Every four years, the world comes together to watch the best athletes compete for a shot at glory. Not only is the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee ("USOPC") the organization to send Team USA to the Olympic Games, but the USOPC also monitors the use of their intellectual property rights. The USOPC, in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Court of Colorado on July 19, alleges that YouTube star Logan Paul and his beverage company, Prime Hydration, have infringed on the USOPC’s trademarks and symbols associated with the 2024 Olympic Games with their recent promotion with Team USA/NBA superstar Kevin Durant.   The USOPC has held trademarks relating to the Olympic Games for over a century. Some phrases that they have trademarked include, among others, Olympic, Olympian, Team USA, and Go for the Gold. The complaint alleges that Prime Hydration has allegedly repeatedly used these “Olympic-related terminology and trademarks” with phrases on the bottles that include “Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink!” and “Celebrate Greatness with the Kevin Durant Prime Drink”. [1]     The complaint further states that every Olympic Games, the USOPC engages in a “robust licensing program” in which sponsors and other partners are allowed to use trademarks owned by the USOPC. Currently, Coca-Cola is the only beverage company with an exclusive license to use the USOPC’s trademarks. The complaint elaborates that “because consumers have been exposed to sponsored uses in so many industries, they are likely to believe that any use of Olympic trademarks to promote the sale of goods are under license.”   On July 10, the USOPC wrote a cease-and-desist letter and contacted the beverage company to stop using their trademarks. The USOPC alleges that Prime Hydration's use of the Olympic mark has been “willful, deliberate, and in bad faith, with malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with the USOPC’s marks.” Prime Hydration continued to show the infringing bottle until July 19.   Trademark law in the United States is governed by the Lanham Act. The goal of trademark law is to protect consumers and to ensure that they are not misled or confused as to the source of goods. To determine trademark infringement, the court will look to whether there is a likelihood of confusion among a reasonably prudent purchaser of the products at issue. Some of the factors that courts weigh when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists include the following: [2] The strength of the Plaintiff’s mark Relatedness of the goods and services Similarity of the marks Evidence of actual confusion Marketing channels used Likely degree of purchaser care Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark Likelihood of expansion of the product lines   As the USOPC vigorously protects its intellectual property to prevent any unauthorized exploitation that could potentially dilute the value of its marks or cause consumer confusion, it appears to have a strong case for infringement. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages, and the damage request includes receiving all the profits made from the infringing beverage and compensation for the harm caused by violating the USOPC’s sponsorship agreements.   As we continue to enjoy the excitement and unity of the Olympic Games, this case underscores the importance of protecting the integrity of the USOPC’s trademarks. The Olympic Games are so widely recognizable, and the Games do not only embody athletic excellence but also the symbols associated with them. Proper adherence to trademark laws ensures that the integrity of the Games is preserved and that all related branding is used with the necessary permissions, safeguarding the Olympic spirit for years to come. Shelby Stevens is a rising 3L at Gonzaga University School of Law. She is also the Northwest regional representative of the Conduct Detrimental Law Student Board. She can be found on LinkedIn at Shelby Stevens . Sources: [1]   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/22/logan-paul-prime-energy-drink-olympic-lawsuit/74502244007/ . [2]   Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc. , 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983) .

In June, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Seminole Tribe’s agreement granting the exclusive right to sports betting within the state of Florida under their Hub-and-Spoke model, part of the compact agreement between the Tribe and the state. The only true online sports betting application or site that is legal within the state is the Seminole’s Hard Rock Bet.   The Hub-and-Spoke model means that online bets placed by individuals across the state of Florida, not physically made on tribal lands, are still considered to be made within reservation territory because the servers receiving the bets are on Seminole land. Physical casinos within Florida sued in federal district court to find that the Hub-and-Spoke model violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). While the district court found that this model violated the IGRA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, on appeal, came to the opposite conclusion, finding that this model did not violate the IGRA. And as a result of the Supreme Court’s inaction, the D.C. Circuit's decision on this issue became final.   With the Supreme Court’s decision not to decide the matter, Florida bettors can place online sports bets anywhere within the geographical bounds of the state. This is massive news for the Seminole Tribe, as there is much greater potential capital than the alternative where bettors would have to be physically on tribal lands to place such a bet. By 2030, the prediction is that the monopoly could generate $4.4 billion for the Seminole Tribe.   Daniel Wallach, a Florida sports betting legal expert who filed an amicus brief asking for Supreme Court review, looked toward the future potential for other Native American groups around the country to try to replicate what transpired in Florida for their own benefit. Wallach states, “Tribes in other states stand to benefit from this decision because now they have a clear roadmap that has cleared judicial review.”   This blueprint compact agreement is only one of the reasons for a rise in tribal groups expanding into the sports betting market, according to Kathryn Rand from the University of North Dakota Institute for the Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy. Rand indicates that COVID-related casino closures and an increasingly diverse market of competitors in online sports betting have alerted tribal leadership across the country to the lucrative expansion possibility. With tribal lands often in rural areas of states, she finds that models like the Hub-and-Spoke can “ope[n] up a market previously unavailable to tribal casinos” with activity from consumers across the state.   Kansas is a favorite to be the next state to adopt an approach like that seen in Florida. Due to a compact between the state and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, sports betting is legal within Kansas. Nick Covek and Zack Flagel, Associates in the Sports and Entertainment Group at Foley & Lardner LLP, explain that Kansas and other states, such as Wisconsin, Washington, and North Dakota, “may be inclined to amend their tribal compacts and state laws to embrace the Hub-and-Spoke model. Doing so would expand the geographic scope of sports betting from just tribal lands to the entire state geographic boundary.”   Brendan McLaughlin, rising 2L at St. John’s University School of Law. He can be found on LinkedIn at Brendan McLaughlin . Sources: https://apnews.com/article/florida-sports-gambling-seminole-tribe-b5d18262d8d25e38fde260fc013a9f33 https://www.forbes.com/betting/legal/is-online-sports-betting-legal-in-florida/#:~:text=Sports%20betting%20is%20legal%20in,betting%20began%20in%20December%202023 .   https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/05/28/oped-28-covek-flagel https://www.vixio.com/insights/gc-tribal-casinos-find-more-pros-cons-sports-betting

