Over three years since the NCAA began investigating the University of Memphis men’s basketball team over former athlete and current Golden State Warrior James Wiseman’s eligibility, the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP) Panel has determined that Memphis committed multiple Level II and III violations, avoiding significant sanctions. Additionally, the IARP panel cleared Head Coach and alumnus Penny Hardaway of any wrongdoing. Hardaway’s Prior Interactions with Wiseman Prior to being hired as the head coach at Memphis, former National Basketball Association (NBA) all-star Penny Hardaway became a representative of Memphis’ athletic interests when he donated $1 million to Memphis’ athletics department to construct a Sports Hall of Fame in 2008. Later, beginning in 2015 served as an assistant coach and later head coach at Memphis East High School and founded Team Penny, a team that participates on the Nike Elite Youth Basketball League Circuit (EYBL). While he was in high school, former top recruit James Wiseman played for Team Penny and later transferred from a high school in Nashville to Memphis East High School. Hardaway coach Wiseman during his time at Memphis East. To assist with Wiseman’s relocation from Nashville to Memphis, Hardaway made approximately $11,500 to Wiseman’s mother without Wiseman’s knowledge. The IARP panel determined that the payment to Wiseman’s mother did not violate NCAA bylaws due to the benefit being generally available to other prospective students. Specifically, “[t]he record establishes the head coach’s long-standing commitment to providing financial assistance to many individuals, particularly youth, in the economically disadvantaged Memphis community, even prior to when he became a representative of Memphis’ athletic interests.” Wiseman’s Eligibility In October 2019, the NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs office issued an interpretation of NCAA bylaws, which found that Hardaway’s payments to Wiseman’s mother and other student-athletes constituted a violation of NCAA violations. On October 31, 2019, the NCAA enforcement staff notified Memphis that allowing Wiseman to compete may violate NCAA bylaws. Memphis ignored the NCAA enforcement staff’s decision rather than following the NCAA’s processes for appealing the decision and opted to allow Wiseman to continue playing for three games. By failing to follow NCAA processes and ignoring the NCAA enforcement staff’s decision, the IARP panel found that “Memphis failed to meet its fundamental obligation pursuant to [NCAA] Bylaw 12.11.1 to withhold [Wiseman] from competition.” Arising out of the failure to withhold Wiseman from competition, the IARP panel found another violation when Memphis provided Wiseman with expenses when he participated in the subsequent contests. Thus, the IARP panel determined that Memphis’ conduct constituted a Level II violation. Of note, by determining that disregarding NCAA bylaws on withholding athletes from competition merely constitutes a Level II violation (rather than a Level I violation), the possibility arises that universities may disregard the bylaw in the future. Other Violations and Penalties Other Level II violations included failing to monitor the activities of Coach Hardaway, failing to disclose and provide access to electronic devices, and failing to produce requested and relevant documents within the scheduled timelines. Level III violations consisted of providing impermissible recruiting inducements by taking photographs of a prospective-student athlete in a Memphis jersey, posting a video of a prospective student-athlete to the team’s social media account, making an impermissible written offer of aid via text to a prospective student-athlete’s parent, and providing an impermissible free meal. Penalties include a $5,000 fine, three years of probation, including certain requirements that Memphis must fulfill during the probationary period, public reprimand and censure, and vacation of the three wins Wiseman participated in after October 31, 2019. End of IARP With the University of Memphis decision, the IARP nearing its end. In August, the Division I Board of Directors decided to eliminate the IARP. The Board of Directors is aiming to accelerate the timelines for issuing infractions decisions. Notably, IARP decisions took years to reach resolutions, including the case of North Carolina State University (which lasted over two years) and the IARP panel did not render a final decision until after all players and coaches had left the university. The IARP has four remaining cases prior to dissolving—the University of Kansas, the University of Louisville, the University of Arizona, and Louisiana State University. Outside of Kansas’ case, all other cases involve coaches that are no longer affiliated with the universities. For Memphis, avoiding a postseason ban is a big win for the basketball team and university. For all other schools, the end of the IARP moves closer. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

This season, the NHL will play a series of games overseas. Four European cities will have the opportunity to witness an NHL game on their home ice.[1] One city, however, has used the “Global Series” to take a stand. The Czech Republic announced that it will not allow Russian players to participate in the Global Series game between the Nashville Predators and San Jose Sharks.[2] This decision is related to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. [3] For Nashville, this would include its tone-setting forward Yakov Trenin, as well as two of its top prospects, forward Egor Afanasyev and goaltender Yaroslav Askarov. For San Jose, role player Evgeny Svechnikov and potential first-line winger Alex Barbanov would be excluded. Opponents of the Czech Republic’s actions may argue that it unfairly punishes NHL players with no responsibility for their government’s actions. The move could deny these players a once-in-a-lifetime experience due to things outside of their control. In fact, Russian NHL players, such as Askarov [4] and Kirill Kaprizov [5], have had recent battles with the Russian government. Those who support the move, however, may see it as an important step to help end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Neither the NHL nor the teams have made official statements regarding their approval/denial of the decision, but they are left with an interesting policy decision. If they publicly support the decision, it would be much to the chagrin of its players (and likely their teammates). However, outright reprimand of the decision could cause serious backlash from the NHL’s fan base, particularly in Europe. Perhaps the NHL takes a middle-of-the-road approach that NHL agents have seemed to endorse. Whatever the NHL, Predators, and Sharks decide to do, their words will set the tone in their relationships with Russian athletes for the remainder of the Ukrainian conflict and beyond. Britton Yoder is a 2L at Penn State – Dickinson Law, where he serves as president of the Sports & Entertainment Law Society. Sources: [1] The cities include Bern, Switzerland; Tampere, Finland; Berlin, Germany; and Prague, Czech Republic. [2] Washington Post, Czech Government Tells NHL Teams that Russian Players are Unwelcome (22 September 2022). [3] Global companies and financial institutions have pulled their business out of Russia and its constituent countries. The International Olympic Committee has also banned Russian athletes, while the UEFA has excluded the Russian national team from competition. [4] At one point, Askarov’s outlook with the Nashville Predators was uncertain due to SKA Moscow’s supposed desire to prevent Askarov from going to the United States. [5] Star Tribune, Wild GM Bill Guerin: ‘I was really nervous’ about getting Kirill Kaprizov back from Russia (26 August 2022).

