A 12-acre parcel in the South End of Niagara Falls, New York is currently the subject of ongoing eminent domain proceedings, featuring a battle between development and construction company Niagara Falls Redevelopment (NFR), and Niagara Falls officials, including its mayor, Robert Restaino. Restaino has been vocal in his support of an event center and campus, named Centennial Park, emphasizing the jobs and economic growth the project would bring to the area. However, there has been a lack of evidence that there will be adequate funding for the proposed project or that it will be viable long-term without a permanent tenant. The city argues that the Niagara University Basketball and Hockey Teams would fill this latter void, but the city has received no assurances from the school as to whether or not they are on board. In response to the eminent domain proceedings and the city’s push to claim the land, Roger Trevino, a principal of NFR, said, “We firmly believe that eminent domain proceedings are not needed, and we oppose such actions as highly premature. Eminent domain can take years and cost taxpayers millions. It would be completely unnecessary in the face of the opportunities we have been discussing with Mayor Restaino” (Niagara Gazette, 2022). While this Niagara land battle presents some compelling legal questions, the more interesting inquiry is whether or not a city could or would ever initiate eminent domain proceedings for a major college or professional team, and what legal challenges those proceedings may face. What Is Eminent Domain? Eminent domain is the power of the government to take property for public use without the consent of the owner. It can be exercised either by public officials or by private parties to whom the power has been delegated. And it can be exercised either through the initiation of legal proceedings or simply by taking possession up front, with compensation to follow. PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC v. New Jersey, 141 S.Ct. 2244, 2251 (2021). The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of government entities to transfer ownership of seized properties to third parties, as long as the seizure has a legitimate public purpose. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); see also Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Necessarily, the main issue in a sports-related context will be whether or not sporting venues have a “legitimate public purpose” to satisfy legislative bodies and, more importantly, courts. The City of Niagara faces an uphill battle in its eminent domain proceedings not only because of the “legitimate public purpose” question, but also due to other factors like funding, economic viability, and whether or not the current land development plan is a more legitimate public purpose than the city’s plan. But using the Niagara case as a springboard, the question of whether or not a sports stadium or arena serves a legitimate public purpose becomes an interesting public policy debate. Policy Arguments for a Public Purpose In arguing for a “public purpose” for a stadium or arena, the positive arguments center around the economic benefit to the municipality, similar arguments to the ones currently made for public funding of stadiums. The city initially benefits from the construction of the stadium. That process creates scores of jobs, especially if the team adds a shopping district or some other attraction to the construction project. Once the venue is up and running, the city ideally benefits from having attractions year-round that fill that stadium, whether it be the principal occupant, concerts, amateur competitions, etc. Gameday visitors travel on mass transit and on toll roads, generating tax dollars. Visitors generate additional tax dollars when they park in paid lots, visit small businesses prior to the game, purchase concessions and souvenirs at the game, and stay in hotels or vacation rentals within the municipality. Of course, there are benefits of the stadium that are not purely economic but still beneficial to the local community that receives a new venue. The increased attention on the team and their new arena naturally provide opportunities for the local government and businesses to promote social and community initiatives. Additionally, teams will more than likely have their own charitable foundations and projects that will positively impact the local community. Finally, the greater share of jobs required to continue to operate the stadium will usually allow for more employment opportunities for lower-income communities, and in doing so will ideally raise the standard of living for that city. Policy Arguments Against a Public Purpose In arguing against the seizure of land for sports venues, cities have a number of economic concerns that usually apply. The contested land may serve a more beneficial purpose, especially if the land desired has a viable economic, historic, social, or artistic purpose. The up-front taxpayer input usually required by most teams hampers the local economy, while the revenues generated may reside largely or solely with the team. The seizure of the land and construction of the stadium will naturally create disruptions to the local market and possibly the local infrastructure, including roads and mass transit. Further, once the stadium is up and running, there is no guarantee of financial viability, even if the team is very successful, depending on the cost of the project and any additional construction projects. As a social matter, state and local governments may be hesitant to support eminent domain proceedings for sports-related purposes. The venue may be most beneficial to non-residents, depending on the average income of the city compared to the average price of tickets. Residents could, effectively, be priced out of the enjoyment the seizure was initiated to create, even more so if the area around the venue becomes too expensive, forcing current residents to relocate. Further, increased transient traffic will naturally create disturbances and require increased maintenance efforts, both for public services and for local residents. The economic investment and impact of the stadium may prompt the local government to cater more policies to visitors, potentially at the expense of residents. This may result in the municipal government ignoring larger social problems to support the team and the new venue. Finally, the seizure may have disproportionate effects on lower-income communities and communities of color, which may be amplified if the land is of particular historical or social significance within those communities. A Potential Real-World Example If Restaino and crew can prove that Centennial Park does in fact serve a public purpose, will the decision open the floodgates? With this case as precedent, it’s possible professional and collegiate teams are able to claim land for the construction of their own facilities and venues. The University of Miami is rumored to be looking into building its own stadium at Tropical Park in Coral Gables. The project is being spearheaded by Canes’ booster, John Ruiz, with the help of his son, Johnny Ruiz, and HKS architects, who are known for SoFi Stadium, AT&T Stadium, and U.S. Bank Stadium. While there hasn’t been any official word from the University, local Coral Gables residents and some city officials have been pretty vocal in their opposition to the proposal, citing increased traffic and loss of the use of the historical Tropical Park. If Niagra Falls city officials are able to claim the 12-acre parcel for an event and athletic complex by justifying the taking as ‘in the interest of public good’, it's possible Ruiz and company follow suit, potentially bringing in the University of Miami and the City of Miami to repurpose Tropical Park.