Justice Kavanugh’s concurrence in Alston v. NCAA arguably summarizes the rationale in creating the NIL market: “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.” 594 U.S. 69, 112 (2021). Kavanaugh’s strong language represents prevailing sentiments toward the NCAA’s decades-long commercial appropriation. Facially, it echoes the boiling frustration of thousands of athletes whose NILs the NCAA appropriated since the Board of Regents decision. See Board of Regents v. NCAA, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). A recondite sentiment reaps from irritated sports-law scholars, including 21st century Supreme Court Justices, who acknowledge that the NCAA’s arrogant and passive attitude toward the serious allegations in the landmark O’Bannon and Alston decisions that ultimately created the current NIL Wild West and subsequent flood of litigation currently drowning the NCAA. See O’Bannon v. NCAA , 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015). An examination of the NIL Trilogy – Board of Regents, O’Bannon, and Alston – shows how the NCAA’s reliance upon favorable dicta potentially played a significant role in ushering in this chaotic era of collegiate sports.   The courts’ decisions in the NIL Trilogy are based upon the Rule of Reason. Once plaintiffs established antitrust standing – proving they suffered the type of injury antitrust laws are intended to prevent and such injury flows from unlawful NCAA conduct – courts moved to the first prong of Rule of Reason analysis, examining whether the plaintiffs identified the rules’ anticompetitive effects. Then, the NCAA was charged with identifying a procompetitive purpose for its challenged rules. Regardless of whether the NCAA truly met its burden, the courts continued to the third Rule of Reason prong, which required plaintiffs to identify substantially less restrictive alternative means of achieving the challenged rule’s procompetitive purpose. Courts found the plaintiffs met satisfied this high standard in O’Bannon and Alston.   Initially, the NCAA enjoyed essentially antitrust exemption, based almost solely on language in Board of Regents . The issue centered on the NCAA’s rules for televising college football games. See Board of Regents , 104 S. Ct. at 2955-2957. These rules would ordinarily be per se unlawful: rules setting a minimum price TV networks must pay NCAA member schools constitutes a price fixing agreement, and rules artificially capping the number of televised game licenses for sale constitutes an output-restricting agreement. Id., at 2962. After analyzing the facts under the Rule of Reason, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s finding that the NCAA’s conduct violated the Sherman Act because its actions constituted an unlawful horizontal restraint of trade. Id. at 2959. However, because college sports could not exist without certain horizontal agreements (such as standardizing the size of the field, the number of players on the team, and the extent that physical violence was encouraged or prohibited), NCAA rules should not be held per se unlawful even when they appear to be pure “restraints on the ability of member institutions to compete in terms of price and output.” Id. at 2960-61. Thus, the challenged rules were not per se unlawful because the NCAA fostered competition in other sports – just not for televised football. Id. , at 2961. Notably, NIL implications are found in the Court’s concluding remarks, which emphasized the NCAA’s “critical role” in maintaining a “revered tradition of amateurism in college sports” by using its ample latitude to preserve the student-athlete’s role in higher education, adding richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and thus, is “entirely consistent with the Sherman Act.” Id. , at 2970.   Twenty years later, the Court’s concluding remarks in Board of Regents served as one of the NCAA’s cornerstone arguments against subjection to antitrust law. See O’Bannon , 802 F.3d at 1061. The plaintiffs – a class of all former and current D1 men’s basketball and football student athletes whose NILs were potentially included in EA NCAA video games – alleged that the NCAA's amateurism rules, insofar as they prevented compensation for use of the athletes’ NILs, illegally restrained trade under the Sherman Act. Id. at 1055. The NCAA argued Board of Regents’ s holding makes its amateurism rules presumptively valid – thus, any antitrust challenge fails as a matter of law. Id. , at 1061. However, the Nineth Circuit interpreted Board of Regents to mean that challenged NCAA rules must be examined under the Rule of Reason, and the Court’s encomium to amateurism was dicta. Id. , at 1063. Thus, the NCAA is not above antitrust law, and courts must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act's rules. Id. at 1079. Despite the Nineth Circuit’s rejection of the NCAA’s Board of Regents argument in O’Bannon , the hauntingly familiar antitrust-exemption assertion reared its head once again in the 2021 Alston decision. There, a class of current and former D1 FBS football and men’s and women’s D1 basketball players alleged the NCAA’s rules restricted the compensation they may receive in exchange for their athletic services, thereby violating § 1 of the Sherman Act. See Alston , 141 S. Ct. at 2151. SCOTUS quickly reminded the NCAA that its dicta did not suggest that courts must reject all challenges to the NCAA’s compensation rules. Id. at 2157. Further, the existence of antitrust violations depends on careful analysis of market realities, which significantly evolved since 1984. Id. , at 2158. The NCAA dramatically increased the amounts and kinds of benefits schools may provide to student athletes, such as increasing the size of permissible benefits incidental to athletics participation. Id. The Court directly addressed Board of Regents ’s key issue by noting the one-billion-dollar difference between what CBS paid for broadcasting March Madness in 1984 ($16 million) versus what it paid in 2016 ($1.1 billion). Id. Thus, given the sensitivity of antitrust analysis to market realities – and the drastic changes in this market since Board of Regents – SCOTUS thought it particularly unwise to treat an aside in Board of Regents as more than that. Id. at 2158.   In rejecting the Board of Regents argument, SCOTUS touched upon a potential explanation as to why the NCAA twice relied upon a sinking ship. One is stare decisis – a favorable SCOTUS decision would render the Nineth Circuit’s admonishment of the Board of Regents argument mute. The explanation addressed in Alston , however, mentions SCOTUS precedent at the heart of many failed attempts for an antitrust exemption: Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs – a 1922 SCOTUS decision regarded as an unrealistic, inconsistent aberration. 259 U.S. 200 (1922); see Alston , 141 S. Ct. at 2159. Like the NCAA, the National League never disputed it operated as a monopoly. It argued that an activity does not turn interstate "merely because people came from another State to do it," and supported its contention by noting Congress did not regulate baseball players’ interstate movement. Fed. Baseball, 42 S. Ct. at 206. Noting this was a case of first impression, SCOTUS found that baseball exhibitions did not implicate the Sherman Act because they did not involve interstate trade or commerce – even though teams regularly crossed state lines (as they do today) to make money and enhance their commercial success. See id. at 465; Alston , 141 S. Ct. at 2159. This extreme judicial deference has since proved elusive for every other league. See Radovich v. National Football League , 77 S. Ct. 390 (1957) (holding that the NFL was not exempt from antitrust law); United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc. 75 S. Ct. 259 (holding that boxing was not exempt from antitrust law). I theorize the NCAA continued to push the Board of Regents argument in hopes that SCOTUS would succumb to its precedent as it arguably did in the wake of Fed. Baseball , despite a litany of precedent holding the contrary. See Toolson v. New York Yankees , 346 U.S. 356 (1953) (determining Congress’s failure to pass legislation subjecting baseball to antitrust law created the exemption, despite no evidence of Congress’s authority to do so); Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972) (determining stare decisis and Congress’s failure to reverse the antitrust exemption required the Court to uphold the reserve clause).   It is worth noting that the Baseball Trilogy touches upon a possible route for the NCAA to obtain its elusive antitrust exemption. This May, Congressmen Russell Fry (R-S.C.) and Barry Moore (R-Ala.) introduced a bill proposing a national liability shield protecting schools, student athletes, and conferences as they navigate the NIL Wild West. Arguably, without such a shield, anyone and everyone whose NIL the NCAA commercially appropriated may seek compensation. Jesse Taylor – a former University of Alabama at Birmingham drum major– requested a copy of EA’s NCAA 25 via X with a photo of his own NIL in NCAA 07. While damming the flood of litigation O’Bannon and Alston produced may determine the NCAA’s chance of survival, American jurisprudence places the NCAA in the same category as thousands of other miffed defendants subjected to what they purport constitutes inequitable judicial decision-making. In short, the NCAA is not above the law.    Keeton Cross is a third-year law student at Cumberland School of Law. She can be found on X @keeton_cross and on LinkedIn (Keeton Cross).