Given the history of Women’s sports around the world, it is likely no surprise to hear that there is often a feeling of mistrust between these athletes and the federations they are associated with. In the United States, we all look to the USWNT’s fight for equal pay as an example. Right now, though the biggest example of this is playing out in Spain. On September 22nd it was reported that 15 members of the Spanish Women’s National Team had resigned from the squad. According to news reports in Spain, the players had issues with several aspects of Head Coach Vilda’s approach. The federation’s statement alluded to these concerns saying the players had written about the effect of Vilda’s management and coaching style on “their emotional state and their health.” It has been reported that the players are unhappy with the management of injuries, the atmosphere in the locker room, Vilda's team selection, and his training sessions In response, the Royal Spanish Football Federation backed the head coach and remained firm that they would not remove the coach. The federation also asserted that for the players to return they would need to apologize for their actions and admit fault. Also threatening bans between two to five years for this being what the federation considers a “very serious infraction.” On September 23rd further clarity was brought to the situation. Team captains Irene Paredes, Jennifer Hermoso, and Patri Guijarro have stated that they did not request the coach’s dismissal but had communicated the feelings of the players. Feeling as though there were internal aspects that could and should be changed. A statement shared by the players on the 23rd stated “We requested in our communication sent to the RFEF not to be summoned until situations that affect our emotional and personal state, our performance and, consequently, the results of the Selection and that could lead to undesirable injuries are reversed.” It is also important to note that the players have reiterated that they wished for this to remain internal and did not want to publicize these issues. Faulting the federation for making these issues public. Players have also contended the federation’s statement that they “renounced” the national team; asserting rather that they wanted situations affecting their emotional state and performance to be reversed before their return. This standoff is not the first issue in the term of Rubiales, the federation chief since 2018. In one of his first acts as president, fired the coach of Spain’s men’s national team on the eve of its opening match at the 2018 World Cup. He was under scrutiny after leaked messages revealed a questionable management style and business practices. He has also had to deny claims of using soccer funds to pay for lavish private events. With this issue being ongoing it is difficult to know what will happen next or where this will go. But the federation’s statement remains strong that team selection decisions are non-negotiable. Making the standoff a “high-risk move” for the players. But taking a step back there are two important secondary things to consider. This is not the first time Women’s National Team Players have had to take drastic steps to be taken seriously and have action be taken. It is on par with the increase in labor movement activities we have seen here in the United States. Workers are realizing their collective power and fighting for environments that are better and safer for them. The second is that the USWNT is no stranger to similar mistrust and major complaints against their federation. USWNT is scheduled to play Spain on October 11 in Spain for an international friendly. Depending on how this issue plays out it may not be out of the question for the team or its players to do something in support of the 15 Spanish players. In the meantime, the team is set to play next on October 7th leaving little time between the onset of these issues being made public and their next game. Further complicating the issue and any attempts at a resolution between the players and the federation, giving this “standoff” more power. Emlyn Goodman is a recent Law Graduate who currently working in NCAA Compliance. She can be found on Twitter @emlyngoodman and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/emlyn-goodman-j-d-b46113113/

I have a feeling that most people seeing the title of this article are scratching their heads and are slightly confused. “WakeyLeaks? What’s that?” In 2016, it was revealed that one of Wake Forest Football's assistant coaches (also an alumnus of the University and the Wake football program), Tommy Elrod had been providing other teams with the Wake Forest playbook before games. That year, as Wake Forest prepared to play Louisville on the road, Wake Forest coaches found a binder—which would be conveniently placed at the very top of a trash can on the Demon Deacon sideline—which contained all of Wake Forest’s secret and trick plays they had been developing throughout the season, and specifically for use in the Louisville game. The ramifications of this discovery were massive for the program. upon investigating the incident, the university found evidence that Elrod had leaked plays to at least three different ACC teams dating back to 2014, the first year of head coach Dave Clawson's tenure at the school. It's unclear exactly how many opponents ended up with their hands on their playbook but based on the trajectory of the program since this discovery was made (and how it has changed drastically since then), it was certainly widespread knowledge at the time. In 2016 (the year the scandal was uncovered), Wake scored an average of 20.4 points per game, which ranked 119th out of 128 Division I programs. The very next season, when there was little meaningful turnover on the roster, the Demon Deacons averaged 35.3 points, 21st in the country among Division I programs. In their 2016 matchup against Louisville, Wake scored 12 points. In 2017 they scored 42, and in 2018 the Demon Deacons scored 56. Quite the “quick turnaround” if you ask me. First, before diving deep into the heart of this article, I wanted to take a second to point out how insane it is to me that this is not discussed more in the college football world. Wake Forest is a Division I team in the ACC—the same conference as national powerhouses Clemson, (some would say) Louisville (who did have Lamar Jackson at the time), and Notre Dame. If a scandal like this had happened at any of those schools (or God forbid any SEC school), we would still be talking about it every single Saturday—it would be mentioned in every single broadcast of every single game that team played in perpetuity. But, at the time, Wake wasn't a good football school. Dave Clawson was brought in to turn the program around, which he has done. However, if Clemson or Alabama were in a “period of rebuilding” (a concept that seems more theoretical than actually possible today), and this happened to them? The college football world would grind to a halt. There. I got the obligatory rant as a Wake Forest alumnus out of the way, and now we can move into my real question: why weren’t there legal ramifications for Elrod? Did the Demon Deacons have any legal recourse available to them? The question of available legal recourse is trickier than you might first imagine. It is clear from the investigation done by the team (and as coverage by The Athletic) that Elrod used his access to the team's information and plays to take these plays and distribute them to other coaches. But what legal doctrines could the university have employed to try and recover for this wrong? Trespass to chattels? Intellectual property? Let's explore these two areas, which I think are possibilities—even if longshot possibilities. Here, for reasons that I will get into momentarily, I think it is important to clarify why I think at least part of this playbook is protectable. I understand that within athletics, it is common practice to attempt to “steal” signs (as in baseball) or plays (like here in football) by looking to film and other accepted mediums. A lot of football plays are seen before any given opponent plays that team, and therefore they can look to film to try and pick out what play is going to happen, when it's going to happen, and then figure out the best way to counteract it. As reported by The Athletic, the playbook in 2016 contained several trick plays that had been newly created and never before put on the field. These plays had never been subject to being videotaped or seen by any other means by any opponent, and therefore the only way for them to know about these plays would be if they had advance notice they existed (which The Athletic article makes it appear Louisville did). Surprisingly, the legal remedies are quite limited. NC Statutes and Rules: The closest state statute which I could find that would relate directly to this case was N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-74. This criminal statute states, in part, that: § 14-74. Larceny by servants and other employees: If any servant or other employee, to whom any money, goods or other chattels,… by his master shall be delivered safely to be kept to the use of his master, shall withdraw himself from his master and go away with such money, goods or other chattels, or any of the articles…, with intent to steal the same and defraud his master thereof, contrary to the trust and confidence in him reposed by his said master; or… convert the same to his use, with like purpose to steal them,… the servant so offending shall be guilty of a felony: (emphasis added) While this arcane statute has not been updated in some time based solely on the choice of language, it seems to state that anyone that knowingly steals something of value from an employer is “guilty of a felony.” The civil doctrines of trespass and conversion to chattels seem to offer civil recourse here as well, where the program could be compensated for the loss in value of these plays. Intellectual Property? Conversely (and controversially), one could argue that these plays constitute intellectual property, and therefore subject to federal intellectual property laws. Generally, intellectual property is considered to be the result of some creativity of the creator, and therefore the creator has some protectable interest in their creation. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that you can't patent, copyright, or trademark, football plays—but there is one area that I think at last has an “argument” to be made: Trade Secrets. Keep in mind, I am just a law student who’s attempting to make a point—I apologize if my characterizations are oversimplified or flawed, and these opinions are based on my understanding only. Trade secrets essentially are practices or processes known within an organization that derives value for that organization by not being widely known by other parties the organization competes with. To be considered a trade secret in the United States, an organization needs to: Make a “reasonable effort” to keep the information secret and out of the public’s hands This secret must have some intrinsic economic value (to the third parties) The value must come from the fact that the information is not widely known. Looking at that first point, Wake Forest had policies, practices, passwords, etc. employed to protect these secret plays that had never been used before. After the breach, they changed their passwords, conducted an investigation, and did, even more, to make sure this didn’t happen again. Looking at the second point, I think it's a fair argument to make that these secret plays had some form of economic value. Looking to the market value of these secrets, never before seen plays, other teams were willing to steal them (and did steal them) with the help of Elrod—which implies that they were valuable enough to warrant trying to steal, and risk getting caught. If you are looking at the Demon Deacons' value of these plays, while not directly monetary, the value of the plays makes it more likely to win football games, which makes it more likely to make more money from your football program in general. Trade secret litigation is complex and nuanced, but I think there is at least an argument to be made here that you could consider, (at the very least) the plays that had never been seen before trade secrets. Their value was solely in the fact that they were secret—because trick plays once commonly known are no longer valuable (because they don’t work). Wake itself obviously valued these plays, as evidenced by the processes used to protect them, and Elrod and Louisville certainly valued them enough to go through the efforts of stealing them. The revealing of these secrets before Wake Forest was ready to do so inhibited a competitive advantage that they could have had, which has some intrinsic economic value. There are some issues with this analysis though. Because these were football plays, the Demon Deacons were going to reveal these plays voluntarily—but on their own time. At that point, they could no longer claim trade secret protection, because they disclosed the secret. However, my counter to this would be disclosure happened before Wake wanted it to, therefore destroying the value that they expected to have. It's also an issue that the true “monetary” value of these plays is almost impossible to calculate due to the nature of the plays. Additionally, I don't think this would have covered the entire playbook. As I stated before, most football plays are public knowledge, and it is a regular practice within the industry to attempt to steal or determine what plays are going to be played and when. It poses a difficult question whether these trick plays would be considered part of that public knowledge, or by their nature and because they had never been used before, they were still considered “secret.” As I mentioned above, I am no expert in this field—not even close, to be precise. However, based on my understanding of the justifications for trade secret law, I think there is an argument you could make that football plays that are 1) developed in secrecy; 2) That have never seen the light of day; 3) That were subject to reasonable measures of protection and secrecy; 4) that are stolen and used by other teams against the creator—MIGHT constitute something protectable under trade secret law. Reasons no action was perused: Okay. if, for the sake of this argument, you agree with me that at least one of these above legal theories could reasonably have been employed by the Demon Deacons in this situation, why was there no legal action taken? Well, if assuming there was an option, I think it boils down to the simple facts of a cost-benefit analysis. Even if the university could prove one of these theories, it's going to take a lot of money, time, and effort to litigate these issues. On top of this, as I established earlier, neither of these are surefire “slam dunks,” so Wake Forest could be risking all of that investment of time and money for ultimately no return (or a low one even if you win). Ultimately, I think nothing was even pursued because it was cheaper and more efficient for the team to just cut its losses and start over than worry about trying to litigate this. I also think a cultural reason might be behind this as well. As I've stated it's very common within sports for your plays/signs to be “stolen,” and Wake might have just thought of this as the risk of doing business and dismissed it without even thinking about legal recourse. if I had a time machine I would love to go back and ask officials within the athletic and legal departments at Wake Forest to see what they thought, and also in an alternate universe what the outcome would be if they did bring a suit. But instead, I'm sitting here on a Friday afternoon trying to apply my limited legal knowledge to a complex and fascinating issue. The ultimate moral of this story is best summarized I think in a question (and its answer) posed by my intellectual property professor: Q: “What's the best way to keep a trade secret?” A: “Don’t let anyone know you have a secret.” Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson. SOURCES: https://theathletic.com/3403878/2022/07/12/wakeyleaks-wake-forest-dave-clawson/

In the chaotic world of Sports Law, there are times when cases fall through the cracks because the controversy does not break into the mainstream media. The two actions that were filed in Washington, D.C. and New York fit into this category of cases. The cases focus on a business practice by major sports card manufacturers Topps and Panini. Specifically, the complaints focus on the redemption cards placed in both companies’ packs. For those uninitiated in the world of sports card collectibles, it is helpful to provide a background on redemption cards. Normally when someone purchases a pack of sports cards, they are treated with around 12 cards. These cards include a player’s name, team, position, pictures, and sometimes stats. Certain cards range in their rarity, making some more desirable than others. In contrast, the sight of a redemption card would be striking to one unaware of the practice. The redemption cards are blank white cards that contain a sticker. The sticker identifies the card that you could receive from the manufacturer. It will have the player's information, as well as the series the card is from. To obtain the card from the company, the purchaser must go to the website and redeem the card. The company will ship the card to the redeemer when it becomes available. This practice stems from the inability to obtain certain cards or players' signatures in time for the release of the packs. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that the redemption card practice is a “contest which offers a chance at winning a thing of value.” The complaint goes on to point out that Federal and state law requires that any contest at winning something of value must be classified as No Purchase Necessary (NPN). When the company does not allow non-purchasers to enter the contest, it is deemed an unlawful lottery. Now I want to make it clear that the complaints are not claiming that Topps and Panini are running an unlawful lottery. I read many articles that wrongly attribute this as a claim that the companies are running an illegal lottery. The complaints go on to explain that the companies provide information about the contests being an NPN contest. However, the companies display the information in a deceptive way to consumers. The complaint claims that both companies failed to clearly and conspicuously display the information about the NPN. The information about the NPN contest is displayed on the packs inside the boxes of trading cards. The complaint then went on to connect this lack of clarity to consumer harm. “By requiring purchase of the Product and rendering it difficult to impossible for nonpurchasers to obtain the redemption cards, consumers are misled to purchase items they otherwise would not have to, at higher prices.” The complaint went on, “Plaintiff believed and expected purchasing the Product was necessary to gain entry to the contest and gave the purchaser a greater chance at winning the contest because that is what the representations and omissions said and implied.” Finally, “Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions were false, unlawful or misleading or would have paid less for it.” Each complaint establishes two classes: residents of the jurisdiction (i.e. D.C. residents for the D.C. filing) and a consumer fraud multi-state class that includes 18 different states. The complaint filed in D.C. establishes a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code Sec. 38-3901[DC Class Only]; Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts [Multi-State Class Only]; Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; and Unjust Enrichment. The complaint filed in New York differs slightly as it establishes a cause of action under New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 & 350; Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts [Multi-State Class Only]; Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; Unjust Enrichment’; Negligent Misrepresentation; and Fraud. Both complaints are seeking a preliminary injunction along with monetary damages. These lawsuits have the ability to reshape the sports card industry as both Panini and Topps could face heavy damages. Topps and Panini sell cards in Walmart and Target as well as small mom-and-pop card shops across the United States. Topps and Panini have nationwide consumers that could cause the monetary damages from this suit to be very costly to both. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

After the news that Texas and Oklahoma were departing the Big 12 for the SEC in the summer of 2021, there was a significant domino effect of movement across the country in the subsequent months. From the Big 12 poaching the American Athletic Conference to replace Texas and OU to the American poaching Conference-USA to replace UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati, the trickle-down effect was unprecedented. The landscape was altered from the highest level of Division I college athletics all the way down to the D2 and D3 ranks. This summer, more landscape-altering news dropped when USC and UCLA announced they were leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. Initially, many in the media and around college athletics pondered that the Pac-12 wouldn’t survive the blow of two of their flagship institutions departing. Speculation that Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford would follow the Los Angeles schools to the greener pastures of the Big Ten was rampant. Reports circulated that Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah were being aggressively pursued by the Big 12. However, nearly three months removed from the bombshell announcement, there haven’t been any additional moves to this point. Where do things currently stand on the conference realignment front? Let’s dive into the developments that have either already occurred or will surface in the coming weeks and months. College Football Playoff Expansion Just before the start of the college football season kicked off at the beginning of the month, the College Football Playoff’s board of managers unanimously voted to expand the CFP from four to 12 no later than 2026. While many believed expansion was inevitable, the announcement was still significant news for the sport, especially in this climate of conference realignment. Even more important than the addition of eight teams to the CFP is the format. The current four-team playoff simply selects the four “best and most deserving” teams in the country, regardless of what conference they’re in. In the new format, 12 teams will consist of the six highest ranked conference champions and six additional at-large teams. The four highest-ranked conference champions will receive a first-round bye, leaving the five through 12 seeds to play to advance to the quarterfinals. Playoff expansion has long been viewed as a positive thing for the health of college football. Since the beginning of the CFP era in 2014, many have complained about the sport’s lack of parity, and rightfully so. Through seven years, only 13 different programs have made the four-team field. Programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Georgia have separated themselves from the rest of the sport because many recruits believe they had to commit to one of those powerhouses to compete for a championship. As a result, many schools and conferences were left with little hope to ever crack the CFP. In the newly expanded playoff, conferences and schools have something they’ve lacked in the past: access. With six bids reserved for the highest-ranked conference champions, every team in the FBS conceivably has a path to the national championship. Sure, the most well-resourced and talented programs will win in the end in most years, but the power of hope in college athletics is very strong, and the CFP expanding only increases that sense of hope. In terms of realignment, the six highest ranked conference champions piece is huge. The narrative around college athletics in the aftermath of USC and UCLA’s move was that we were living in the era of the “Power two” with the Big Ten and SEC dominating the landscape. The thought was if you weren’t in any one of those two leagues, you would fall behind. Even though that might be true from a financial perspective in terms of media rights deals, it’s not necessarily true in terms of championship access. Teams now don’t have to join the Big Ten or SEC to compete for a CFP bid. In fact, the path to the playoff might be easier in the Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, and the group of five leagues. Sure, the “Power two” will gobble up most of the at-large bids, but the depth of talented teams in those leagues will make every SEC or Big Ten team’s schedule incredibly difficult. With six spots reserved for conference champions, at least four bids will go to teams outside the “Power two.” Could the expansion of the CFP slow conference realignment? I believe it’s a strong possibility. If you are Oregon or Washington, are you more inclined to stay in the Pac-12 now? It’s an interesting dynamic. Instead of going through Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, etc. in the Big Ten, you would only have to beat out the likes of historically good, but not great programs like Arizona State, Stanford, Utah, and Washington State to win the Pac-12 crown. Of course, the revenue gap between the SEC and Big Ten to the other conference is not insignificant, but does the better path to the CFP outweigh it? It will be fascinating to watch play out. Speaking of the revenue gap between the “Power two” and the rest of college athletics, here’s the other important factor in the current state of conference realignment. The Pac-12 and Big 12’s New Media Rights Agreement Shortly after USC and UCLA departed for the Big Ten, the Pac-12 decided to expedite the process to negotiate their next media rights agreement. The current deal with ESPN and Fox is set to expire in 2024. Obviously, with USC and UCLA leaving along with the presence of the Los Angeles market, the deal won’t be as lucrative as it would’ve been with those two in the fold. With that being said, there is still some optimism within the Pac-12 and their remaining ten institutions that their next deal will be sufficient to stay competitive moving forward. Similarly, even though the Big 12’s current media rights deal doesn’t expire until 2025, they recently announced they were opening their negotiations with networks ahead of schedule. One of the few advantages the Pac-12 had was that it was next in line among the major conferences to sign a new deal. When the Big 12 smartly opened their negotiations, that advantage went out the door. Ever since reports circulated that the Big 12 was rumored to be targeting Pac-12 schools, there has been a lot of tension between those two leagues. During media days, new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark claimed his conference was “open for business” in regards to adding new members. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff clapped back with "With respect to the Big 12 being open for business, I appreciate that. We haven't decided if we're going shopping there yet or not." Given ESPN lost out on bidding for the Big Ten rights, many believe the Worldwide Leader will play a huge role in deciding the future of the Big 12 and Pac-12. Is ESPN more interested in securing the rights of the new look Big 12 or the new look Pac-12? Could they sign deals with both? These are all questions that will shape the next round of realignment. Andrew Marchand of the New York Post recently reported that the Pac-12 and ESPN are “hundreds of millions of dollars apart.” If this is true and the remaining Pac-12 schools are unsatisfied with the negotiation process, would they look to jump? It’s possible. Another variable to point out on the media rights subject is the presence of Amazon or other streaming services. We’ve seen the NFL dip their toe into streaming with Thursday Night Football, but how would it work in college athletics? The Pac-12 Networks are often criticized for a lack of distribution, so would the upside of potentially getting more revenue from an Amazon or Apple be offset by the lack of visibility? With the Big Ten and SEC having nearly all of their games on cable television, would it be wise for the Pac-12 to be the only major conference on streaming services? Probably not. George Kliavkoff has expressed optimism about the conference’s ability to sign a good deal and keep its remaining members, but as we know, actions are a lot more powerful than words in conference realignment. All in all, while we haven’t seen the immediate trickle down like we saw after Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC, there is still a lot to be sorted out in the coming months. The CFP expansion could definitely lessen the incentive to jump to a more profitable league, but everyone needs to keep an eye on the media rights agreements signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12. I believe college athletics are better when all regions of the country are relevant and regional rivalries are present. We can still have that, but there’s a lot to be decided in the near future. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The application process for Official World Golf Ranking (“OWGR”) certification takes anywhere from one to two years. Additionally, a tour that applies for certification must meet certain mandatory criteria for a minimum of one year before the application is submitted. LIV officially applied for OWGR certification on July 6, 2022 – just three months ago – and less than one month after its first event. Despite that timeline, LIV golfers are reportedly growing “agitated” that OWGR officials are “slow playing” their application. To that end, they have penned a group letter to the OWGR Governing Board asking for LIV to be included in the ranking system. Not only does the letter ask for the OWGR to certify LIV significantly faster than any other tour in history, but it also requests that the points be applied retroactively to past LIV events – a move that has no precedent. Even if the OWGR dramatically altered its processes and timeline to fast-track LIV’s application, there are significant hurdles that make certification unlikely considering some of OWGR’s compulsory elements. Those elements are discussed below. OWGR Application Criteria An embrace of inclusion and promoting non-discriminatory practices. Many people dismiss LIV’s ties to Saudi Arabia and its track record of human rights abuses when defending the insurgent tour, however, those ties may very well impact their OWGR application. Although it is far more likely that OWGR is referring to inclusion and non-discriminatory practices as it relates to the tour itself, it is not out of the question that the OWGR Governing Board considers the parent company and funding source of LIV golf. Competitions contested over 72 holes, except for developmental tours, which are permitted to be 54-hole events. The name “LIV” did not fall out of the sky – it is the roman numeral representing the number 54, for its signature 54-hole event tournaments. Greg Norman’s primary pitch for LIV is that it is an alternative to the PGA that will allow golfers to make more money while playing less golf. LIV would have to completely reverse course on its business model – and likely change its name – in order to meet this criterion. Additionally, many golfers who believed they were signing up for 54-hole events will not be happy. An open qualifying school held before the start of each season. LIV’s members are handpicked by Greg Norman. There are no qualifying schools or other criteria whereby a player can make it onto the LIV tour. Instead, they must have some kind of star power for LIV to choose them. See: Tiger Woods turning down $800 million to join LIV. A field size on average of 75 players over the course of a season. Another major selling point of LIV golf is the limited size of the fields, which are just 48 players. This is far lower than the field average required by the OWGR. It is not out of the realm of possibility that LIV expands its field size to meet this criterion. Although Greg Norman has routinely spoken of the exclusivity of LIV being just 48 of the top players in the world, adding 30 more bodies seems a small price to pay for OWGR points. A 36-hole cut, whether playing 54 or 72 holes. Yet another pillar of LIV’s business model is that everybody who plays makes money. Their tournaments have no cut, a stark contrast from the traditional 36-hole cut system found in the majority of PGA Tour and other tour events. For golfers who are not high on the annual money list, missing the cut on the PGA Tour can prove costly since their travel and lodging are not covered. This has been a major criticism of the PGA Tour, and two of the most significant changes recently unveiled aim to alleviate those costs. First, the Tour is adding a $5,000 stipend for each missed cut to non-exempt Tour members. Second, the Tour is implementing a $500,000 minimum salary for all exempt members that play at least 15 events (one less than the 14-event LIV schedule). Despite these changes, the no-cut format is understandably appealing for many golfers and it would make little sense for LIV to transition to a 36-hole cut, especially considering the small field sizes. A clear opportunity to progress to a full member tour. LIV has positioned itself as the anti-member tour and this element is somewhat of a lost cause. Nobody who is playing on the LIV tour has goals of someday making the PGA Tour. They are on LIV because they have chosen to play a different type of golf. Many people point to LIV’s affiliation with the Asian Tour (an OWGR Member) as satisfying this element. However, golfers who sign up for LIV are not doing so because they want to play on the Asian Tour. In short, LIV is not a feeder for the Asian Tour. Reasonable access for local and regional players (Monday qualifiers) at each event. As mentioned, the LIV field is set at 48 players who are handpicked by Greg Norman. There is no opportunity for Monday qualifiers or regional players to enter their exclusive fields. However, in July, LIV did announce plans to add relegation and a qualifying tournament to its format beginning in October 2023. The plan is essentially that the bottom 4 players over the course of the LIV season will be relegated (lose their tour card). In October, LIV will then host a tournament whereby four players will earn their way onto the full tour the following season. Although this change may satisfy the qualifying tournament element, it won’t be in place until at least October 2023. Since the OWGR explicitly states that elements must be in place for one year prior to submitting an application, the earliest that this move could pay off for LIV is October 2024. A 10-event minimum schedule. At the time of its application, the LIV tour was scheduled for 8 events. Next year, they will be hosting 14 events. This is ironic since many golfers who defected cited that playing fewer tournaments than the PGA Tour’s 15-event minimum was the biggest draw for them (not the money, of course). Now, they’re required to play all 14 LIV events, and, if they are eligible to play in Majors, they will be playing close to 20 times next season. Regardless, although LIV could not satisfy the 10-event minimum at the time of its application, it will by next year. The Bottom Line Clearly, LIV faces some significant hurdles in gaining recognition from the OWGR. The most prominent one being that their application seems to be very premature since almost none of the mandatory criteria are met at this point and only a couple more will be met by next year. Additionally, it should be noted that the LIV golfers only want OWGR points to be able to qualify for Majors. However, the PGA Championship – one of golf’s four majors – has no OWGR-based eligibility. Even if LIV gains certification from the OWGR, there is nothing stopping the other three Majors from following suit. In short, the Majors hold the trump card. Some golf commentators have inquired about whether LIV will simply adopt a four-round, 36-hole cut format or increase the field sizes to gain certification from the OWGR. However, from the very beginning, LIV has branded itself as different. Fewer rounds, no cut, more money, loud music. For a tour that has done everything in its power to be anti-establishment, they are spending an awful lot of time, money, and effort to align itself with the Majors and OWGR. As Judge Beth Freeman stated in her opinion last month: “if LIV Golf is elite golf’s future, what do [LIV Golfers] care about the dust-collecting trophies of a bygone era?” John Nucci is an Associate at Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP in Rochester, NY and a graduate of Penn State Law. He can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter at @JNucci23.