Around this time of year, we see a lot of coaching changes in college athletics. Whether it's coaches being fired or taking other jobs, the coaching “carousel” as we know it begins to spin out of control. However, seeing head coaching changes in college basketball in the first few weeks of November is extremely rare. But last week, Hartford men’s coach John Gallagher resigned from his position the day before the 2022-2023 college hoops season tipped off. What led to this decision? Could there be a legal dispute? Let’s dive into this peculiar situation. To understand Gallagher’s resignation, it’s key to trace the confluence of events that led to the thirteenth-year head coach stepping down. Since 1984, The University of Hartford’s men’s basketball program had been competing in Division I in various low to mid-major conferences. Throughout its history, the Hawks have struggled to find consistent success on the hardwood, regularly finishing toward the bottom of the America East Conference standings. However, the program has experienced unprecedented highs since Gallagher took over in 2010, including the school’s first and only trip to the NCAA Tournament in 2021. Because of that success, you would think that the positive momentum would’ve spurred no shortage of fan excitement and additional investment, right? Wrong. Immediately following their NCAA Tournament berth, the University of Hartford's Board of Regents voted to transition all of their athletic programs from the Division I to Division III level beginning in the 2023-2024 academic year. In the last few years, we’ve seen numerous schools move up a level, but very rarely do you see a school move down, especially all the way from Division I to Division III. Obviously, any player or coach that signed up to be a Division I player or Division I coach would probably be upset if their school announced a move to Division III, and Gallagher fell into that camp. While he stayed on the job last season, many in the industry believed his time in Hartford would come to an end at the conclusion of this upcoming season. But why did he step down now? Gallagher’s frustrations with the Hartford administration for taking his program down to the Division III level were already high coming into the season. However, in one of his team's exhibition games, it appears like those frustrations finally reached a boiling point. According to his resignation letter, Gallagher alleged the school failed to protect the safety and well-being of their student-athletes by neglecting to provide an athletic trainer for the Hawks’ preseason battle with Dartmouth College. He claimed the lack of medical support not only potentially caused a knee injury to one of his players but also resulted in a longer and more painful recovery process. “At least one parent has reached out to express outrage at this situation,” Gallagher said in his statement. “This is something that I, as a Coach, cannot tolerate.” While it appears the lack of a trainer at one of his team’s games was the breaking point, it’s only a piece of this situation that needs to be monitored. In his resignation letter, he cites a breach of contract by the University on several occasions. Gallagher reportedly remains in an active lawsuit with a member of the University’s Board of Regents dating back to 2021 after being assured that Hartford would remain at the Division I level. Allegedly, those reassurances led Gallagher to decline an offer to join Porter Moser’s staff at the University of Oklahoma. In all the fallout, Hartford released a statement to ESPN that refuted Gallager’s claims. “Mr. Gallagher’s resignation letter is full of inaccuracies,” the school said. “We are confident that these baseless claims and attacks will be disproved through the legal process. We wish Mr. Gallagher well and look forward to announcing interim leadership for our men’s basketball program.” The “he said, she said” in this situation is definitely worth monitoring, especially with the precedent it might set in college athletics moving forward. I mentioned earlier that it has been rare to see schools move down from Division I. However, with the NCAA Transformation Committee actively in work to determine what constitutes Division I, we could see more schools make the institutional decision to transition downwards. There might be certain investment thresholds that the “new D1” schools need to meet, and some schools might decide the juice is not worth the squeeze. For coaches of those programs that decide to move down to Division II or Division III, how will their contracts be handled? Will they be free to find other jobs? Will they be confined to the same language as the original deal? Will they follow Gallagher’s steps and pursue legal action? Obviously, the difference between Division I and the lower levels is vast and the nature of the original contract agreement would definitely be different. However, Gallagher’s dispute with Hartford might be the test case that lays the groundwork for future cases with similar contexts. Hopefully, the Hawks can have a somewhat “normal” season this year despite the chaotic start. You have to feel for the players who put in the work all summer and fall anticipating playing under Gallagher, only to see their coach walk out the door the day before the first game. It’s an unfortunate situation that you have to hope works out for all parties involved. Brendan Bell can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