The United States Olympic and Paralympics Committee (USOPC) is suing Logan Paul and KSI’s energy drink company, Prime Hydration, accusing them of trademark infringement. According to the federal lawsuit filed in the District of Colorado, the allegation stems from Prime Hydration unlawfully using trademarked phrases such as, OLYMPIC,” “OLYMPIAN,” “TEAM USA,” and “GOING FOR GOLD” on its product packaging and advertisements. Prime Hydration had a collaboration with NBA star Kevin Durant where they printed “Team USA Kevin Durant Drink,” “Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink,” “Olympic Prime Drink,” “Olympic achievements,” and “Durant’s Olympic Legacy.” The USOPC takes trademark infringement very seriously. The committee is responsible for supporting Team USA athletes, meaning athletes are helped financially until they make it to the Olympic or Paralympic Games. The USOPC licenses their trademarks to certain brands, so that they can make money for their athletes. The money from the brands is relied upon heavily to fund Team USA athletes because it does not receive much financial assistance from the federal government. If the USOPC does not protect their trademarks, then brands will feel they do not have to go through the rigorous approval process to be a licensed partner. Thus, without the sponsors, the USOPC will lose lots of money. The USOPC allows official partners and licensees to use USOPC trademarks in recognition of their support for the athletes. These brands must meet strict guidelines. According to the guidelines once approved a brand can use USOPC’s marks for all non-commercial purposes such as;   1.     Business cards 2.     Advertising 3.     Website 4.     Signage for events, clubs, and other preapproved locations When a brand uses a mark the brand must; 1.     Clearly establish that the brand is the official governing body associate with the USOPC 2.     Show the brand is the official partner of the USOPC 3.     Communicate that the brand is a pipeline for future Olympians and Paralympians Unfortunately, Prime Hydration is not an official Olympic and Paralympic sponsor, supplier, or licensee. This means that Prime Hydration should not be allowed to use any of the USOPC’s trademarks. According to the lawsuit, the USOPC feels that the unlicensed use of these trademarks might mislead the public and enable a seller to profit from associating its brand with the Olympics despite no official connection. Prime Hydration has smartly removed the product and advertisement relating to this promotion. Here is the perfect example that no matter how popular the brand is, if they are not a licensing partner then the company cannot use the marks in any way. Recently, all major sports leagues have taken trademark infringement on their licensing marks very seriously because of the money at stake. For example, according to the Broadcast Law Blog, the NFL receives hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing the use of the “Super Bowl” trademark and logo. Even if the brand is small or someone takes out a small ad in their local newspaper, they could still be sued for trademark infringement. The NFL once sent a cease-and-desist letter to a church because they used the term “Super Bowl” to describe a viewing party where they charged people $3 to view. It might seem ridiculous, but leagues cannot afford to lose their brand deals and in essence lose huge amounts of money. Therefore, trademark protection is vital and every company should be aware of the risk of trademark infringement. USPOC guidelines: https://www.usopc.org/commercial-and-brand-usage-guidelines Chris D'Avanzo can be found on Twitter @_chrisdavanzo.