In 2021, The University of Southern Mississippi, Marshall University, and Old Dominion University announced that they accepted invitations to join the Sun Belt Conference (SBC), leaving Conference USA (CUSA) no later than July 1, 2023. In February, the departing schools moved up the date to join the SBC to July 1, 2022, which CUSA opposed due to the conference’s by-laws requiring 14 months’ notice prior to exiting. After multiple court filings and arbitration filings, the conference and departing schools reached a resolution in March, allowing the schools to join the SBC in 2022. Initially kept confidential, the settlement agreement has been released to the public, detailing the costs of exiting CUSA and showcasing that any conference exit can occur—for the right amount of money. According to CUSA by-laws, the exit fees for teams leaving the conference equals two years’ worth of revenue distribution, equaling about $1.5 million per year or $3 million total. The settlement agreement dictates each school must pay $1.75 million to CUSA for an early exit. In turn, CUSA agreed to pay the universities certain amounts from the NCAA for the 2021-2022 academic year, including amounts received from the academic enhancement fund, academic performance fund, student assistance fund, sports sponsorships, and grants-in-aid. Additionally, the departing schools would receive any bowl expense reimbursements. Except as enumerated in the agreement, CUSA withheld all other distributions (although the settlement agreement did not specify what distributions CUSA withheld). Not only did the departing schools pay $1.75 million to CUSA and lose out on approximately $1.5 million in media distribution money from the conference for the 2021-2022 academic year, but the schools also will not receive any television revenue from the SBC during the current academic year, which is around $1.2 million per year. Paying $1.75 million to exit the conference and missing out on $1.5 million in revenue for over $3 million in losses is a costly amount to pay for athletic departments that earn total revenues between $27 million (Southern Miss) and $41 million (Old Dominion). For the schools, help should be on the way in future years. The SBC and ESPN announced an expanded media rights agreement shortly after the schools joined the conference. Additionally, the geographic benefits of the SBC should save on travel costs and other expenses. For CUSA, six more schools are exiting at the end of the current academic year to join the American Athletic Conference (AAC). Each school is expected to pay roughly $3 million in exit fees, putting the conference in a solid financial position as it adds four schools. As for everyone else, as conferences continue to realign, this settlement agreement lets us know that anything can happen for the right price. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

The MLB is having a grand finale to the 2022 season. Aaron Judge is on pace for an all-time season, potentially being capped off by winning the Triple Crown and breaking the American League Home Run Record. In the National League, all-time great Albert Pujols looks to cap off his exceptional career by hitting the 700 home run mark. As of today, September 22 pre-game, Judge sits at 60 home runs, one off the current record of 61 held by former Yankee Roger Maris, and Albert Pujols sits at 698 total home runs. Beyond the media hype surrounding Judge's feats, including ESPN tuning in to every Judge at-bat and Apple TV discussing a scenario in which Michael Kay announces Judge's home run on Apple TV (if it were to fall on this Friday), there is a substantial buzz going around New York and the sports world about the prospect of catching number 61 and 62 of the Yankee slugger's home runs. Pujols on the other hand, could very likely hit 700 in enemy territory, as he only has 3 games left in St. Louis. However, I think opposing fans will be just as happy to get a chance at that milestone ball. Presumably this buzz stems from reports that Judge's 61st and 62nd home runs have been valued In the millions, essentially making Aaron Judge's home run balls into winning lottery tickets launched into a crowd of waiting New Yorkers. Pujols is estimated to be a bit lower than Judge but will be a substantial value to anyone who catches it nonetheless. These home runs are almost an inevitability given Judge and Pujols have 14 games to hit two home runs, so what happens if those balls land among the crowd? The obvious case to look at here is Popov v. Hayashi, the legal battle over current MLB home run record holder Barry Bonds' record-breaking shot. This case caused quite a stir in the sports and legal worlds as the facts were unique and had to be approached from a new perspective. The basic premise is that as Bonds' record-breaking ball sailed into the stands, Popov caught it in his glove, and was almost immediately knocked down by others clamoring for the jackpot that had just landed in the stands. When he was knocked down due to the illegal, borderline assaultive actions of the fans around him, he lost possession of the ball and Hayashi scooped it up and ran to safety. Popov, rightfully upset, filed an action for conversion (when a party takes the tangible, personal property of another with the intent to deprive them of it) against Hayashi claiming he had a right to that ball. Hayashi defended that he had a right to the ball because he legally picked it up and walked away with it. In an unusual result, the court ruled that both men had a right to the ball. Popov through his pre-possessory interest when he caught it, and Hayashi through his actual possession had equally compelling arguments. The conclusion was that the ball would be sold with the men splitting the profits equally. It sounds like history could repeat itself as the Yankees finish out their season at home. With tickets at Yankee Stadium in home run areas like the bleachers already ascending to absurd prices like $600 per ticket, you can bet the crowd at Yankee Stadium is chomping at the bit to get their hands on this ball. Something tells me there will be a severe deprivation of personal space, and a departure from civil norms if/when that ball lands in the stands. The same goes for Pujols' potential milestone home run, although New York seems to be drawing a majority of the attention. Yankee Stadium has been sitting over 40,000 fans per game in attendance during the homestand with a significant electricity throughout the game. Here's some advice from a baseball fan who will be watching at home. If you find yourself in the unlikely position to walk away with one of these money balls, dont' commit assault, don't announce it or show it off, find security, and maybe call a lawyer. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-mattel-93a871182/

