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

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

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

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

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

Texas and OU’s potential exit from the Big 12 Conference to the Southeastern Conference took another dramatic turn on Wednesday of this week. During the same week that Texas and OU caused tremors across the college football landscape by officially petitioning to join the SEC in 2025, the Big 12 now appears to be on the offensive, as the conference issued ESPN a cease and desist letter. Bob Bowlsby, the commissioner of the Big 12, asserts that ESPN took actions to “harm” the league, and mentions that ESPN engaged in tortious interference- an intentional interference of contractual relations. Given the escalating legal situation between the Big 12 and ESPN, where do Texas and OU fit into the picture? Ross Dellenger of Sports Illustrated reports that Big 12 commissioner Bowlsby also accused ESPN of attempting to incentivize an unnamed conference (American Athletic Conference) to add Big 12 members, consequently destabilizing the Big 12 so that Texas and OU would be able to avoid exit fees. Moreover, Bowlsby claims that Texas and OU have been “As deceptive as they possibly could.” ESPN briefly responded by stating that the claims found in the cease and desist letter have “no merit.” Will legal action or future lawsuits derail Texas and OU’s objective to join the SEC? Although Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby assumed a more aggressive public position to protect the interests of the Big 12, it is likely too late. Ultimately, there are forces outside of the commissioner’s control that are too great to prevent Texas and OU’s departure from taking place. Now that Texas A&M’s Board of Regents recently voted in favor of Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, it is likely that Texas and Oklahoma will be unanimously admitted to the SEC. If approved by a ¾ majority vote by SEC member schools, it will be increasingly more difficult to thwart Texas and OU’s efforts. It is also within the realm of possibility that the quickly deteriorating relationship between key entities at the negotiating table on all sides may lead to an early Big 12 departure for Texas and Oklahoma. Through a means of buying out the remainder of their media rights contracts ($70-$80 million) with the Big 12, Texas and Oklahoma could force the move earlier than 2025. Given the immense fundraising abilities that both Texas and OU possess, if called upon, boosters would be able to play a role in facilitating the move to the SEC as early as the 2022 season. Thirdly, given the accelerated rate at which the ongoing proceedings are moving, it is possible that other Big 12 members may bolt for the door early and seek entry to other conferences prior to 2025. It is already reported that Baylor, Texas Christian University (TCU), and Texas Tech have already reached out to the Pac-12 about a potential move out west. If Texas and Oklahoma’s admission to the SEC does not implode the Big 12, the departure of Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech would certainly act as the catalyst for widespread realignment around the college football world. My Concluding Remarks: A Texas Longhorn’s perspective It is my belief that despite potential legal challenges from varying entities, Texas and Oklahoma will eventually find their way to the SEC as early as 2022 or 2023. From a Texas grad’s perspective, this is a great move for the Longhorns. By joining the SEC, Texas will be able to make more money in media rights earnings, improve recruiting prospects, and set themselves up well long-term for an expanded, 12 team college football playoff. On the other hand, I can understand why a move of this nature will indirectly widen the gap between top programs and smaller college football programs. If the SEC increases its membership to 16 teams, this will likely lead to the creation of super-conferences in the future. This is leading down the road to the creation of additional super-conferences. If so, it will set off a chain reaction that will likely resemble what we saw in college sports in 2011-12. The question is, who will be left without a seat when the game of conference musical chairs ends. Article written by: Mel Stack, Incoming 1L student at the University of Miami School of Law. Interested in more information on this topic? Check out Blue Bloods to Bolt from Big 12? by fellow writer Joe Esses.

This year, mental health has been featured in the newsfeed more than ever before. From Naomi Osaka to Simone Biles, athletes in all sports are allowing themselves to be vulnerable while discussing the challenges they face in and out of the arena, particularly the ones inside of their heads. Spectators seem to forget that our favorite athletes are human, too. Athletes frequently experience anxiety, doubt, and pressure, but during the Olympics, they experience these feelings in front of the entire world. Simone Biles has been a household name since the 2016 Rio Olympics. She is the GOAT – the greatest of all time. However, after realizing her mental health was not where it needed to be during her vault rotation in the women’s team final, she withdrew from the event. She later withdrew from the women’s individual all-around competition as well. Despite her withdrawal from competition, Biles remained a staunch supporter of her teammates, cheering them on from the sideline. Her decision to focus on her mental health showed Biles’s strong leadership and courage. Her insight to protect her own safety as well as remove any possible negative impact on the team’s overall performance clearly depict valor in the face of succumbing to public pressure. Simone Biles has faced a year far more challenging than most realize, becoming an advocate for abuse survivors and having her scores capped due to having an “unfair advantage” over other gymnasts. Biles later revealed that the support she was given after her withdrawal from competition made her realize she was worth more than her accomplishments. Ultimately, Biles showed the public and the sports world that it’s okay for their athletes to not be at their best all the time, and that athletes deserve respect even when choosing not to compete. Michael Phelps, who has earned 28 Olympic medals, came out in support of Biles after her withdrawal from the team and individual all-around events, saying that few know of the pressure that comes with being one of the most successful and decorated athletes in your sport. Phelps is one of the most decorated Olympians of all time, yet he revealed the depression and suicidal thoughts he faced after the 2012 Olympics. While many athletes have started to come forward about the weight of pressure that comes with being at the top of their sport, mental health issues continue to be a taboo subject. When Naomi Osaka pulled out of the French Open after event organizers threatened her removal after her decision to not participate in media events, she was criticized across the internet for not being “tough enough”. Sha’Carri Richardson was unable to attend the Tokyo Olympics following a positive drug testing for marijuana in her system, which invalidated her times at the Trials. When asked about her test results, Richardson revealed she had learned of her biological mother’s passing from a reporter at the Trials. While some may disagree with her actions, no one can know the feelings Richardson experienced in those moments when faced with such loss. As Richardson herself said: she’s human, she just runs a little faster. Athletes should not have to remind the public that their mental health matters, too. As the Tokyo Olympics continue, and more athletes come forward with their personal experiences with mental health, hopefully the public’s understanding and empathy will increase. In addition, the world of sports will hopefully start to take athlete mental health more seriously, taking proactive measures to protect, support and empower our athletes. The topic of mental health will only cease to be taboo when it is openly discussed. Strong mental health is an important and fundamental need for everyone, even those aiming for a gold medal. The athletes we love to watch are not only extremely talented, but human, and they deserve to be treated as such. If we want to keep watching these athletes compete and succeed, we should remember to extend them the same courtesy that we ourselves demand – respect.