Earlier this year, the Lerner family began exploring a sale of the Washington Nationals. Since then, it has become clear that the regional sports network Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) has created a potential roadblock to selling the Nationals. Now, Major League Baseball has stepped in to resolve the issues created by MASN and help facilitate a sale. When Major League Baseball, which owned the Montreal Expos, proposed moving the team to Washington in 2004, Orioles owner Peter Angelos raised concerns over sharing territory with the Nationals. Thus, Major League Baseball reached an agreement with the Orioles to form MASN, giving the Orioles an initial 90 percent stake in the network and the Nationals a 10 percent stake. After two years, the Nationals’ stake would increase by 1 percent each season until the Nationals’ stake reached 33 percent. Initially, the teams would be paid the same rights fees by MASN, which the parties could revisit every five years. The agreement did not have a termination date and explicitly states that “all subsequent purchaser(s), assignees or transferees shall be unconditionally bound to all terms and conditions of [the] [a]greement.” In 2012, the first year the Nationals could renegotiate rights fees, the team argued that they were not paid fair market value from MASN for their rights. After failing to come to an agreement, the Nationals took the issue to arbitration. In 2019, a Major League Baseball arbitration panel awarded $105 million to the Nationals. MASN has appealed the award to a New York appellate court, arguing that the panel was not impartial. Monumental Sports and Entertainment Owner Ted Leonsis is the leading candidate to purchase the Nationals. Leonsis owns the Washington Capitals, Wizards, and two-thirds of NBC Sports Washington. Therefore, if Leonsis were to purchase the team, it is likely that he would prefer to move the Nationals’ rights to NBC Sports Washington. With the deal being in perpetuity, the only way to move the Nationals’ rights would be to buy out the rights from the Orioles-controlled MASN. Angelos likely would have no interest in selling the Nationals’ rights without a significant payday. On top of the buyout, the sides would have to resolve the pending litigation—potentially costing a buyer to forfeit the arbitration award in exchange for television rights. Thus, the delay in selling the Nationals is not because of a lack of interest. Instead, the Orioles may be holding up the sale via MASN and controlling the Nationals’ broadcast rights. The Nationals will fetch billions from a buyer if the issue gets resolved. 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 Boston Bruins may be sitting in first place in the Atlantic Division, but the signing of Mitchell Miller is overshadowing the team’s current success. This is not the first time that Miller’s name has made waves in the NHL. The Ohio native was drafted by the Arizona Coyotes in 2020 but a few days later the Coyotes dropped him after former classmate, Isaiah Meyer-Crothers, spoke out about suffering years of abuse by Miller that concluded in a juvenile court case. Meyer-Crothers, who is African American was cruelly bullied by Miller and his friends for years. The bullying included punching, Miller spitting in his face, throwing food at him, and calling him racial slurs. An incident in 2016 led to police involvement and a court conviction after Miller and another boy tricked Meyer-Crothers into licking a piece of candy that had been rubbed inside a urinal. Miller and the other boy were charged with assault and violating the Ohio Safe Schools Act. The two boys were sentenced to 25 hours of community service, write letters of apology to Meyer-Crothers, pay court costs, and undergo counseling. You may ask, why did the Bruins sign Miller after news of the cruel abuse made headlines in 2020? After being discarded by the Coyotes Miller began to play for the Tri-City Storm a Tier I junior team based in Nebraska, that plays in the Western Conference of the US Hockey League. This year Miller had a successful season with the Tri-City Storm, being named USHL's player of the year with 39 goals in 60 games. Miller caught the eye of the Bruins and the team signed him to a three-year entry-level contract, sending him to Boston’s AHL team the Providence Bruins. Following the announcement, the Bruins received harsh criticism over the signing of Miller. Two days later, the Bruins rescinded their offer to Miller. The Bruins were aware of Miller's prior conviction but signed him because the team thought the bullying was “an isolated incident and that he had taken meaningful action to reform. …”. In a news conference with the Bruins organization and NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, Bettman deemed Miller ineligible to join the Bruins as well as any other team in the league. Since rescinding their offer Bruins President Cam Neely offered an apology to the Meyer-Crothers family stating "To Isaiah and his family, my deepest apologies if this signing made you and other victims feel unseen and unheard. We apologize for the deep hurt and impact we have caused." Miller's agent a member of NHL's Diversity and Inclusion Committee and one of few African American NHL agents released a statement saying he would not have agreed to represent Mitchell without months of research, deliberation, introspection within our organization, and conversations with outside advisors. The main question is: what happens now? Miller is still under contract with the Bruins and is still a member of Providence. The team has a few options they could pay Miller to stay home for the season and then buy him out, a settlement could be reached to allow Miller to become a free agent, or the Bruins/NHL could terminate the contract. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Gary Bettman has the power to expel a player from the league. In the coming days, the hockey world will be watching how the Bruins and NHL handle Miller's contract. Jessica Shaw is a recent graduate of New York Law School and can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22.

Following the 2022 Pro Bowl, New Orleans Saints' elusive running back, Alvin Kamara, possibly failed to elude some trouble outside Las Vegas nightclub Drai after Dark. Kamara was arrested the night after the Pro Bowl in an alleged assault and battery of Darnell Greene Jr. I wonder if Kamara was upset with the old structure of the Pro Bowl. Thankfully, Goodell decided to change to the Pro Bowl from a traditional AFC v. NFC game to a "week long celebration of player skills." All jokes aside, there were some worries that Kamara may miss some games with a suspension before the 2022-2023 season. However, it is already Week 10, and as much as it pains me that the NFL season is more than halfway over, it is looking more likely that Kamara will not face any penalties until the 2023-24 season. Fantasy managers, don't worry. Let's talk about the legal proceedings. Buzbee Law Firm and Garner & Munoz filed a lawsuit on behalf of Darnell Greene, the alleged victim. The documents contained petitions for civil damages on assault and battery against Kamara. I will note, Buzbee Law Firm sounded quite familiar to me and it is because Tony Buzbee represented Deshaun Watson. Attorneys for the two firms filed in the Civil District Court of New Orleans M-13 Division, Case No. 2022-09602, "Darnell Greene, Jr. vs. Alkin Kamara." Greene seeks both compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $10 million. Just so we're on the same page, the purpose of compensatory damages are to make the injured party "whole" and place them in the same position monetarily as if the injury never occurred. The purpose of punitive damages are to punish the at-fault party and prevent others from being hurt by similar actions. Excess of 10 million?! Yeah, why not chase the bag when you are suing a professional athlete. However, if I learned anything from law school thus far, which is heavily debateable, legal proceedings take time. These proceedings are especially long when it involves a famous defendant, like Kamara. A 45-day delay was granted in September, and the hearing was moved to November 9th. Oh wait, is today November 9th? Well, none of the defendants showed up to court today, so the judge continued the negotiations hearings another 60 days. Luckily, there was some clarification because the next court date is now January 23, 2023, and the trial date is set for March 1, 2023. Both parties will likely try to settle beforehand so that this proceeding will not go to trial. Will anything happen to Kamara? Hard to say. There is a lot of media reporting that heavily victimizes Greene, but no one will have a distinct answer until the court returns its decision. I'll keep you posted on the updates as they come. --- Thanks for stopping by, Matt Matthew M. Marino is a 2L at Elon University School of Law. You can connect with him via his LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-m-marino) orvia his blog (https://matthewmmarino.com).

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed House Bill 2633 into law last Thursday. The bill removes language that prohibits schools from arranging NIL deals for their student-athletes. The bill also eliminates the requirement that student-athletes share their NIL contract with the school at least seven (7) days before execution. House Bill 2633 passed the Pennsylvania state Senate by a 49-0 vote and the state House of Representatives by a 199-0 vote before the bill was signed into law by the Governor. “This is a small, but important clarification that will give student-athletes more agency over their private contracts and the money they earn as a result,” said Pennsylvania State Senator Scott Martin. “In the absence of national standards around NIL compensation by the NCAA or Federal Law, we must do everything we can here in Pennsylvania to make sure every student-athlete that chooses one of our schools is treated fairly.” This change in Pennsylvania’s NIL law that now allows schools to arrange NIL deals comes shortly after the NCAA issued new guidance to clarify institutional involvement in NIL activities of enrolled student-athletes. As part of the new guidance, the NCAA clarified that schools and third-party individuals or entities acting on behalf of the athletics department are prohibited from representing student-athletes in securing or negotiating NIL deals. Although the NCAA’s new guidance prohibits schools from “representing” student-athletes in securing or negotiating NIL deals, the guidance does permit schools to provide contact information of a donor or an NIL entity (i.e., a collective) to student-athletes, introduce student-athletes to representatives of an NIL entity, and arrange for meeting space for an NIL entity and a student-athlete on campus. In addition, schools can inform student-athletes about potential NIL opportunities and can engage an NIL service provider to administer a marketplace that connects student-athletes with potential NIL opportunities without the involvement of the school. Based on these examples of permissible activities, the NCAA’s guidance does permit schools to “arrange” NIL deals to an extent. Therefore, Pennsylvania’s amended NIL law, which now permits schools to “arrange” NIL deals, does not appear to conflict with the NCAA’s new guidance, provided that a school engages in permissible activities such as those described above and does not, directly or indirectly, represent student-athletes in securing or negotiating NIL deals. However, reasonable minds can differ on what “arrange” means in the context of NIL deals, which could lead to some Pennsylvania schools being more proactive in facilitating NIL deals, while other schools may opt for a more conservative approach. Even if Pennsylvania’s NIL law did conflict with the NCAA’s new guidance, the NCAA’s guidance is subject to state law and, therefore, Pennsylvania’s NIL law would prevail over the NCAA’s guidance. Pennsylvania joins several other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina, that have either repealed, amended, or suspended their NIL laws. While the NCAA’s new guidance restricts school involvement in NIL deals, Pennsylvania and other states have amended, repealed, or suspended their NIL laws to provide schools and their employees more freedom in facilitating NIL deals. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group. He is a graduate of Albany Law School and Union College. At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.