Money truly does make the world go round. Legalized sports gambling is another commodity that has been grabbing headlines over the last decade. The concept is simple, a person places a bet on any amount of various outcomes throughout the course of a quarter, game, or season. However, a simple concept is seldom as straightforward in law. As of May 14, 2018, the federal ban on sports betting was lifted by the Supreme Court of the U.S, allowing each state to decide whether or not they want sports gambling legalized. 3 years later, and there are 22 states with legalized sports betting, 8 with a recent bill passed, 18 with a bill introduced into legislation but not passed, and 3 with no bill introduced[1]. The legal well goes even deeper as the states with legalized sports betting have different prohibitions and methods of gambling permitted. For example, in New York, a resident may place a sports bet in-person at a casino, but may not place a bet over a mobile device using apps such as DraftKings or FanDuel (although a bill on this is pending). Furthermore, 12 states with legalized gambling do not allow betting on local or in-state collegiate teams. So it’s not an all-or-nothing endeavor, legalized sports gambling is a complicated issue and one that must be closely monitored and regulated. Many fans and NFL personnel fear issues of corruption and “throwing” games, especially on the collegiate level. This is a valid concern, however legalized betting will actually reduce the likelihood of corruption as the wagers will be heavily monitored and under strict regulation. This is where the NFL comes in. As of April 15, 2021, the NFL reached an agreement with Caesars, DraftKings and FanDuel as its official partners for sports gambling[2]. The NFL had been adamant in its opposition to the idea of legalized sports gambling especially in regards to their league as commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a letter to New Jersey Court that “[It] threatens to damage irreparably the integrity of, and public confidence in, NFL football”[3]. However as they say, money talks and in this case it was loud. Once the NFL could predict the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the federal ban on sports gambling, it began doing its due diligence in order to see if this is a worthwhile endeavor. The numbers they discovered were staggering as anywhere from $75-$125 billion was illegally gambled in the United States, primarily through mobile devices to offshore sports books. Those numbers are too good to ignore and the NFL quickly changed its position partnering with the three gambling companies and now expecting around $270 million in revenue from sports-betting and gambling with the potential to grow to $1 billion+[4]. The final piece of this gambling puzzle comes with balancing the betting fans viewing experience and the casual fans experience. Bettors are going to want to see live lines and prop bets, whereas the casual fan probably just wants to watch the game undisturbed. Alternate broadcasts and minor changes to the ticker on the bottom of the screen including a points line is the most likely solution, as gamblers can seek out podcasts and shows dedicated to sports betting for a more comprehensive experience. Overall, the partnership is a good thing and something that seemed inevitable. It was going to happen anyway and from the NFL’s perspective they might as well make some money off of it. Don’t be surprised to hear how that pick 6 in the dying seconds of the game might have cost someone their chance of winning or how that touchdown in garbage time affects fantasy football players. Sports and gambling have been and always will be synonymous and now they’re taking the next step towards a symbiotic relationship. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a member of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @ Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] Rodenberg, Ryan. “United States of Sports Betting: An Updated Map of Where Every State Stands.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, April 7, 2021. https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19740480/the-united-states-sports-betting-where-all-50-states-stand-legalization. [2]Nfl. “NFL Announces TRI-EXCLUSIVE Official Sports Betting Partners.” NFL.com. NFL, April 15, 2021. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-announces-tri-exclusive-sports-betting-partners. [3] Maske, Mark, and Ben Strauss. “The NFL Once Viewed Sports Betting as a THREAT. Now the League Wants the Action.” The Washington Post. WP Company, August 27, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/nfl-sports-betting/. [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/nfl-sports-betting/

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? That is the question. The COVID vaccine has been a staple in media headlines since its inception, and sports is no exception. The latest of which involves the Jacksonville Jaguars and their head coach Urban Meyer’s recent comments about vaccination status factoring into recent roster cuts. To give some context, Urban Meyer is a former accomplished college football coach for Ohio State who recently transitioned into the NFL for the first time. He also had the privilege of drafting top quarterback prospect Trevor Lawrence in this year’s NFL draft. As such, the sports world has been fixated on the new head coach and his prized quarterback’s first season in the NFL. Meyer drew even more attention a result of his comments during a press conference discussing roster cuts where he was quoted as saying “"Everyone was considered," Meyer said. "That was part of the [considerations such as] production, let's start talking about this, and also is he vaccinated or not? Can I say that that was a decision-maker? It was certainly in consideration.”[1] . This may seem like a standard vague head coach answer, but Meyer’s comments caught the attention of the media and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), who has launched an investigation. The NFL has a policy that a team may not cut a player based on vaccination status. This issue first popped up in May when Buffalo Bills GM Brandon Beane stated he’d hypothetically cut an unvaccinated player because it would provide more freedom within team facilities and make the offseason more manageable. An anonymous source with knowledge of the league’s directive responded and told the Associated Press “A team may not release a player solely due to vaccination status.”[2] As a private company, the NFL would be well within its rights to mandate players and staff within the organization to get the vaccine. There has been some rumblings in the media that the NFL might try to implement a mandate for the vaccine, however they would need the NFLPA approval or risk a partial or total strike from players. However, at the moment they have not made such a mandate and instead have established a different set of rules for the unvaccinated players. Vaccinated players will be tested weekly and are not considered to be “high risk” close contacts. If they come in contact with anyone deemed high risk, they must wear a mask around team facilities and take receive a negative COVID test result for 5 days straight. If they do contract COVID they must quarantine for 10 days or show proof of 2 negative COVID tests, separated by 24 hours. On the contrary, unvaccinated players must be tested daily and test immediately if they are deemed high risk or in contact with a high risk individual. Even if that test comes back negative, they still must miss 5 days before being able to return. If they test positive, they must complete a 10 day quarantine plus another 3 days to return to play.