When you think of all the great NFL quarterbacks who have donned the number eight, two of the first names that come to mind are three-time Super Bowl champion Troy Aikman and two-time MVP Lamar Jackson. While the two QBs dominated in different ways, Aikman being a precise pocket passer and Jackson being a dynamic dual-threat, the two are linked by the number on their jerseys. Obviously, Aikman and Jackson never competed against each other on the gridiron. However, a battle appears to be brewing between the two off the field. According to federal records that were reviewed by ESPN’s Michael Rothstein, Jackson recently filed a complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging Aikman’s use of the number eight. Jackson has filed two appeals against a company by the name of FL101, which lists Aikman as one of the directors.    The appeals claim Jackson "has expended considerable time, effort, and expense in promoting, advertising, and popularizing the number eight in connection with his personality and fame" and "is well-known by this number due to his notoriety and fame, along with his promotion of this number in his trademarks and in media coverage."    Jackson filed a complaint on July 9 seeking to prevent Aikman from using “EIGHT” on apparel and bags, arguing that it is “likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake, or to deceive” consumers as to whether they are buying products in support of Jackson or Aikman. Jackson has applied for several trademarks with phrases related to his jersey number, including “Era 8” and “You 8 yet?” Jackson’s attorney says those trademarks were registered before Aikman’s filings related to “EIGHT.” The two-time MVP and Heisman trophy winner’s legal team believes the products being sold by Aikman are “highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression” to Jackson’s branding   A company affiliated with Aikman has applied for a total of nine trademark applications for the use of “EIGHT” on a variety of consumer products. Aikman has a beer brand, EIGHT Elite Light Lager, that was honored as the No. 1 new independent beer brand in 2022 and he has been very active in promoting it in recent years.   It might seem odd that a number can be trademarked. No one, of course, can in effect “own” a number. But trademark law permits registration when a number distinguishes a particular product or service. For example, Nike has trademarked the number “23” for hats, T-shirts, sweatshirts, shirts and other clothing in recognition of its relationship to Michael Jordan.    It is not uncommon for athletes to cast a wide net when applying for trademarks, and Jackson has been no exception to that throughout his career. One of the better follows on social media when it comes to intellectual property issues in sports is Josh Gerben, the founder of Gerben IP. In a recent post on X , he detailed that he figures that “the likely outcome is that Jackson and Aikman will find a way to coexist in the marketplace.” Aikman’s company has until Aug. 18 to respond to Jackson’s complaint. Interestingly, the Ravens are scheduled to play on ESPN’s Monday Night Football with Aikman on the call October 21 and November 25 this upcoming season. It’s likely this issue will be put to bed long before then, but it will be fascinating to see if Aikman works in a humorous jab to Jackson during the broadcasts. He already made light of the situation in a recent post on X. Brendan Bell is a rising 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law and is the Southwest Regional Rep on Conduct Detrimental's Law School Student Board. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

This summer’s Premier League transfer window has been relatively quiet, in part due to the CONMEBOL Copa America and UEFA’s European Championship tournaments. [1] While many of the world’s best players were away on international duty, several swap deals quietly became one of the bigger stories of the summer. [2] While American sports fans have grown familiar with the idea of a team trading one player to secure the rights to another, this practice is far less common in the world of soccer. [3] However, due to the Premier League’s changing financial squad-building regulations, the player swap may become a more common occurrence for teams looking to fit their squad under the League's Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). The Premier League (as well as UEFA for its European club competitions) have implemented their own “salary cap” regulations for some time now. [4] However, The Premier League agreed upon a “sanctions policy” in August 2023 after fines failed to elicit any significant change in economic restraint. [5] Following the League’s enforcement of the PSR penalties to deduct points in the season standings from Everton and Nottingham Forest, clubs scrambled to comply before the League’s financial year ended June 30th. [6] The League’s PSR are not salary cap rules per se. Unlike American leagues in which salary caps literally limit a team’s player salary expenditures, the PSR and Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations limit a club’s financial losses. The League defines “PSR Calculation” as “the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” for the preceding three years. [7] Earnings Before Tax are a club’s profits or losses after depreciation and interest, [8] whereas “Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” refers to a club’s earnings less costs of: (a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation of the costs of Players’ registrations); (b) Women’s Football Expenditure; (c) Youth Development Expenditure; (d) Community Development Expenditure; (e) in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs. [9] While the League’s rules are not explicitly designed to limit player acquisition expenses, those costs represent a massive part of a team’s total expenditures when looking at the entire club as a business. [10] The rules were created partly to prevent clubs from reckless spending and getting into financial trouble, such as Leeds in the late 90s (their conduct spawned the phrase “Doing a Leeds” which refers to financial mismanagement), [11] but the rules have also had ancillary competitive balancing objectives. Under Premier League Rule E.52, clubs that lose more than £15m under the three-year PSR calculation are subject to heightened financial reporting standards. [12] But Rule E.53 is the main driver of the changes to team spending we see now. Notwithstanding adjustments for playing in lower-tier leagues during the three-year PSR window, clubs with losses of in excess of £105m are subject to discipline including the dreaded points deductions. [13] One of the fastest ways for a club to raise money quickly is through transfer fees from selling players. While the benefits of traditional sales may be limited because buyers will prey on a selling club’s need to comply with the spending rules, swap deals might allow for a bit more leeway. When a player is transferred out of a club for a fee, the fee is registered as profit instantly, but when acquiring a player, the expense from the fee is amortized over the contract's life up to five years. [14] Players developed through a team’s academy as seen as “pure profit” because no transfer fees were paid to acquire them. Therefore, swapping academy players in separate deals closely linked can quickly generate short-term profits on the books for both teams. The short-term benefits are not permanent solutions because if the swapped players are later sold at a loss, that is still a loss on the books. But, for a team in need of a quick compliance fix, they can be quite useful. Teams can ensure they are not subject to punishment now and can worry about generating more revenue in the future.  If the regulations were originally created to promote healthy financial positions amongst the League’s members, this sort of salary capology, while legal may not be within the spirit of the regulations. One way the league has sought to combat potentially inflated fees is through its power to make “Fair Market Value Assessments” which examine whether the valuations assigned were within an acceptable range of those expected by clubs negotiating at arm's length. [15] The League is reportedly transitioning towards a new framework influenced by creative accounting measures, the failed Super League initiative, and state-backed ownership groups. The proposed framework comprises two primary components: a squad cost control ratio and an upper spending cap linked to broadcasting revenue. The squad cost control ratio will limit club spending on wages, amortized transfer fees, and agent fees to 85% of revenue (70% for clubs in UEFA competitions) within any given season. [16] Additionally, an upper hard cap will be introduced, restricting spending on wages, transfers, and agent fees to a multiple of the broadcasting revenue earned by the lowest-ranked Premier League club. For example, last season, Southampton earned £103.6 million ($131 million) from television revenue. Under the proposed rules, a multiple of five times that amount, or $653 million, would serve as the cap. [17] This new proposal aims to work in conjunction with the squad cost controls set to be implemented in 2025, replacing the existing Profit & Sustainability rules that led to points deductions for Everton and Nottingham Forest this season. Starting in 2025, teams will