: “With the 2nd pick in the 2021 NBA Draft, the Houston Rockets select, Jalen Green, from Merced, California and the NBA G-League Ignite.” That’s right. The 2nd pick in the 2021 NBA Draft surpassed college basketball to play in the NBA’s G-League, the NBA’s official minor league. Though Green was not a part of the pageantry of March Madness, nor did he receive national media attention playing for a major college program, Green did receive something many of his fellow draft picks could not: $500,000. Prior to Green’s announcement to play for the G-League Ignite, Jalen was ranked the 2nd best high school basketball player in the country and was seriously considering playing college basketball (Green said he would’ve gone to the University of Memphis if not for the G-League). But money talks, and $500,000 speaks volumes to a high school kid. Apparently, so does $300,000 and $250,000, which is what former UCLA commit Daishen Nix and former Michigan Wolverines commit Isaiah Todd made playing for the Ignite. Nix and Todd verbally committed to college programs before decommitting and choosing to turn pro. But G-League Ignite isn’t the only professional option for recruits. Other high school stars such as LaMelo Ball and R.J. Hampton skipped college and played professionally in New Zealand. Sports content brand Overtime created their own professional basketball league, Overtime Elite, and signed Jalen Lewis, the 12th ranked high schooler in the class of 2023, to a $1,000,000 contract. These pro options either were formed or became prominent options thanks to the NCAA not allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness. However, as the famous Florence and The Machine lyric goes, “The dog days are over. The dog days are gone.” On July 1, 2021, college athletes became eligible to benefit from their name, image, and likeness. As fellow Conduct Detrimental writer Jake Rubenstein wrote, this monumental change in the NCAA is already showing its affects on college football recruiting with phenom Quinn Ewers. Ewers chose to skip his senior season of high school to enroll in Ohio St. allowing him to capitalize on his growing brand. Like in college football and every other college sport, NIL’s effects on college basketball are in its infancy. Now that college athletes can benefit from their NIL, will more top tier basketball recruits choose college over professional routes? Are universities telling recruits, this is how much you would make from your NIL if you go here? Will NIL help smaller programs attract better players or make the allure of a blueblood irresistible? Only time will give definitive answers to those questions. But two high school basketball recruits decision will set a precedent future recruits may follow: Jalen Duren and Emoni Bates. Duren is the number 1 high school basketball player in the class of 2022 and a purebred stallion who perfectly fits the mold of the modern NBA big. After watching several videos of Duren, Adebayo is the perfect comp to Duren. At 6’10 with a 7’5 wingspan, Duren is mega athletic, can defend positions 1-5, protects the rim, finishes with ferocity, and has the touch to hit floaters and fade-away jump shots with consistency. The combination of Duren’s high floor and sky-high ceiling leaves NBA scouts and college programs salivating. He announced a couple days ago that he will make his decision on Friday, August 6. Memphis, Miami, Kentucky, the NBL, and the G-League make up his top 5 options at the next level. Bates was the number 2 recruit in the class of 2022 and decommitted from Michigan State. The initial buzz was that he was a lock to go pro. However, he just reclassified to the class of 2021 as I was writing this article on August 4 and narrowed his list to Memphis, Oregon, Michigan State, and the G-League. To put it simply, Bates’s player comparison is Kevin Durant. Need I say more? As of now, nobody knows where Duren or Bates will go. Will they follow the trend started by Jalen Green, LaMelo Ball, and many others and go pro? Or will they set a precedent for future elite high school basketball recruits in the NIL era and choose college? I have no idea. But… “Can’t you hear the horses? ‘Cause here they come.” Francis Carlota is a recent graduate of California Western School of Law in San Diego, CA, where he became the ABA Negotiation Competition National Champion and was the Vice-President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society. You can reach Francis on Twitter @SluggaSports or through email, [email protected].