The NCAA finally caved to relentless public pressure and lifted its prohibition on college athletes’ ability to capitalize on their rights of publicity. An unsurprising outcome since California passed the first collegiate name, image, and likeness bill in 2019. This is a structural paradigm shift in American sports but let’s take a moment to fully appreciate how this regulatory battle turned into the wild west. Twenty-four states followed California after Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB206 on national television alongside Lebron, but it was ultimately the boys in Florida lead by attorney Darren Heitner, that pushed this inevitability into overdrive. You see, those first laws all took effect sometime in the non-immediate future, California’s SB206 was originally set to take effect 2023. Heitner and Co. went full Socrates and asked “Why?” and ensured theirs would be effective July 1, 2021, D-Day. This left college sports with a patchwork of state laws because the NCAA refused to read the writing on the wall and draft reasonable bylaws. They must not get paid enough in Indianapolis. The NCAA ultimately bent the knee and lifted their name, image, and likeness prohibitions on July 1 with only two rules for the country to abide by: no pay for play and no “impermissible inducements.” Players must otherwise abide by their state’s law or their school’s policy. It was beautiful chaos. Left to their own devices, athletes agreed to most deals that came their way with minimal guidance of how said deal may affect their eligibility, which at this point, is determined on a school-by-school basis. Bringing us to Portnoy. Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports hopped on Instagram Live on July 1, and ham-fistedly announced Barstool Athletics, which, was self-admittedly thrown together just minutes prior to the announcement after Jacksonville State Volleyball player, Adelaide Halverson inquired about being a “Barstool Athlete”. Barstool Athletics was born. Sidenote, it’s absolutely hilarious that Barstool didn’t have a plan in place for this. In the following days, thousands of athletes have reportedly reached out to the Barstool team to become an endorsed athlete with free merchandise seeming to be their only compensation. SportsLawTwitter™ began questioning whether partnering with Barstool Athletics would jeopardize athletes’ eligibility because Barstool Sports majority owner is Penn National Gaming, a bookmaking and gambling operation. Though there are no express regulations against gaming endorsements, inquisitive minds asked whether Barstool’s connection with sports gambling would violate any internal college policies. One institution finally affirmed, American International College. According to the above tweet, AIC’s compliance department either A) doesn’t understand the lack of NCAA rules, which is brilliant or B) is being willfully dishonest to pass along blame. As we’ve established, THE NCAA HAS TWO RULES AND Massachusetts hasn’t even passed their own NIL law and the bill that IS working its way through the legislature is silent on gambling endorsements. Let’s conduct a short thought experiment using the assumption that Barstool Sports is a gaming company instead of a massive media company (it isn’t): Why are we prohibiting college athletes from partnering with gambling companies? Is it because *sports* betting is illegal in Mass? No, Celtics are official partners with Draftkings. Is it because NCAA institutions are prohibited from having gaming partnerships? No, the University of Colorado partners with PointsBet. Is it a vice thing? Are we pretending to be so puritan that we can’t stand the idea of college athletes being endorsed by a gaming company when every professional league has partnerships with one? Are we afraid an athlete will somehow give Penn National inside information on AIC’s big weekend series against Mercyhurst? Betting lines don’t even exist for the Atlantic Hockey Association. AIC, I’m but a lowly law student and have no operational experience in college athletics but I do know a couple of things: 1) your athletics department isn’t exactly Michigan and 2) Springfield isn’t exactly Los Angeles, exposure is limited. I’d be in the business of allowing your athletes to take what they can get, especially when that something is the most popular digital media brand in New England. This site’s founder, Dan Lust called on Barstool to do the right thing and warn athletes about the potential perils of partnering with them, but me and my infinite influence is calling on AIC and other schools that arbitrarily prohibit partnerships within certain industries to stop it and let the kids GET PAID….in merch.

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

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

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

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