be restricted to spending 85% of their total revenue on wages, transfer payments, and agent fees. A Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) spokesperson has stated that “we will obviously wait to see further details of these specific proposals, but we have always been clear that we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages.” [18] Given the comparison to American sports, where artificial wage suppressors like salary caps may require collaboration with unions, it makes sense why the PFA has steadfastly asserted its right to be consulted on the matter. In the United States, the non-statutory labor exemption has been a fundamental aspect of labor relations in American sports. [19] This exemption allows for salary caps in exchange for a guaranteed portion of league income. European Union “competition law” and its application by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), along with U.K. labor law, particularly the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992, [20] could provide a basis for understanding the challenges associated with implementing a salary cap. These legal frameworks could be examined in a future article to explore the potential hurdles a salary cap would need to overcome. Caleb Clifford is a third-year law student at USC Gould School of Law with an interest in labor, employment, and IP law. He was the president of USC’s Sports Law Society and can be found on (X) @Cliffnotes_ and LinkedIn (Caleb Clifford).   [1] https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/premier-league-transfers-latest-deals-3wdffdk5m [2] https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/premier-league-transfer-swaps-explained-why-chelsea-aston-villa-and-more-are-selling-players-to-each-other/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVctUN1GFM [4] https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/sport/football/financial-fair-play-uefa-football/index.html [5] https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/23-24/news/44393.html [6] https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/13112071/profit-and-sustainability-rules-premier-league-points-deductions-here-to-stay-for-financial-breaches [7] https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf at 98. [8] Id. at 89. [9] Id. at 80. [10] https://swissramble.substack.com/p/tottenham-hotspur-finances-202223 [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_a_Leeds [12] https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf at 134. [13] Id. [14] Id. at 84. [15] Id. at 90. [16] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5407740/2024/04/11/premier-league-ffp-rules-new/ [17] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13038695/How-Premier-League-team-earned-season-huge-new-TV-deal-created-record-prize-pot.html [18] https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40049924/premier-league-clubs-agree-spending-cap-begin-2025 [19] https://www.lw.com/people/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/Nonstatutory-Labor-Antitrust-Exemption-Risk-In-Sports-Unions.pdf [20] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents

Who doesn’t love a pair of Nike Air Jordan 1s made out of a Louis Vuitton bag or the Travis Scott AJ1s made with alligator skin leather. Well, Nike doesn’t. The company has filed a complaint in the S.D.N.Y. against popular L.A. based sneaker customizer Dominic Ciambrone, aka “The Shoe Surgeon.” The complaint alleges that The Shoe Surgeon has engaged in widespread trademark infringement through customizing and creating bespoke Nike shoes, selling counterfeits, and offering kits and classes to make fake Nike shoes. Nike says his work misleads consumers, who might wrongly believe his creations are legitimate Nike collaborations.   Nike seeks to recover “the maximum amount of statutory damages for Defendants’ willful counterfeiting of over 30 Nike trademarks, totaling over $60 million, or the profits Defendants generated from counterfeiting, trebled, along with attorneys’ fees.” Nike also seeks to destroy all the infringing shoes.   The Shoe Surgeon is extremely popular among the sneaker community, celebrities, and professional athletes. His Instagram account alone has over 1.1 million followers. In the past, Nike themselves has commissioned The Surgeon on several occasions. Notably in 2018, Nike obtained Ciambrone to create a custom pair of Nike LeBron 15s to commemorate LeBron James reaching 30,000 career points. Ciambrone adorned the Nike LeBron 15 shoes in 24-karat gold and diamonds valued at $100,000. Then again in 2023, Nike had Ciambrone create a pair of custom Nike Lebron 20s to commemorate Lebron surpassing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the NBA’s all-time leading scorer.   The complaint states that “these commissions—limited engagements to commemorate the achievements of one of Nike’s signature athletes—did not give Defendants the unfettered right to use Nike’s marks to customize Nike shoes and manufacture fake “Nike” shoes from scratch, yet that’s exactly what Defendants have done.”   Ciambrone started his career in high school painting white Air Force 1s. Since then, his customization ability has evolved to reconstruct shoes with different leathers and fabrics. His custom pairs can range from $3,000-$30,000. Nike feels he has gone too far by “materially altering” the shoes to the point they can no longer be considered an authorized Nike product, yet still feature Nike trademarks. The Surgeon puts his logo onto the shoe, typically on the tongue, in a Nike-style font alongside Nike’s famous Swoosh. This logo is less prominent, and Nike says creates a “false impression that Nike has entered into a collaboration with Defendants on these products.”   The complaint then highlights The Shoe Surgeon’s practice of creating “unauthorized collaborations” without official endorsement or affiliation. Some examples included using Nike’s shoes in his collaborations with Celsius, Wingstop, Ruffles, and eBay. Nike says this is likely to confuse consumers into thinking that Nike themselves are collaborating with these brands. He also often uses patterns or designs made popular by luxury brands such as Dior, Louis Vuitton, and Gucci, who either have separate collaborations with Nike or none at all. This suit comes one month after French fashion brand Goyard filed a trademark infringement suit against The Shoe Surgeon for customizing Nike shoes with a pattern that closely resembles Goyard’s interlocking Ys and dots pattern.   Nike also complains that The Shoe Surgeon Academy teaches students in their 3-4 day classes not only how to deconstruct Nikes for customization, but also how to construct Nike shoes from scratch, which Nike deems are “counterfeit.” Amongst the products offered for sale in the “SRGN Creator Store” is The Shoe Surgeon Starter Bundle for Air Jordan 1 which “includes all the must-have tools and materials to create your own pair of custom AJ1s.”   For determining trademark infringement, the court will look to whether there is a likelihood of confusion among a reasonably prudent purchaser of the products at issue. Some general factors that are considered are: 1. Strength of the plaintiff's mark 2. Relatedness of the goods or services 3. Similarity of the marks 4. Evidence of actual confusion 5. Marketing channels used 6. Likely degree of purchaser care 7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark 8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines   The Shoe Surgeon will likely assert defenses such as fair use, having an implied license to customize shoes based on past collaborations with Nike, and the asserting exhaustion rule. The exhaustion rule means once a trademark holder sells their product, the buyer is free to resell the goods without permission. While I believe The Surgeon has some legitimate arguments for purely customizing already-made Nike shoes, he likely will have a tough time arguing constructing shoes from scratch for commercial sale is not trademark infringement.   Nike says they are not anti-customization, they just want it to be done within “Nike-controlled parameters” such as Nike I.D. After filing the complaint, Nike released a statement saying that they do “not have any issues with the limited, one-of-one customization he’s been doing for us or his clients, when allowed under Nike-sponsored athletes’ contracts. In fact, we value opportunities for our athletes, consumers and partners to express themselves through their own style and creativity.” This translates to Nike being okay with customizing when they give consent.   How this will affect smaller customizers who use Nike shoes as a canvas to paint on and customize is unclear. However, selling a customized shoe that features another brand's logo or trademark, or creating your own Nike shoe from scratch is clearly against Nike’s wishes. Depending on the outcome of this case, shoe customizers may have to be more cautious with their designs, meaning not being able to “Just Do It.”   For those wanting to track the case on Bloomberg Law: Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. d/b/a The Shoe Surgeon et al . , S.D.N.Y., 1:24-cv-05307, complaint filed 7/15/24.   Andrew Gagnon is a rising 3L at the University of Kansas School of Law where he is a representative in the Student Bar Association and President of the Sports Law Society. He can be found on Twitter @A_Gagnon34 and LinkedIn as Andrew Gagnon .