We have all read the stories and seen the pictures. However, what is going on behind the scenes? Every potential criminal case begins the same way: The initial complaint. The initial complaint is where the alleged victim makes statement(s) to law enforcement regarding the potential criminal liability of another person. The exception being if the alleged victim is deceased. In over three years as prosecutor, I prosecuted violent crimes, drug crimes, white collar crimes, and sex crimes. I interviewed thousands of potential victims/witnesses. The goal of every one of those interviews was to get to one thing: The Truth. How does the Pasadena Police Department and (if necessary) the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office get to that? Facts. Remember this saying with any criminal case, facts win cases. However, the criminal case against Mr. Bauer has not filed yet and as such this case is still a civil matter with an independent criminal investigation. This article is the first in a series of articles that will be written case of Trevor Andrew Bauer develops. These articles will explain what happens before a case is filed (with the likely reasons why it was filed), preparing for a domestic violence trial (what goes into it, what challenges will the prosecution likely face), and finally the resolution of the case (whether it be a trial with a verdict, a plea, or a dismissal). Facts as we know them to be: According to reports, on or about April 21, 2021, Trevor Bauer was messaging with a woman from Instagram. That woman stated that she drove from her home in San Diego to Mr. Bauer’s home in Pasadena. They talked for a bit then engaged in sexual relations. Mr. Bauer asked if the woman had ever been choked before and she stated that she had. She stated that she had previously engaged in sexual relations where the other individual applied light pressure to her neck. However, the woman stated that Mr. Bauer put his fingers down her throat in an aggressive manner and she asked him to stop. Mr. Bauer stopped for a moment. He then allegedly wrapped the alleged victim’s hair around her neck and caused her to lose consciousness. The woman allegedly woke up to find Mr. Bauer having anal sex with her. She used the bathroom after the encounter where she realized she was bleeding from her anus and was barely able to walk. However, it is her contention that she did not believe Mr. Bauer to be a threat to her. She stated in her official statement for her restraining order that she never wanted anal sex nor did she ever consent to it. Mr. Bauer allegedly texted, “You feeling a little sore this morning?” in a joking manner. Mr. Bauer and the woman continued to communicate via text and Instagram for the next several weeks. The communications allegedly were about baseball, the woman’s new job, and they also communicated in a sexual nature. On or about May 15, 2021,Mr. Bauer allegedly invited the woman over to his house again and this time they agreed to use a “safe word”. For those who are unaware, a “safe word” is an agreed upon word by a couple engaging in sexual relations where both parties agreed to cease the activity if the other utters the safe word. As stated by the woman, about five minutes into sexual relations, Mr. Bauer began to choke her again and she lost consciousness as well as her ability to speak. When she awoke, Mr. Bauer was allegedly punching her in the head. Mr. Bauer allegedly then flipped the woman onto her stomach and again choked her with her own hair which again caused her to lose consciousness. The day after the second incident, the woman claimed to have sought treatment for her injuries from the Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego on May 16, 2021. As a result of the second incident, the woman reportedly had two black eyes, a bloodied swollen lip, significant bruising and scratching to one side of her face. The woman was allegedly diagnosed with an acute head injury and assault by manual strangulation. Mr. Bauer reportedly attempted to contact the woman on numerous occasions and finally spoke to the woman on the phone with police present. This call is what is called a “controlled call”. A “controlled call” is a call where law enforcement has the victim call the alleged offender and get them to make admissions. That is because, those statements by the Defendant are not hearsay and thus admissible in Court. Additionally, those statements could be testified to by multiple law enforcement officers to corroborate what the victim likely stated in her testimony. The reason is that law enforcement is almost always listening to the exchanges between the two parties and may record the call depending on the wiretapping statute for that particular state. In that call, the woman alleged asked Mr. Bauer, “What did you do to me when I was unconscious?” Mr. Bauer reportedly admitted to punching the woman in the buttocks and when the woman tried to explain to Mr. Bauer that she did not consent to that, he attempted to change the conversation. The Athletic first reported details from the restraining order. Where is the case currently at? The woman currently has been granted a temporary restraining order or “TRO”. However, the woman and Mr. Bauer will reportedly have a court hearing on the woman’s motion for a permanent restraining order that is set to begin on August 16, 2021. The expectation is that