About a year ago, I wrote an article for our site about how the days of giving college football coaches around five years to turn a program around are over and that “recency bias” was controlling athletic departments across the country. While I still believe that to be true, I think the reasons we’ve seen so many quick firings over the past handful of years are far more complex than just recency bias and are worth exploring further. Having a nationally relevant and successful football program has always been critical for the success of any athletic department competing in any of the Power 5 conferences. But as we sit here today, I would argue that it’s never been more important. The landscape of college athletics has changed more in the past two years than it did in the preceding twenty. NIL, conference realignment, CFP expansion, and the transfer portal have all surfaced since the beginning of 2021 and have all altered the sport in a major way. Conference media rights deals have skyrocketed to new highs and separation between the “haves” and the “have nots” is growing with every passing day. The key for many athletic departments to emerge out of all the chaos successfully is simple, but not easy. It’s to win football games. With the pressure to have a nationally relevant program never being higher, who bears the burden of it more than anyone? The head football coach. In contrast to professional sports where fans can cast blame on the owner or GM for not giving the head coach a talented enough roster, college coaches are ultimately responsible for every aspect of their program from on-field results to talent acquisition to player conduct. Because of that, there’s no excuse for a college football coach to say “we just don’t have the guys” or “they are just more talented than us” in a postgame press conference after a loss, especially if it’s years into the coach’s tenure. There are two major factors to why coaches must win and win fast in today’s landscape of college football: Fan support and recruiting. Even before the pandemic hit in 2020, college football attendance numbers were declining. With the amount of nationally televised games increasing over the last several years, we’re far from the days when you had to buy a ticket to see your favorite team play. Yes, the tailgating, the bands, the traditions, and the pageantry all make attending a college football game a unique experience. However, going to a game on a Saturday in the fall is a big commitment. 4-hour long games, loads of traffic in small college towns, lack of in-stadium Wi-Fi, and increasing ticket prices (especially for big games) have kept fans in the comfort of their homes more and more in recent years. Those are all issues that even the most successful programs deal with, so imagine what it’s like for a struggling program. For nearly every school in America that sponsors football, the most important events of the entire year are the six, seven, or eight home games the team plays. That’s when tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands at the highest levels) of a program’s fans, alumni, and boosters come back to not only watch the game but also relive their college years. There is no better time to earn ticket revenue and more importantly, receive significant donations from high-dollar donors. Unsurprisingly, those ticket prices and donations are a lot more favorable for the school when the team is winning. Just look at Tennessee. After their upset win over Alabama in Knoxville where the fans stormed the field and tore down their goalposts, the school asked Vol Nation for help in replacing them. Within hours, the GoFundMe exceeded its goal, showing just how powerful winning can be for an athletic department. There’s no way that happens if Tennessee was winless in SEC play. When a team is struggling, especially at a school with a strong football tradition, fans are not shy about expressing their dissatisfaction with the program. Whether it’s through booing at games or discourse on message boards, it’s not hard to find angry college football fans in 2022. However, anger is not what athletic departments should fear the most. Apathy is. If fans are angry, that means they care. If fans are apathetic, they’re not showing up to games. They’re not buying tickets or concessions at the stadiums. They’re not donating to the athletic department. More importantly, they’re not donating to collectives. The list goes on and on. You might be seeing all of these hefty buyouts schools are paying their fired head coaches and ask: how can they afford to pay someone that much not to work? Heck, Nebraska spent an extra $7.5 million to fire Scott Frost just two weeks before his buyout dropped in half. Why? It’s because they can’t afford for their passionate fan base to become apathetic. Any coach who’s created an apathetic fan base has no shot to keep his job in today’s era. The other major factor playing into why we’re seeing so many coaches fired so quickly comes down to recruiting. It used to be commonplace for programs to give newly hired head coaches four or five years to build a program. If things didn’t go well in the first few years of their tenure, you’d hear the media and fans say, “give him time” or “just wait ‘till he gets his guys into the program.” But with the advent of the transfer portal, right or wrong, that excuse doesn’t fly anymore. A coach now possesses the ability to bring in experienced players that can contribute at a high level right away instead of relying on underclassmen who simply aren’t ready yet. A couple of coaches have amped the pressure up even higher. After what Mel Tucker, Lane Kiffin, Lincoln Riley, Brian Kelly, Josh Heupel, and Sonny Dykes have done over the past couple of years, it’s hard for any coach to ask for more than a couple of years to show progress. Moreover, in recruiting, the success (or lack thereof) a coach has on the field is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in and of itself. If a coach struggles to win in the first couple of years on the job, talk about whether the coach is on the “hot seat” hinders his ability to convince recruits to commit to an uncertain situation. For example, look at Auburn’s 2023 recruiting class (Currently ranked outside of the consensus top 50). Recently fired head coach Bryan Harsin was on the hot seat following a disappointing 2021 and an offseason where Auburn nearly fired him after an “inquiry” into his handling of the program. For an SEC school with the history and tradition that Auburn to be last in the conference (yes, even behind Vanderbilt) is shocking and goes to show how difficult it is for an embattled coach to bring in talented players as well as hire quality assistant coaches seeking job security. Quite simply, when things go south on the field, the situation can easily snowball on a head coach. Amid all of the quick-trigger firing decisions being made and the massive buyout figures being paid, some have asked “is all of this sustainable?” For the latter, it all comes down to the amount of leverage the coaches have. When negotiating a contract with a coaching candidate, if a school mandates they won’t provide adequate buyout protection, the coach can easily say “no thanks” and stay put where he’s at. After what we saw in last year’s cycle, the fully guaranteed long-term deal is becoming the norm for any above-average head coach on the open market. This trend could change if and when schools have to start paying the players directly, but until then, I don’t see a reversal anytime soon. And in terms of coaches being fired after a couple of down years, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. When a program doesn’t have any positive momentum on the field or on the recruiting trail, it becomes nearly impossible for a coach to dig out of that hole. Whether or not it’s rational to fire a coach two years into his tenure is one thing, but as I’ve said before and will say again: the business of college sports is not always rational. People will point to how Frank Beamer struggled mightily in his first few years at Virginia Tech or even how Dabo Swinney’s Clemson tenure started off slow, but those days are in the past. When university presidents, athletic directors, and boosters are making the key decision in today’s age, they aren’t asking whether they can afford to fire their head coach. They’re asking if they can afford not to. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

"Having the freedom of speech doesn't mean saying whatever you want, it means saying what's humane, hateless, and non-prejudicial."― Abhijit Naskar Over the past few weeks, prominent celebrities and athletes have used their platforms to directly or indirectly express anti-semitic views. Among the most notable individual to have expressed such views is Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving. On October 27th, 2022, Kyrie Irving posted a link to Ronald Dalton's "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America," which contains numerous anti-semitic tropes and pushes Nazi propaganda. Dalton claims that there are five major falsehoods pushed by the Jewish people, including but not limited to, "Six million Jews were killed in a holocaust during WWII." Further, Dalton states that these lies were fabricated by "the Jewish-controlled media in America." It raises the question of what constitutes free speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment holds, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Thus, the First Amendment protects American citizens from government interference with free speech. However, it does not prohibit privately owned corporations/businesses from enacting consequences for such speech. Remarkably, however, the NBA nor the NBPA has condemned nor disciplined Kyrie for his actions. While the NBPA finally released a statement denouncing anti-semitism on November 1st, 2022, it is impossible to ignore that such a statement failed to condemn Kyrie Irving, one of the seven Vice Presidents on the NBPA Executive Committee. Additionally, On November 2nd, 2022, Kyrie Irving, the Brooklyn Nets, and the Anti-Defamation League released a joint statement in which Kyrie Irving and the Brooklyn Nets both pledged to donate $500,000 towards causes and groups that eradicate hate. Notably, Kyrie Irving never made an apology in the statement. Furthermore, Kyrie Irving stated, "I do not believe everything said in the documentary was true," yet, he failed to specify which parts he believed were factual and has continuously stated that he cannot be anti-semitic. Let's compare this lack of response to how the NBA responded to Meyers Leonard when he used an anti-semitic slur. In March of 2021, Leonard used an anti-semitic slur while streaming himself playing a video game on Twitch. The NBA subsequently fined Leonard $50,000, the Miami Heat suspended Leonard and traded him, and Leonard met with Jewish leaders to atone for his anti-semitic slur. The NBA's response to Kyrie? Thus far, silence. While on November 3rd, 2022, Commissioner Adam Silver announced that next week he would meet with Kyrie Irving; ultimately, their formal response remains to be seen. Such response could range from an admonishment to a fine to suspension with reinstatement requirements, including sensitivity training or even termination from the league. Hopefully, they will remain consistent with their Leonard response, and Kyrie will ultimately be required to take responsibility for his promulgation of anti-semitic rhetoric and hate speech. Brandon Blumer is a 2L law student at New York Law School. You can connect with him via https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonblumer or via Twitter @BlumerBrandon