Judge David Porter's concurring opinion in Johnson v. NCAA addresses the employment status of college athletes under FLSA and state laws. Judge Porter expresses general concerns in his concurring opinion and breaks down the difficulty of applying the four-part economic realities test.    In his concurring opinion, Judge Porter calls for a need to distinguish between revenue-generating athletes who may qualify as employees and those in non-revenue sports who likely do not. He argues for a nuanced approach rather than a one-size-fits-all, stating that “the question presented necessarily invites finding, weighing, and balancing a multitude of as-yet undeveloped facts that will vary widely across many thousands of student-athletes, teams, sports, colleges, and universities.” [1] Judge Porter also highlights potential legal and practical implications of recognizing college athletes as employees, including impacts on tax laws, immigration regulations, and Title IX considerations.   Furthermore, Judge Porter addresses the majority opinion’s lack of clarity and guidance on assessing college athletes under the economic realities test. The test considers four factors when assessing college athletes. It asks if the athlete: (1) performs services for another party (the college or NCAA), (2) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit, (3) under the college’s control or right of control and (4) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.”   Below is a breakdown of Judge Porter’s concerns with applying each of the four prongs of the test.    (1) Nature of the Work: Whether the individual performs services for another party, in this case, the university or NCAA.                     i.     Judge Porter argues that the majority's definition of "services" could encompass all team players, potentially categorizing all athletes as employees based solely on their participation. He warns that an athlete’s “contribution in the service of teamwork does not necessarily create an employment relationship.” [1]   (2) Benefit: Are the athletes' activities necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the college?                      i.     Judge Porter critiques the majority's view on how collegiate athletes' membership benefits the university, arguing that such benefits are fundamental to team participation rather than indicative of employment. He contends that participating in sports at the collegiate level serves educational purposes and fosters personal growth, factors that extend beyond financial gain for the institution.    (3) Degree of Control: The extent to which the university controls or has the right to control the athlete's activities.                     i.     Judge Porter questions whether the university's control over athletes' recruitment, eligibility, and participation should establish them as employees, suggesting these criteria may extend too broadly to the point where even high school athletes could meet this factor. He states that “the players do not act independently of each other and the coaches because, again, team sports are collective actions requiring significant direction and coordination.” [1]   (4) Compensation: Whether the athlete receives express or implied compensation or other benefits.                     i.     Judge Porter notes lucrative TV deals in top college sports, pointing out that many athletes, especially in non-revenue sports, operate at a financial deficit for their universities. He highlights the need to differentiate between athletes who contribute tangibly to their schools and those whose participation is not a benefit to the school.   Other Considerations as the case moves forward: ·      How different forms of compensation, including indirect benefits like scholarships and facilities use, should influence the determination of employment. ·      How would recognizing college athletes as employees affect international collegiate athlete’s visa status and compliance with immigration laws? International athletes often require specific visas (such as F-1 visas for students) to study and compete in the United States. If deemed employees, would this status affect their eligibility for these visas or potentially complicate their immigration status? [1] Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association   Bobby Hartwick is a second-year law student at Saint Louis University School of Law. He can be found on Twitter @BobbyHartwick and on LinkedIn (Bobby Hartwick).

While the spotlight this week was on the NHL, who hosted game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals which the Florida Panthers won for the first time in franchise history, and the NBA, who hosted its 78th draft, the NFL made sure it was not forgotten. Two NFL teams are planning monumental stadium renovations - some much needed good news for the league that hopefully can detract a bit of attention from its Sunday Ticket settlement. Investments in the sports industry continue to boom as multiple high-profile individuals expand their investment portfolios.     Shaun White’s Unrivaled Sports acquires minority stake in indoor action sports company Snöbahn. Sportico Cleveland Cavaliers hire Golden State Warriors assistant coach Kenny Atkinson as new head coach. Atkinson was previously head coach of the Brooklyn Nets (2016-2020). The f inal contract is pending. ESPN NBA approved sale of 15% of BSE Global to Julia Koch. BSE Global is the parent company of many entities, including the Brooklyn Nets, Barclays Center, New York Liberty, the Nets’ G-League team (Long Island Nets) and Nets’ NBA 2K League team (Nets GC). Sportico Charlotte approves $800M renovation of Bank of America Stadium, home of the Carolina Panthers NFL franchise. $650M will come from public funds. Construction is expected to start in 2026 and be completed by 2029. Athletic Jacksonville City Council approves an agreement between the Jaguars and the city for a $1.4B renovation of EverBank Stadium. The deal still needs to be approved by the NFL owners when they meet this October. If approved, construction is scheduled to start after the 2025 season and will be finished for the 2028 season. The city will pay for approximately 55% total cost. ESPN Big East signs a 6-year media deal with Fox, NBC and TNT. Financial details to be released. ESPN Steve Cohen’s hedge fund, Point72 Asset Management, L.P. has acquired a 5.5% stake in Sphere Entertainment. Cohen’s (owner of the New York Mets) 1,560,170 million shares include 582,400 shares of Class A Common Stock. SEC Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

July got off to a slow start during the week of July 4th, though Q3 deals are now underway.  Headlining the week is the NBA’s highly-anticipated media rights deal.  The Orioles hired their first female president of business operations, and many more deals are on the way as we enter the back half of 2024.   The NBA finalized media rights deals with NBC, Amazon Prime Video and ABC / ESPN. The agreements will last 11 seasons and be worth about $76 billion.   The NBA governors still need to approve the agreements, though this should be just a formality.  TNT Sports may still match the offers. ESPN will pay $2.6 billion, NBC will pay $2.5 billion, and Amazon will pay $1.8 billion.  ESPN will host a conference final and the NBA Finals.  NBC and Amazon will alternate hosting a conference final, and Amazon will host the In-Season Tournament. Athletic Sportradar and the Union of European Football Associations agree on three-year deal for Sportradar to continue to exclusively distribute UEFA’s gambling data. Sportico F2’s Oliver Bearman to race for Haas in 2025. The 19-year-old driver is currently a member of the Scuderia Ferrari Driver Academy. F1 Willow Bay and husband Bob Iger are finalizing a deal to purchase Angel City FC. Athletic Fitch is monitoring the NFL’s credit rating in wake of Sunday Ticket class action outcome. A federal jury found the NFL liable under antitrust law, though the NFL is appealing the decision. Sportico David Yurman signs 7 NBA players as brand ambassadors. Kyle Kuzma, D’Angelo Russell, Jalen Green, Jaime Jaquez Jr., Kevin Love, Josh Hart and Seth Curry will all be brand ambassadors of the high-end jewelry band. Hollywood Reporter Baltimore Orioles hire Catie Griggs as president of business operations. Griggs is the first female president of business operations in the team’s history.  Previously, she served as president of business operations for the Seattle Mariners.  She began this role with Seattle in July 2021. MLB Audi becomes the official premium automotive partner of Inter Miami. Inter Miami CF Though Skydance announces cost-cutting measures following its merger with Paramount, incoming president Jeff Shell reported the company does not plan to cut CBS Sports’ portfolio. Sportico Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law in the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