the hearing while last until August 19, 2021. These restraining order hearings are mini-trials. The woman will take the stand and explain to the judge why the Judge should grant her restraining order. Under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), a Court may issue a restraining order to prevent domestic violence or abuse if the party seeking the order “shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. “Abuse includes intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, harassing, making annoying telephone calls to, or disturbing the peace of the other party.” Thus, the Judge would have to find that the woman showed, to the satisfaction of the Court, that Mr. Bauer previously abused this woman. In these hearings, the Petitioner’s attorneys (the woman’s attorneys) have the power to call Mr. Bauer to the stand to testify. Mr. Bauer, if called to testify, has two options. One is that he must answer the Plaintiff’s attorney(s) questions truthfully. The second option is that he could invoke his right against self-incrimination and choose not to answer any question that may incriminate himself. Mr. Bauer might have the urge to try to tell his side of the story. However, it is likely that his attorneys will advise him to respond to every question with a, “On the advice of counsel, I am invoking my right against self-incrimination”. Under the United States Constitution, Mr. Bauer never has to be a witness against himself. His attorneys’ advice might be something similar to this, “This hearing isn’t the whole ballgame. You aren’t ever going to see this woman socially again. If we lose this hearing, it is not the end of the world. This hearing is a long way from a conviction for anything. Invoke your right against self-incrimination. Sure, the decision of the Court will eventually become public and the transcript will eventually find its way to a reporter who will write that you invoked your constitutional right against self-incrimination. Some people might assume you are guilty because you invoked. However, it is your best course of action. I advise you to invoke because this hearing is being recorded. Either the audio is being recorded or a court-reporter is taking down every word you say. Either way, if criminal investigation yields charges for sexual assault and the case ends up going to trial, I can promise you that you don’t want your own words being used against in an aggravated sexual battery trial.” That being said, his attorneys could get aggressive with this matter. That is because they are aware that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office will be monitoring this hearing exceptionally closely. This hearing essentially allows the case (as it is currently developed) to be heard by a judge. Law enforcement and potentially the woman’s doctor might testify on her behalf. The hearing will also be likely be the first time that the woman faces questioning from Mr. Bauer’s attorneys. How she presents as a witness and how she holds up on the stand matters. In the next part, I will discuss the biggest question that law enforcement and the prosecution will have and that is why she went to his house a second time after her life-threatening first encounter with Mr. Bauer. Matthew F. Tympanick is an Associate Attorney at Wicker Smith in Sarasota, Florida. He is a graduate of University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. You can follow him on Twitter @Tympanick20.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional level of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! In this monthly series, we will highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: ● a sports-centric curriculum; ● sports law certifications; ● unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; ● and sports law journals. The focus of this month’s Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Marquette University Law School Known nationally for their stellar basketball program, Marquette is a true Blue Blood of the sports law world. Directed by Professors Matt Mitten and Paul M. Anderson, MU Sports Law has pumped out a list of compliance directors and sports attorneys longer than a Milwaukee bar tab on Thirsty Thursdays. Among them are Mike Sneathern and Greg Heller, CLO for the Milwaukee Bucks and Atlanta Braves, respectively; as of 2021, Mr. Sneathern has more NBA Championship rings than James Harden. Law is a naturally adversarial profession, and law school generally prepares you for that. However, MU Sports Law gets your competitive juices flowing in the specific arena of sports arbitration. The Basketball Negotiation, Baseball Arbitration, Game Day Case Competition, Sports Law Negotiation, and Sports Law Moot Court teams allow MU Law students to compete nationally in a sports law setting. Iron sharpens iron, and when you’re arguing against the brightest future sports lawyers at other schools, you get a chance to hone your sports negotiation abilities against your peers. Caution: while it can get heated, leave the pushing and shoving on the court, not in court. (Photo Credit: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) Affiliated with the neighboring National Sports Law Institute (NSLI), Marquette Law students have the opportunity to earn a certificate from the NSLI upon graduation after meeting a list of requirements. These requirements include completing both the