This article was originally published on https://ublawsportsforum.com/ Major League Baseball (MLB) has a unique system of salary arbitration to allow young players to be compensated before they hit the free agent market. Players typically must accrue three years of Major League service time – with one year of service time equaling 172 days on the 26-man roster or the Major League injured list - in order to become eligible for salary arbitration.[1] Super Two is a designation that allows a select group of players to become eligible for arbitration before reaching three years of service time, and to qualify for this designation, players must rank in the top 22%, in terms of service time, among those who have amassed between two and three years in the big leagues.[2] Super Two eligibility varies by year and was a topic brought up by the MLBPA during the lockout and also during the subsequent collective bargaining negotiations. However, the system remains the same, and the cutoff number in the upcoming year is 2.128 years of service time (two years and 128 days), which is up from last year’s 2.116.[3] Although the Super Two cutoff number has increased this year, this is not always the case. There have only been six increases from year to year since 2009. All arbitration-eligible players must come to terms with their respective clubs prior to January 13th, or they will have to exchange filing numbers and prepare for an arbitration hearing. This can be a challenging process that impacts a player’s relationship with his team because the team is forced to qualify the player’s value to make an argument for the lower number they filed. With the cutoff number set for 2.128 this year, clubs will have to negotiate carefully with young rising stars like Randy Arozarena and Tony Gonsolin to ensure they remain below the luxury tax, but also maintain their relationship with their key players. Michael Perlo is a law student at the University of Buffalo School of Law, Class of 2023. He can be found on Twitter @michael_perlo. Sources: [1] https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/super-two [2] Id. [3] https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

The panel convened in the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP) issued its decision in the Louisville Infractions Case. In finding that many of the current members of the athletic department, coaching staff, and men’s basketball team had “little to nothing to do with the behaviors at issue,” the panel issued only minor penalties to the University of Louisville. In 2020, Louisville was given a Notice of Allegations from the NCAA, largely based on the pay-for-play scheme unveiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) probe into multiple programs. At Louisville, the probe centered around former top 100 recruit Brian Bowen Jr. during Hall of Fame coach Rick Pitino’s tenure as head coach of Louisville’s men’s basketball team. As a part of the scheme, former Adidas employees Jim Gatto, Christian Dawkins, and T.J. Gassnola attempted to pay Brian Bowen Sr.—through Louisville assistant coaches—thousands of dollars for Brian Bowen Jr. to commit to Louisville. In October 2017, within a month of the FBI revealing the scheme, Louisville fired Rick Pitino and Athletic Director Tom Jurich. Brian Bowen Jr. was never allowed to play for the Cardinals. The NCAA added more allegations in October 2021 involving an assistant coach’s extortion attempt on former Louisville head coach Chris Mack. In January 2022, Louisville parted ways with Mack. Despite acknowledging that many of the individuals involved in the scheme/recruiting violations are no longer at the institution, the panel issued multiple penalties, including: $5,000 fine; Two years of probation; Prohibition of unofficial visits for two weeks; Prohibition of recruiting communications for an additional two weeks; and Seven-day reduction in the number of recruiting days; Importantly, current Iona University men’s basketball coach Rick Pitino avoided sanctions due to the panel finding that Pitino “promoted an atmosphere of compliance.” Thus, he was not involved in the scheme. Note, there is no appeal process for the IARP. Therefore, this decision brings the Louisville pay-for-play saga to an end. With the Louisville decision, the IARP continues to wind down its case list. In August, the Division I Board of Directors decided to eliminate the IARP. The Louisville case demonstrates the big issue with the IARP—final decisions took far too long. Therefore, the Board of Directors is aiming to accelerate the timelines for issuing infractions decisions. Now, Louisville can begin to move forward as a program. 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.