On May 15, 2024, the NFL announced a three-year contract with Netflix for the exclusive streaming rights to two Christmas Day 2024 games – Chiefs vs. Steelers, and Texans vs. Ravens – and at least one “holiday game” in 2025 and 2026. However, with the addition of Netflix, fans must now subscribe to seven services to watch all of the League’s games: traditional network channels (Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, ESPN), NFL Sunday Ticket via YouTube TV, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, NFL+, and ESPN+. [i] If a fan only subscribes to the respective streaming service for the shortest amount of time necessary, it will cost approximately $520. [ii] Additionally, fans do not have the option to support only one team. For example, if Alabama fans want to keep up with Jalen Hurts, or a Taylor Swift fan want to support Travis Kelce, neither fan has the option of purchasing only games in which the Eagles or Chiefs compete. They must either pay the full price of Sunday Ticket – a minimum cost of $350 without YouTube TV, $449 with a YouTube TV subscription – or settle for catching the highlights on Tik Tok and X. [iii] This cost analysis excluded streaming-exclusive games, such as the Netflix deal.     As of June 27, 2024, the above-described ultimatum very likely constitutes a major antitrust violation. A Los Angeles jury found that the NFL colluded with DirecTV, along with CBS and Fox, to drive up pricing of its DirecTV "Sunday Ticket" package and ordered the League to pay $4.7 billion in damages for violating antitrust law. [iv] During his closing remarks, plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Carmody showed an April 2017 NFL memo showing the League was exploring a world without "Sunday Ticket" in 2017, where cable channels would air Sunday afternoon out-of-market games not shown on Fox or CBS. [v] Callous conduct such as this apparently made the jury’s decision rather easy – deliberation lasted five hours over two days. [vi]   Still, the NFL staunchly defends its premium subscription structure, stating it believes its “ media distribution strategy, which features all NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL+, is by far the most fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment,” and promised to contest the jury’s decision. [vii]   Though the opinion has yet to be released, one can certainly predict its legal conclusions based on the Nineth Circuit’s denial of the NFL’s motion for summary judgment. See In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig , No. 15-02668, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6373 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2024). (“ Sunday Ticket ”). The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument alleged that the NFL violated antitrust law, specifically §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act, by limiting competition, restricting over-the-air broadcasts, and selectively granting exclusive broadcasting rights. Sunday Ticket , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6373, at *4-6.   The NFL argued that the Sports Broadcasting Act (“SBA”) protected its exclusive broadcasting agreement for Sunday games. The SBA gives the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB an antitrust exemption, allowing leagues to enter into league-wide television contracts with networks like CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX on behalf of the teams. However, the language of the SBA’s does not cover satellite or digital distributions. The court found that the NFL’s conduct exceeded the boundaries of the SBA – that the act did not pronounce a broad, sweeping policy, but rather engrafted a narrow, discrete, special-interest exemption upon the normal prohibition on monopolistic behavior. Id. at *31.   The Nineth Circuit determined the SBA covers the NFL’s collective sale of telecast rights to free, over-the-air television networks, but does not cover league contracts with cable or satellite TV services for which subscribers are charged a fee. I d. at *26, 31. (emphasis added). Because streaming services operate in that very way, the court’s analysis in Sunday Ticket provides a realistic prediction of the outcome for future antitrust litigation involving streaming-exclusive games.   Plaintiffs challenged specific provisions within the NFL/Networks’ agreements, alleging they suppress competition outside the SBA’s limited authority by restricting resale of products. Id. at 15, 29. These restrictions mandate that the resold product (i.e. games) be marketed as premium products for avid League fans and sold on exclusively a subscription basis. Id. at 15-16. Also, when the games are sold as a premium package, the NFL must require the resale party (i.e. DirecTV or YouTube TV) to make the game unavailable in the area where CBS or FOX are broadcasting the local game, so that even a subscription package does not compete with local, over-the-air broadcasts. Id. at 17, n. 5. As a result of these restrictions, the only option for the NFL and its member clubs to resell out-of-market telecasts is as a premium subscription package, which DirecTV [and now, YouTube TV] has purchased the exclusive right to provide. Id. at 16.   The NFL/Direct TV Agreement limits NFL and its member clubs from offering additional over-the-air broadcasts, thus enhancing the value of Sunday Ticket. Id. at 17. The Agreement specifies a minimum number of games that must be restricted to certain local markets and cannot be made available as national over-the-air broadcasts. Id. Further, it prevents telecasts from appearing on more than one channel so that consumers only have access to three of the ten to thirteen Sunday games. I d. at 17-18. The agreement requires that no more than two over-the-air broadcasts can be shown in any location, giving DirecTV exclusive streaming rights to every single other game. Id. at *18-19.   Thus, the Nineth Circuit found ample evidence to support an inference of antitrust conspiracy that does not fall under the SBA’s protection. Id. at 19. DirecTV had exclusive control of out-of-market telecasts; both the NFL/Network Agreement and the NFL/DirecTV Agreement limit competition with DirecTV’s paid telecasts from the NFL and its member clubs; and the NFL/DirecTV Agreement contains provisions that also restrict over-the-air broadcasts. Id. (emphasis added). Conspiracy yields anticompetitive conduct, imposing unlawful § 1 violations, i.e., unreasonable trade restraints, on the market. Courts determine unreasonable anticompetitive conduct by analyzing the facts under the Rule of Reason, considering facts of the business, the restraint’s history, and the rationale for its imposition. Id. None favor the NFL. The league asserts such agreements are essential for the NFL’s operation, yet the NCAA’s television structure, which allows each school to form its own agreement to sell their television rights directly to a broadcast network, undermines the necessity of the NFL’s contention. Id. at 50.   