Amateur/Professional Sports Law course offerings and a sports law workshop diving into one of many topics ranging from NCAA compliance and governance to representing professional athletes and coaches. In Fall of their 2L year, students participate in a writing competition to join the Marquette Sports Law Review, one of the premier sports law journals in the country and the nation’s first law review focused solely on sports scholarship. As many firms will tell you, a staff position on a law review is a major resumé booster in the legal job market. Another major resumé booster is an internship, and at Marquette Law, supply outstrips demand. In Spring 2021 alone, sports law students interned with the athletic departments at Marquette, Eastern Michigan University, Fordham University, Northern Illinois University, Northwestern University, Notre Dame College, Temple University, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the UW school system, the University of Wyoming, and Weber State University. Perhaps you don’t wish to work in a particular athletic department and want to oversee the broader national collegiate athletics landscape; Marquette Law students annually secure internships with the NCAA’s headquarters in Indianapolis. If collegiate athletics don’t excite you, perhaps this will: Marquette Law has longstanding sports law internship programs with both the Milwaukee Bucks and Brewers, along with alumni connections in Major League Baseball’s New York offices. Students also secured internships with US Speedskating, as well as various sports agencies and firms. In short, Marquette produces internships in every corner of the sports law community. So there you have it: Marquette University Sports Law is a bona fide Blue Blood in sports law circles. The program commands respect from professionals in the field and provides countless experiences to ensure the next generation of sports lawyers are brighter than the last. If you’re an undergrad interested in a legal career in sports, join hundreds of successful sports professionals and consider MU Law.

Country clubs have a longstanding reputation for being incredibly exclusionary - which is accurate, as many were created to keep certain groups of people out or to only include another group. As it stands in 2021, there are reportedly still several country clubs across the globe that do not allow women or those of a specific religious group to join. Because country clubs are private businesses, they are typically allowed to make the rules as to who is allowed in, and who is not, even if it is a violation of federal or state anti-discrimination laws. As a result of a womens’ rights movement, Augusta National Golf Club, home of the famed Masters Tournament, began to allow women members to join in 2012, with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice leading the way as one of only three female members of the club. According to reports, male-only country clubs often change who they allow as members because they are holding major championships and want to keep the professional organizations happy. Up until a few months ago, Pine Valley Country Club, located in Pine Valley, New Jersey, was reportedly one of the clubs that did not allow female golfers to join the club. It appears the Club did not decide to change their one hundred year plus status as “male only” to include women out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, they were seemingly forced to do so because the golf course was the focus of a discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit actually arose out of a housing discrimination claim -- the town of Pine Valley allowed only male members of the club to purchase homes in the town. Since women could not become members of the Club -- women were only allowed to play golf on Sunday afternoons as it was -- they could not become homeowners and so the course found itself in a legal battle. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination explicitly states that one cannot deny the sale or rental of housing based on any protected characteristic, including gender. The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights has apparently had their eye on the 23 homes in Pine Valley for years, which culminated on April 30, 2021. The club president wrote that at the Annual Meeting of the Members, they decided to change the bylaws, remove gender specific language, and “move toward inclusion,” which really means: we are moving away from costly lawsuits, so, we will allow women to grace our premises now. Pine Valley has now accepted the memberships of Annika Sorenstam, one of the best female golfers of all time, as well as two decorated golf amateurs. As someone who was denied the ability to play Pine Valley because of her gender, I am particularly happy to see actual change occurring within the golf world, though there is certainly much more that can be done. It is still frustrating that it took 108 years and a massive lawsuit for the club to change but there is hope for the future of womens’ golf. Sources: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://golf.com/news/pine-valley-first-female-members-announced/#:~:text=When%20Pine%20Valley%20Golf%20Club,by%20club%20president%20Jim%20Davis. Photo Source: https://www.nj.com/news/2021/06/elite-nj-golf-club-that-finally-opened-to-women-was-focus-of-discrimination-investigation.html