(6-0, 3-0 SEC) Tennessee upsets (6-1, 2-1 SEC) Alabama in a high-scoring affair. This victory from Tennessee ended their 15-game losing streak against Saban's football powerhouse. Their last win against Alabama occurred in 2006. How did the fans react? They definitely made a statement, that's for sure. The fans stormed the field, tearing down the goalposts in the process. Tennessee's Twitter Account tweeted: "Y’all remember how we tore the goalposts down, hauled them out of Neyland, and dumped them in the Tennessee River? Yeah, that was awesome. Anywho, turns out that in order to play next week’s game, we need goalposts on our field. Could y’all help us out?" Man, I love the South. The school hoped to raise $150,000 and got $80,000 within the first 24 hours. Not only is it egregious to tweet this from your main account, but they had some fun with how to contribute. The University suggested $52.49 (the final score) or $1.019.15 (the capacity at Neyland Stadium). How did the SEC respond? They definitely made a statement, that's for sure. The SEC fined the University $100,000. Fines typically range from $50,000 for a first offense and up to $100,000 for a second offense. This was Tennessee's second offense, the first occurring during a basketball game in 2006 against Florida. A third penalty would cause $250,000. The SEC's policy states: "Access to competition areas shall be limited to participating student-athletes, coaches, officials, support personnel and properly-credentialed individuals at all times. For the safety of participants and spectators alike, at no time before, during or after a contest shall spectators be permitted to enter the competition area. It is the responsibility of each member institution to implement procedures to ensure compliance with this policy." Was this fine reasonable? Hard to say. It is pretty clear they violated the SEC policy, but it could be argued that the publicity this football program is receiving was worth the financial penalty. According to Tennessee's national data to the NCAA, the athletic department generated $133 million in revenue, with $62.4 million coming from football. I chose law school to avoid math, but I think they should be fine. Tennessee moves up to the No. 3 in the National Polls and Alabama moves down to No. 6. The Tennessee football program is for real this year. Matthew Marino is a J.D. Candidate Elon University School of Law, 2023.

This past weekend, Red Bull driver Max Verstappen secured his second consecutive Formula One World Driver’s Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix. Verstappen drove the RB18 to 12 wins and 14 podiums with four races still to go in the season. Red Bull started the season with reliability issues which caused Verstappen to retire in two of the first three races this season. Once Red Bull fixed those issues, Verstappen dominated most of the races this season. Avid fans saw this championship coming due to Ferrari’s strategy issues and Mercedes’ lack of straight-line speed. However, the Japanese Grand Prix ended with confusion. Even Verstappen was unaware he had secured the championship. Those around the driver had to convince him that the points fell in his favor crowning him the champion. So how could this be? How could there be so much confusion about how points the FIA gives out points? The answer lies in the changes the FIA made to the point structure following the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. During that race, rain caused severe delays. Formula One races are limited to a hard three-hour limit from the intended start time. Weather delays can cause the race to be ended by this three-hour limit rather than drivers finishing the original amount of intended laps. The FIA changed the sporting regulations to state that the FIA would award fewer points to the drivers if the drivers run less than a complete race. For example, if the drivers run a whole race, the first-place driver receives 25 points; but if the drivers run only 50-75% of the race, the first-place driver only gets 19 points. See articles 6.4 and 6.5. Unfortunately, the changes the FIA made to the rules did not have the intended effect due to the wording of the regulations. The rules state that the FIA will only give out reduced points for a race “If a race is suspended in accordance with Article 57, and cannot be resumed.” The rules do not state that the FIA will award reduced points when the race concludes due to the three-hour time limit under normal conditions. Article 57 is where the bulk of the confusion lies. Teams were under the impression that the FIA would hand out reduced points for ANY race if drivers ran less than 75% of their intended distance. Instead, the wording states that the FIA would hand down reduced points only when the race is suspended and doesn’t resume. Verstappen won the Japanese GP by completing 28 of the original 53 laps (just under 53% of the intended distance). He, and most others, believed that this meant the FIA would award Verstappen 19 points which would not have secured the championship. In the end, the conclusion to the 2022 championship race was confusing but hardly as controversial as the end of last year’s championship. Verstappen winning the 2022 championship seemed inevitable based on his performances. If Verstappen couldn't win the driver's championship in Suzuka, he would have most likely won at the United States Grand Prix on October 23rd. Related to Formula One controversy, recent news has also emerged that Red Bull may have exceeded the cost cap during the 2021 Formula One season. The FIA implemented a cost cap to even the playing field for teams with potentially less funding given free spending. This news could add more controversy to an already controversial 2021 season. As always, keep in touch with Conduct Detrimental for all developing legal controversies in Formula One. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, earning a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He also serves as a Producer, Editor, and Contributor for Conduct Detrimental. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.