Superimposing these findings in Sunday Ticket onto streaming-exclusive games, it appears that the NFL will gift its fans a flagrant antitrust violation this Christmas Day. While it is a choice whether to subscribe to Netflix, this choice transfigures into an ultimatum for Chiefs, Steelers, Ravens, and Texans fans. The “streaming exclusive” nature of this agreement means Netflix has exclusive control of out-of-market telecasts, thereby limiting competition from free, over-the-air broadcasts.   Despite the NFL’s confidence in its “fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment, ” the exclusivity and subscriptive nature of the “Sunday Ticket” package ultimately proved to be the League’s death kneel. By selling its package of Sunday games at an inflated price and restricting competition by offering “Sunday Ticket” only on a satellite provider, the jury quickly determined that the NFL’s conduct extended well beyond the SBA, thereby violating antitrust law. [viii] Thus, if forcing fans to purchase one subscription-based platform to access all the League’s Sunday games constitutes an antitrust violation, how would a jury rule when faced with seven subscription-based platforms?    Keeton Cross (Twitter: @keeton_cross) is a third-year law student at Cumberland School of Law. She holds degrees in Marketing and English from the University of Alabama.  [i] Max Molski, How much will it cost to stream every NFL game in 2024? Breaking down every subscription , NBC New York, https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/nfl/nfl-cost-breakdown-stream-every-game-2024/5429939/ [ii] Id. [iii] Id.   [iv] Ryan Kang, NFL Ordered to pay $4.7B in “Sunday Ticket” antitrust trial , Sports Business Journal, available at https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/06/27/nfl-sunday-ticket-lawsuit-verdict . [v] Kevin Seifert, Jury rules NFL violated antitrust laws in “Sunday Ticket” case , ESPN, available at https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40447020/jury-rules-nfl-violated-antitrust-laws-sunday-ticket-case [vi] Id. [vii] King, supra. [viii] Seifert, supra.

Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA , which overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the sports betting industry has grown rapidly and has shown no signs of slowing down. Seeing this, the major professional sports leagues have signed lucrative marketing deals with companies like FanDuel, DraftKings, and BetMGM to generate significant revenue in the evolving landscape of sports and entertainment. While all this promotion allows leagues to line their pockets, it also comes with serious risk surrounding the perception of the structural integrity of their league's product.   In 2019, Arizona Cardinals cornerback Josh Shaw was suspended for gambling on an NFL game while on injured reserve. In 2022, star receiver Calvin Ridley was suspended for an entire season for gambling on NFL games. Then in 2023, 11 different athletes  — 10 NFL players and one NHL player — were punished by their respective leagues for gambling-related infractions.   It’s only gotten worse in 2024. NBA player Jontay Porter was banned for life after an investigation found Porter disclosed confidential information to bettors, limiting his own participation in games for betting purposes, and bet on other NBA games.   And this month, more gambling related suspensions were announced in MLB when commissioner Rob Manfred placed Padres infielder/outfielder Tucupita Marcano on the permanently ineligible list for violating the league’s sports betting rules and policies. Betting data showed that from 2022-23, Marcano placed 387 baseball bets, including 231 MLB-related bets, through a legal sportsbook. In total, Marcano bet more than $150,000 on baseball, with $87,319 of that on MLB-related bets. Of the MLB bets Marcano placed over this period, 25 of those bets included Pirates games while he was a member of Pittsburgh.   In addition, Athletics right-handed pitcher Michael Kelly received a one-year suspension, as did Minor Leaguers Jay Groome, José Rodríguez, and Andrew Saalfrank. The five players were disciplined for unrelated violations of the league’s gambling policy that did not rise to the extent of Marcano’s acts.     While most of us have never been in an MLB clubhouse much less a team meeting in Spring Training, it’s well-known that Rule 21 is plastered on the walls and read verbatim to players. Therefore, there is no excuse for any player or MLB employee to claim ignorance. Under Major League Rule 21, “Any player, umpire or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.” The rule also states that betting on any baseball game “in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.”   While the 1919 Black Sox scandal and the banning of Pete Rose are the two most noteworthy instances of gambling malfeasance in baseball, they are far from the only episodes. Gambling scandals in the sport date back to 1877 when members of the Louisville Grays were discovered to have thrown games for money.   But in today’s environment where sports betting has become so normalized with advertisements shown multiple times a game and even discussed during broadcasts, the risk of players getting involved is higher than ever. Like any person who follows sports, players have phones and TVs too. They see the advertisements and hear analysts discuss betting odds just like the rest of us. But unlike us, they themselves could have inside knowledge or even a material impact on the games being bet on. For players making league minimum salaries or just trying to scrape by in the minor leagues, the temptation is palpable.   The good news is that when these issues may arise, sports wagering has never been more monitored.  From global position to real-time wagering data, highly sophisticated systems are in place to flag suspicious activity. After the rush to make wagering legal, states, books and leagues have now begun to focus on monitoring and detection. As more laws and data come in, these systems are becoming increasingly effective. In effect, legalized sports betting has actually allowed companies to uncover wrongdoing better than before.   In this environment, however, the risk is still tremendously high. While a system might instantly catch a player’s name placing a suspicious bet, what’s to stop them from using a burner account? What’s to stop the employing a friend to place their bets? The list goes on and on. But one thing is for sure, when leagues get any inkling of wrongdoing, they will undergo thorough investigations and hand down lengthy suspensions when necessary. There is nothing more important to the leagues than the structural integrity of the competition. Therefore, year-long suspensions and lifetime bans act as a deterrence for everyone to see. A player might place a $10 bet on a game he is not involved with whatsoever, but leagues justifiably will take any and every violation seriously and make an example of them.   While you’d like to think the lifetime bans of Jontay Porter and now Tucupita Marcano will serve notice to professional athletes across the country, it’s reasonable to think we’re just at the tip of the iceberg of this issue moving forward. Brendan Bell is a rising 2L at SMU Dedman School of Law and is the Southwest Regional Rep on Conduct Detrimental's Law School Student Board. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5