[3] This disparity between regulations for vaccinated and unvaccinated players is extremely relevant for this upcoming season as any team that must cancel a game due to a COVID outbreak would forfeit that game. Meyer had informed the team about the benefits of the vaccine and encouraged players to get vaccinated but ultimately said the decision is a personal one. He did also mention that protocols for unvaccinated players would impact the team’s chances to win. Earlier today (September 1, 2021), Meyer held another press conference where he said no players were released because of vaccination status [4]. This was an important clarification to make, but not a necessary one. The devil is in the details of the NFL’s rule as it states cutting a player on the sole reason of vaccination status is not allowed. Meyer never stated it was the only reason, just one of the factors. From a coach and general manager’s perspective, is it really unfair to consider vaccination status when making these decisions? A potential COVID outbreak could not only impact star players availability, but this year it could directly impact their record, standings and health of other players and staff. Meyer’s comments were not in violation of the NFL’s policy and from the perspective of management, this is a responsible practice with the underlying motivation being the overall success of the team and health of its players. Meyer’s comments will grab headlines, but most likely nothing else. Don’t be surprised to see more controversy arise out of the NFL’s COVID policies, and if the mandate is established, the floodgates will open. *Reporting on the Jacksonville Jaguars situation was first reported by Michale DiRocco at ESPN* [1]https://DiRocco, Michael. “NFLPA Opens Investigation after Jacksonville Jaguars' Urban Meyer SAYS Vaccination Status a Factor In Roster Cuts.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, August 31, 2021. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32121794/jacksonville-jaguars-urban-meyer-says-vaccination-status-factor-roster-cuts. [2] Wilner, Barry. “AP Source: No Cutting Players Because They Are Unvaccinated.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, May 7, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-bills-coronavirus-pandemic-nfl-health-sports-33fedd03a0c2551a52fa729579dbe2fe. [3] Shapiro, Michael. “Report: NFL Adds WEEKLY Testing To Covid-19 Protocols.” Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, August 30, 2021. https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/08/30/nfl-updates-covid-19-protocols-weekly-testing-vaccinated-players. [4] DiRocco, Michael. “Jacksonville Jaguars Say No Players Were Released Due To COVID-19 Vaccination Status.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, September 1, 2021. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32126156/jacksonville-jaguars-say-no-players-were-released-due-vaccination-status.

If you know football, you know about Calvin Johnson. The most dominant receiver of his era racking up 11,000 yards and 83 touchdowns in 135 games and a 2021 induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Much like fellow Detroit Lions legend Barry Sanders, Johnson decided to retire early, still in his prime, in order to preserve his body and mind. Throughout his 9 year career, Johnson suffered an estimated nine concussions, an injury to his foot, ankle, both knees, and a gruesome finger injury that required surgery after he retired. When asked about his concussions, Johnson said he got used to them, “bam, hit the ground real hard. I’m seeing stars; I can’t see straight,” he says. “But I know in a couple minutes I’m gonna be fine. Because I’ve done that plenty of times before.” He also explained “I knew I was concussed because I blacked out. I wasn’t seeing straight. And they wanted me to change my story”1. His decision is logical and it seemed as if no one really resented the fact he had called it an early career. From a fan’s perspective it is a shame to watch such a talent hang up his cleats when he had more to give. In 2012, Johnson signed a 7 year, $113 million extension with $53 million in guaranteed money, making him the highest paid receiver at that time. This included a signing bonus worth $16 million and this is where the problems arose. In 2017, a report was released stating that as a result of his early retirement the Lions asked for 10% of that bonus back ($320,000) which Johnson obliged, albeit with Johnson frustrated with the demand2. Contractually, the Lions could have asked for a settlement worth $3.2 million, but instead demanded Johnson return $1.6 million, not just the 10%. They offered a 500k annual salary plus another 100k to Johnson’s charitable organization of choice if he worked 28 hours of promotional appearances per year which he rejected. Johnson was already frustrated with how the Lions treated him throughout his career and even more so with the original request for 10% of his bonus. This new request only furthered the dismay between the Lions and Johnson with Johnson saying it’s not about the money, but about the principle and desire for the Lions to treat him how he believes he deserves3. The Lions responded to this claiming that they could not give Johnson his money outright since the NFL would audit the payment, a standard practice to ensure NFL teams are not manipulating cap space. The interesting part about this situation is that generally teams do not recall signing bonuses, especially with a player of Johnson’s caliber. The Lions cannot use the money recouped towards current roster signings or to increase their cap space for the upcoming years. It’s more likely a precedent to make sure other players do not believe they will be guaranteed money if they decide to follow in the footsteps of Johnson and Sanders and retire before completing their contract. The fans immediate reaction was to back Johnson as he is an iconic player to their franchise. However, it’s tough to place blame firmly on one side. The Lions handled the situation poorly, but their reasoning is understandable. They don’t need the $3.2 million as the franchise is worth $2.4 billion, but the precedent they set is important. There’s a fine line between honoring the great players of the franchise and establishing a firm rule of commitment to honoring a contract. Johnson has a right to be disgruntled, especially if his allegations against the Lions training staff are true. However, there must be some level of compromise on his side as it seems the Lions are trying to make amends within the guidelines of the league’s rules. The 28 hours a year of promotional material, 5 of which would be based around the Lions' retirement of Johnson’s jersey, seems to be a fair offer. It would be a shame for a legend like Megatron to distance himself from football and the only team in his career, but the situation does not seem like it’s going to resolve itself anytime soon. Hopefully, Johnson will find some middle ground with the organization in order to immortalize him within Detroit by having #81 in the rafters of Ford Field. 1 Dator, James. “Calvin Johnson's Beef with the Lions, and His $1.6M DEMAND, Explained.” SBNation.com. SBNation.com, September 15, 2021. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2021/9/15/22675896/calvin-johnsons-beef-lions-1-6m-payment-nfl. 2 Windsor, Shawn. “It's on the Detroit Lions to Make Amends with Calvin Johnson over PETTY $320,000 Payback.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, May 25, 2017. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2017/05/25/calvin-johnson-detroit-lions-feud/345816001/. 3 Smith, Posted by Michael David. “Report: Calvin Johnson Turned down LIONS' Offer of $500,000 a Year for 28 Hours of Work.” ProFootballTalk, August 7, 2021. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/07/report-calvin-johnson-turned-down-lions-offer-of-500000-a-year-for-28-hours-of-work/. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a member of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter.