Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores dropped a bombshell on Wednesday when he filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the NFL. The entire 58-page complaint can be found here: https://www.wigdorlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Complaint-against-National-Football-League-et-al-Filed.pdf Let’s break it down. Background Brian Flores was a Patriots assistant coach under Bill Belichick from 2008-2018. He left New England to become the head coach of the Miami Dolphins in 2019. He was fired by the Miami Dolphins on January 10, 2022. Flores was widely considered a desirable candidate for many of the open NFL head coaching jobs this offseason. The NFL adopted the Rooney Rule in 2003 after recommendations were made by the NFL Workplace Diversity Committee. The goal of the Rooney Rule is to encourage hiring best practices to foster and provide opportunity to diverse leadership throughout the NFL. The rule was originally aimed at head coaching positions but has since expanded to assistant coaching positions as well as front office positions. The Rooney Rule places requirements on NFL teams to interview minority candidates for available coaching and front office positions. Complaint Overview The complaint comes out firing, starting with a quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: It then goes on to compare the NFL’s segregation to that of a plantation, stating the NFL has 70% black players but is underrepresented in leadership positions: Throughout the complaint, Flores’ attorneys attempt to show the systematic failure of the NFL through the Rooney Rule to make any type of progress to cultivate a diverse league. Instead, they characterize the Rooney Rule as simply a convenient safeguard to fall back on when no progress is being made. Dolphins Owner Stephen Ross Attempted to Bribe Flores into “Tanking" The NFL world was shocked when the Dolphins decided to part ways with Brian Flores after three seasons. Despite missing the playoffs, the Dolphins ended the 2021 season strongly and Flores lead the Dolphins to back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since 2003. His team seemed to love playing for him and Flores had orchestrated an impressive rebuild. Then stories began to leak to the media that there was a rift in the Dolphins’ front office between Flores, management, and ownership. Several sources stated that Flores attempted to gain too much control over the franchise until Dolphins owner Stephen Ross put a stop to it by firing him. The complaint addresses Flores’ firing, claiming that the writing was on the wall for Flores in Miami dating all the way back to the 2019 season. It wasn’t a power struggle that caused Flores to lose his job, it was insubordination and refusing to follow orders from the boss. Allegedly, in 2019 Flores was approached by owner Stephen Ross and offered $100,000 for every game the Dolphins lost that season. Ross wanted the Dolphins to “tank” for a better draft pick and when Flores refused, Ross took it personally. The goal, in Ross’ mind, was to lose as many games as possible to secure a high draft pick. The Dolphins went 5-11 that season. If true, this is a death blow to Stephen Ross as owner of the Dolphins. The league would almost assuredly have grounds to remove Ross as owner. First and foremost, Ross would likely have committed a felony under Florida law. Title XLVI, Chapter 838.12(1) makes it illegal for bribery in athletic contests. Ross was attempting to bribe Flores to lose games by offering large monetary incentives. With the rise in the legalization of sports gambling, the last thing the NFL needs is a scandal that could potentially expose a team attempting to lose games on purpose. The integrity of the game is something that needs to be upheld for the sports gambling model to run. Leagues have to tread very carefully now that regulated dollars are being won and lost on the end products of their contests. There’s irony in the fact that a coach that was offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose games would then be fired a few seasons later for not winning enough. Flores feels he was never given a real shot in Miami. NFL’s Ongoing Problems with Race The complaint lists a lengthy history of the countless scandals the NFL has encountered that shined a spotlight on the league’s race relations. The complaint mentions Colin Kaepernick being blackballed from the league for racial injustice protests, the Jon Gruden email leaks in which the high-profile coach stated NFL Player Association Director DeMaurice Smith had “lips the size of Michelin tires”, and the settlement reached by the NFL in a concussion lawsuit in which they admitted to using race-norming tactics in testing for dementia. More on that settlement can be found here: https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/the-hits-keep-coming-nfl-settles-in-race-norming-suit The Failure of the Rooney Rule The Rooney Rule was intended to create more leadership roles for diverse coaches and front office executives by requiring teams provide a “fair and legitimate” chance to thrive. The complaint attempts to showcase how this has not been the outcome since the rule’s adoption. Currently there is only one Black head coach in the NFL. The complaint shows an array of headshots of all the NFL head coaches to illustrate this disparity. Sham Interviews This part of the complaint is the most jarring. While the Rooney Rule requires teams to interview diverse candidates, it doesn’t require any of them are hired. The complaint emphasizes that this just provides teams an incentive to conduct a token interview with diverse candidates when there is no true intention to engage in the hiring process. Flores alleges this sham interview process happened to him on two occasions. In 2019, when Flores was eventually hired by the Dolphins, that same offseason he interviewed with the Denver Broncos for their vacant head coaching position. Flores claims that the interview was so unimportant to Denver’s General Manager John Elway that he showed up to the interview late and hungover. It didn’t matter to Elway that the interview went well, just that it happened. The true intent was to check the box that they interviewed a diverse candidate before they hired Vic Fangio. The piece of evidence that immediately sent a shockwave around the NFL involved text messages from Flores’ former boss and mentor, Bill Belichick. After he was fired from the Dolphins just a few weeks ago, Flores immediately began to seek another head coaching job in the NFL. One of the franchises with a job opening was the New York Giants. On January 24, 2022, Flores reached out to New York Giants GM Joe Schoen to schedule an interview for the vacant head coaching position. The interview was scheduled for later that week, Thursday January 27, 2022. But later that day on the 24th Flores received a text message from his former boss indicating the vacant job may have already been decided on: “Thanks Bill” When you take a step back and think about these text messages, you can start to paint a clear picture. Consistent with these texts, the Giants eventually hired Brian Daboll as head coach, not Brian Flores. Brian Daboll was previously with the Buffalo Bills as their offensive coordinator. Belichick, in a move consistent with his age, screwed up somewhere in the iPhone text message process. There are likely two options: Belichick received information that Brian Daboll was going to be hired by the Giants, misread the information as Brian Flores, sent off a text to congratulate his old friend Flores, only to then realize his mistake. Belichick received information that Brian Daboll was going to be hired, meant to text congratulations to Daboll, mistakenly texted Brian Flores thinking it was Daboll, only to then realize his mistake. Ultimately, the timeline of the mishap doesn’t matter. What matters is Belichick revealed to Flores that the job was going to Daboll three days before Flores was set to interview. Flores went through the interview process with the Giants knowing he didn’t have a chance, further illustrating, according to his attorneys, that NFL teams are only interviewing candidates such as Flores as a formality, with no true intention of hiring. What’s next? Obviously, this is a mess for the NFL. The league that is no stranger to controversy suddenly finds themselves wrapped up in another. The league will have to investigate the allegations made by Flores on top of defending themselves from his lawsuit. If we have learned anything from the NFL in the past, it’s that they are anything but forthcoming with their findings from internal investigations. The NFL released a statement in light of the allegations: Flores doesn’t seem concerned with letting the NFL off easy. The allegations are damaging, but does he have enough of a legal basis to move forward? More to come. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com

The Green Bay Packers are the hottest team in the NFL. Coming off a win over the undefeated Arizona Cardinals, the Packers have won seven straight. But this Sunday, the Packers will be without their superstar quarterback. On Wednesday, reigning MVP and face of the franchise Aaron Rodgers tested positive for Covid-19 and will remain distant from the team for their upcoming game against the Chiefs. When the Packers seek to push their win streak to eight, Rodgers will be watching the game on on television. In the post-pandemic world, fans have grown accustomed to players missing time after a positive Covid test. We’ve all become numb as we set our fantasy football lineups treating a positive Covid test as if it was a sprained ankle. That’s why it wasn’t shocking that someone, even of Aaron Rodgers’ stature, tested positive for Covid-19. What was shocking is that Aaron Rodgers had to enter protocols designed for unvaccinated players. Previously, the entire world assumed he was vaccinated. Under NFL protocols, unvaccinated players must isolate for 10 days upon a positive Covid test. Vaccinated players, however, can rejoin their team after two negative tests 24 hours apart if they are asymptomatic. On Wednesday, Rodgers immediately entered 10-day isolation signaling his vaccination status.[1] The assumption that Rodgers was vaccinated stems from an exchange with a reporter in August. Reporter: “Are you vaccinated, and what’s your stance on the vaccination?” Rodgers: “Yea. I’ve been immunized. You know, there's a lot of conversation around it, around the league, and a lot of guys who have made statements and not made statements, owners who have made statements. There's guys on the team that haven't been vaccinated. I think it's a personal decision. I'm not going to judge those guys. There are guys that've been vaccinated that have contracted COVID. It's an interesting issue that I think we're going to see played out the entire season."[2] At the time, Rodgers was praised for being candid about his vaccination status while also sticking up for his unvaccinated teammates. But with what we know now – that quote reads a lot differently. So, did Aaron Rodgers blatantly lie to the world about his vaccination status? Or did he just deceptively utilize semantics? You can decide that for yourself. According to reports, Rodgers previously applied for an exemption to the strict league protocols for unvaccinated players. Under supervision from his personal doctor, Rodgers underwent homeopathic therapy to raise his antibody levels. He asked the NFL and the Players Union to review his status to determine what protocols he would have to abide by during the season. His case went to a neutral third-party medical expert for review, but Rodgers’ exemption request was eventually denied.[3] Through this process the league was put on notice of Rodgers’ vaccination status. But the public was just made aware on Wednesday. The NFL developed a set of strict rules that unvaccinated players are expected to comply with or they risk fine or suspension. Included in those rules are restrictions for unvaccinated players on the size of social gatherings they are allowed to attend off the field. But the stringent protocols didn’t stop the Green Bay quarterback from celebrating Halloween over the weekend. According to his own Instagram page, Rodgers attended a party dressed as John Wick with several of his teammates in attendance. Rodgers has yet to speak publicly following his positive Covid-19 test. As Rodgers mentioned in August, receiving a vaccine is “a personal decision”. Personal feelings aside, professional athletes are human beings that are granted the opportunity to make a choice on whether they want to get the shot. Rodgers would hardly be the first athlete to make headlines over refusing the vaccine. Kyrie Irving is currently sacrificing millions of dollars over his decision to remain unvaccinated. Other NFL quarterbacks have been vocal in their hesitancy around the vaccine, including Kirk Cousins and Carson Wentz. But there’s a difference between Rodgers and those other athletes – Rodgers wasn’t confident enough in his own choice to stand behind it. Instead, he misled the public and shielded himself behind claims he was “immunized”. While Rodgers is facing a lot of heat off the field, inside his own locker room his teammates still have his back. Running back Aaron Jones, whose father died April 6 from Covid-19 complications, stated, "I don't think it's a selfish decision [to not be vaccinated]. I mean, there's guys across the league who are not vaccinated. And to say that they're not committed to their team, I think that that's not true. He's our leader, like you said. He's 100% committed to this team, just like anybody else is in this locker room."[4] The way the season progresses for the Packers will determine if this is just minor hiccup or if Rodgers’ absence will have lasting effects. Currently, there have been no reports on if the Green Bay quarterback is suffering from Covid related symptoms. But while we’re here, I would be remiss if I didn’t quickly address the most common answer given when a player doesn’t feel comfortable disclosing their vaccination status: “Uh, I don’t feel comfortable answering that. That’s HIPAA”. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted in 1996 to protect patients’ health information. The Act applies to health care providers and requires compliance to protect patient health information. These covered entities must refrain from unlawfully disclosing personal patient health information to third parties. Notably, HIPAA doesn’t apply to individuals and their own personal medical records.[5] Miraculously, this law is constantly cited by athletes when refusing to answer questions about their vaccination status. It’s true, athletes don’t have to answer an intrusive question about their views on the vaccine. But that’s just because of socially recognized personal privacy boundaries, not HIPAA. So at least Rodgers can hang his hat on the fact that he didn’t improperly evoke a federal law when evading the question on if he’s vaccinated. Matthew Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. [1] Rob Demovsky, Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, source says, ESPN (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32542413/green-bay-packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-covid-19-source-says. [2] Id. [3] Nick Shook, Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, will not play in Week 9 vs. Chiefs, NFL (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.nfl.com/news/packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-for-covid-19-will-not-play-in-week-9-ver. [4] Rob Demovsky, Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, source says, ESPN (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32542413/green-bay-packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-covid-19-source-says. [5] HIPAA Journal, Who Does HIPAA Apply To? (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.hipaajournal.com/who-does-hipaa-apply-to/.

Ben Frederickson from the St. Louis Post Dispatch and Randy Karraker from 101ESPN Radio reported that Judge McGraugh granted the NFL’s Motion to Disqualify Bob Blitz as an attorney for the plaintiffs, St. Louis, the CVC, and the RSA. Attorney Blitz, as reported by Joel Currier from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, is on the defendants’ witness list. Is this ruling a true “win” for the NFL? The basis for Judge McGraugh’s ruling is that Mr. Blitz worked on the stadium task force team back in 2015, and should he keep working as an attorney for the plaintiffs, this may have been prejudicial to the defendants. Judge McGraugh had to grant the motion to dismiss him as an attorney, and I agree with his decision. However, Judge McGraugh said the plaintiffs can keep and use the work Mr. Blitz conducted and prepared prior to his disqualification. Should the plaintiffs have lost his work, they would have lost an enormous chunk of their case. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Conduct, specifically Rule 3.7 “Lawyer as Witness,” state: “(a) A lawyer shall not act as [an] advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness . . ..” Mr. Blitz will likely be a necessary witness in the defendant’s case, and his testimony relates to a contested issue, the defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentation towards the plaintiffs, among the other complaints the plaintiffs bring forward. He had first-hand knowledge about the task force’s efforts to try to speak to the Rams organization, Head of Relocation Eric Grubman, and the NFL about why the team should stay in St. Louis. He and former Anheuser-Busch president Dave Peacock proposed an open-air stadium, secured the National Car Rental naming rights, convinced the city and aldermen to allow the vote that went in their favor. The defendants want to convince the jury that Mr. Blitz and Mr. Peacock were the ones that convinced the city and taxpayers to spend $18 million on the stadium project. They want to show that the city and taxpayers would have kept the $18 million. The NFL did not force the taxpayers and city to spend the money, it was Blitz’s and Peacock’s fault they spent that money. This disqualification could be a blessing in disguise for the plaintiffs. Blitz’s disqualification allows him to speak his mind about what really happened in 2015 and January of 2016. He can clarify what went on in those meetings with Grubman, Goodell, the owners, the Los Angeles Committee, and the city. He can show they acted in good faith and did not put an undue burden on the city and the taxpayers to spend $18 million only to receive nothing in return. Instead, they lost the Rams. The work-product doctrine is the plaintiffs’ saving grace. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 502, it states: “[A]n adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation.” However, under (FRCP) Rule 26(b)(3), “an adverse party may discover or compel disclosure of work product upon a showing of "substantial need" and "undue hardship." The defense could not show this to gather Mr. Blitz’s work, so the plaintiffs can keep it under the Work Product Doctrine. Mr. Blitz’s disqualification seems like a win for the defense at first sight, but it could be a curveball in this upcoming trial. Let me know who you think Mr. Blitz’s disqualification as an attorney for the plaintiffs benefits more, the plaintiffs’ side or the defense’s side.

With the 2021 MLB season in the books (and a sigh of relief knowing the Astros are not the champions), the MLB offseason has officially begun. Aside from the issues surrounding MLB’s collective bargaining agreement, and rumors that we may see the first strike in baseball since 1994, one big question mark that remains has to do with this offseason’s free agency class. More specifically, how MLB’s newest qualifying offer (“QO”) will affect this year’s free agents. A qualifying offer in baseball is a one year offer, worth the average of the top 125 salaries, to impending free agents. In order to be eligible for the qualifying offer, players must (1) have never received a QO before, and (2) have spent the entire season on that team’s roster (MLB.com). This year’s QOs must be made by November 7 (five days after the World Series), and players will have up to 10 days to accept or deny. If a player denies and ends up signing elsewhere, the team who loses that free agent will be compensated with a draft pick. This is a strategy that teams use when they make QOs to players they know will not accept, just so they can get a compensatory draft pick. This year’s MLB qualifying offer was calculated at $18.4 million, $500 thousand lower from a year ago — only the second time since its birth in 2012 that the qualifying offer has decreased year over year (AP News). This is significant because it means that the salaries of MLB’s highest paid players have gone down. What does this mean? Because this year’s QO is set at a comparatively lower rate, it is possible we may see more teams less hesitant to make the offer to their impending free agents. Why? Well, teams may see it as less of a burden on their payroll if players were to accept (Bleacher Nation). On the other hand, players may be more hesitant to accept the offer, and instead opt to explore the open market, to seek a larger deal. In essence, all free agents who receive a qualifying offer and accept will be signing a one year deal worth $18.4 million. Out of the 96 qualifying offers that have been made since its inception, only seven have been accepted. The most recent of them being Kevin Gausman and Marcus Stroman during last year’s offseason (AP). Who is eligible for a qualifying offer? Some of this year’s players eligible for the QO include Freddie Freeman (pictured above), Carlos Correa, Clayton Kershaw, Trevor Story, and Marcus Semien. Who is not eligible for a qualifying offer? Because players like Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, Javier Baez, Eddie Rosario, and Max Scherzer were all traded during the 2021 season, they are not eligible for the QO. The Future of the QO: With the current CBA set to expire on December 1, it will be interesting to see what changes, if any, will be made to the QO rule.

While most of the country’s attention on Texas lawmaking is focused, understandably so, on the state’s recent adoption of a controversial abortion law that grants enforcement of the law to private citizens, Texas also recently passed another law that has serious implications on the civil rights of its citizens. On October 25th, Governor Greg Abbott officially signed House Bill 25 into law. The caption text of the law describes its purpose as “requiring public school students to compete in interscholastic athletic competition based on biological sex.”[1] Interestingly enough, the University Interscholastic League (“UIL”) – a governing body for athletics in public primary and secondary schools in the state of Texas – already adopted rules governing participation in sports based on “gender.” Section 360(h) of the existing UIL rules provides that gender is “determined based on a student’s birth certificate” or other similar government identification documents[2] for purposes of participating in athletics. The UIL did, however, accept amended birth certificates, which provided greater opportunities for transgender athletes to participate in sports in the state.[3] Texas’ new law goes one step further in an attempt to prevent transgender athletes from participating in sports: it expressly states that “a statement of biological sex . . . is considered to have correctly stated the student’s biological sex only if the statement was . . . entered at or near the time of the student’s birth” and forbids the amendment of a birth certificate unless done so to correct a scrivener or clerical error.[4] Per the text of the law, its purpose is as follows: “to further the governmental interest of ensuring that sufficient interscholastic athletic opportunities remain available for girls to remedy past discrimination on the basis of sex.”[5] But that stated purpose seems disingenuous given there were already rules on the book that the UIL was promulgating to further this same purpose. What the law is really getting at is the prevention of transgender athletes from participation in athletics based on their identified gender. It restricts students from participating in any interscholastic athletic competition “designated for the biological sex opposite to the student’s biological sex” and eliminates the previously available option of amending a birth certificate to allow, for example, a transgender athlete who has transitioned from male to female to play on the women’s high school basketball team rather than the men’s high school basketball team.[6] In multiple instances, the text of the law refers to biological sex as being “correct” only if stated on a student’s birth certificate at or near the time of birth. What this insistence on someone’s “correct” biological text shows is that the law is about promulgating a certain set of beliefs onto all citizens of the state of Texas – enough state leaders felt that “biological sex” or “gender” was fixed at birth, and could not be a fluid, changing concept, that they worked tirelessly to pass a law signaling to transgender individuals that the Texas legislature does not recognize them for who they are and wants to prevent them from experiencing athletics like any other citizen of Texas would be able to do. It is sad, but no surprise, that this law is just one of nearly 70 “anti-LGBTQ” bills that Texas lawmakers have proposed in the last year.[7] Fortunately, Texas’ narrow view of transgender athletes is not a view adopted across the United States, although it has, unfortunately, been promulgated by many state legislators.[8] The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) has previously stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports” as part of its values of “inclusion and fair competition.”[9] Hopefully more states take cues from the NCAA and work to create even greater opportunities for transgender students to participate in athletics and benefit from the opportunities for personal growth, leadership development, understanding, and self-esteem that athletics provides to so many students. [1] Texas Legislature Online - 87(3) History for HB 25. [2] Constitution and Contest Rules — University Interscholastic League (UIL) (uiltexas.org). [3] Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs a bill restricting transgender student athletes : NPR. [4] 87(3) HB 25 - Enrolled version (texas.gov). [5] 87(3) HB 25 - Enrolled version (texas.gov). [6] 87(3) HB 25 - Enrolled version (texas.gov). [7] Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs a bill restricting transgender student athletes : NPR. [8] Wave Of Bills To Block Trans Athletes Has No Basis In Science, Researcher Says : NPR. [9] NCAA Board of Governors Statement on Transgender Participation | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA.

Over the past few months, there has been so much progress for student athlete rights. While we haven’t crossed over the monumental line of considering them employees, the ruling in Alston and the onset of NIL have certainly been steps in the right direction. However, over the past week, we’ve seen some decisions made by NCAA and conference officials that make you wonder whether or not both of the entities are really committed to their mission of advancing the welfare of student athletes. Let’s dive in. Of the three stories we’ll look at, let’s start with the least detrimental in terms of overall significance and impact. On Monday, Kofi Cockburn, a Preseason All-American for the University of Illinois Men’s Basketball team, was suspended by the NCAA for the first three games of the regular season for selling "institutionally issued apparel and memorabilia" in June. If Cockburn did this today, it would be completely fine under the state of Illinois’ NIL legislation. However, because Cockburn’s actions were committed in June, it was illegal under NCAA rules at the time because it took place before July 1st. If he broke the rule, then why has there been outrage towards the NCAA? Well, adding a little bit of context would help explain why. Cockburn entered his name into the NBA draft following his last season and didn’t end up withdrawing from it until July 6th. Therefore, it’s obvious that he wasn’t blatantly breaking NCAA rules because he wasn’t fully committed to play college basketball this season at the time. Nonetheless, the NCAA felt compelled to suspend him anyway. Illinois, ranked No. 11 in the preseason AP poll, opens its season against Jackson State on Nov. 9. Cockburn will miss the opener, as well as games against Arkansas State and at Marquette. He will return for the Fighting Illini's game against Cincinnati on Nov. 22. The NCAA could’ve just let this go and no one would have complained. They didn’t. While Kofi Cockburn will be missed for the first three games of the Fighting Illini’s campaign, the next two decisions are far more impactful in terms of an impact on a team’s season. On Wednesday, The NCAA announced they rejected Oklahoma State's appeal and banned the Cowboys from the 2022 men's basketball postseason. Oklahoma State is one of many schools involved in an ongoing corruption scandal, initially with Adidas as well as several college basketball programs associated with the brand but now involving many programs not affiliated with Adidas. However, Oklahoma State is the first of the schools involved to receive a postseason ban from the NCAA as a result. At an emotional press conference amid a stream of tears falling from his eyes, Cowboys Head Coach Mike Boynton said “I'm disappointed, disgusted, appalled, frustrated, but somewhere in Indianapolis there's a group of people celebrating." "They won. Our players don't deserve and shouldn't have to deal with this."It was a single NCAA violation. One player received $300.” Oklahoma State also said that they believe it’s the first time a school has received a postseason ban despite no violations in the areas of institutional control, failure to monitor, recruiting, head coach accountability, participation of an ineligible athlete or academic fraud. All because of the actions of one rouge assistant coach, Lamont Evans, who was quickly fired by the school in 2017, the current players and coaches had their goals of competing for championships stripped away. Now that we have criticized the NCAA enough, let’s shift our attention to the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA), which operates as a Division 1 FCS conference. In the midst of all the conference realignment going on, CAA member James Madison appears likely to be leaving for the Sun Belt, which is quickly becoming one of the best Group of 5 leagues in the FBS. In what should be a monumental time for the Dukes athletic department, the CAA is throwing some major shade on the parade. On Wednesday night, news began to spread that the CAA will not allow James Madison’s teams to compete for league championships this year if the school accepts an invitation to join another conference. In that case, automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament would be unavailable for the Dukes in sports including basketball, baseball, and softball. Although it's possible that JMU teams could qualify for an at-large bid, the CAA isn’t considered a “multi-bid” league on an annual basis that would elicit the Dukes to qualify. This does not apply to the CAA-leading football team, which remains eligible for an automatic bid from the conference because of separate bylaws. “We have great respect for JMU as a conference,” said CAA commissioner Joe D’Antonio. “I’ll be honest. It’s not my job to determine whether it makes sense or doesn’t make sense. it’s my job to make sure the bylaws are enforced the way they’re written.” All because of a bylaw that has every right to be changed, James Madison’s student athletes and coaches competing in Winter and Spring sports have to fight a tremendous uphill battle to compete for championships. The CAA is not the only conference being raided by bigger leagues either. Imagine the outrage if the Big 12 didn’t allow Oklahoma to play in the Big 12 Championship or if the American blocked Cincinnati? The CAA’s decision might be the worst of these three. A common thread that runs across all three of these cases is the fact that the student athlete is suffering because of power hungry administrators in college athletics. In Kofi Cockburn’s case, what he did falls completely in line with the current rules of NIL and the NCAA could’ve easily let the case go. In the Oklahoma State Men’s Basketball case, the punishment didn’t fit the crime and punished players who were in middle school when the violations from one rouge assistant occurred. In the James Madison situation, the student athletes had absolutely nothing to do with the school’s decision to improve its athletic profile with the move to the Sun Belt. Yet it’s them that have to suffer by missing three games in Cockburn’s case and postseasons in OSU and JMU’s case. There is a fine line between upholding the rules and extending your reach, and I think it’s clear what’s occurred in these three situations. A joint statement between the President and AD at JMU put it nicely with “In an era when the industry of college athletics stresses student-athlete welfare, this decision is completely contrary to those ideals.” While they were speaking solely about the CAA’s decision, their sentiments can be applied to all three of these unfortunate rulings. Recently, Major League Baseball has launched the #LetTheKidsPlay campaign pertaining to embracing celebration and emotion in the game. I think that campaign should be stressed to college administrators across the country today. Hey NCAA and CAA, #LetTheKidsPlay!

The Chicago Blackhawks investigation report into sexual assault allegation from 2010 was released, and while it mainly concerns the organization, the Olympic team is also affected. Investigators released their findings on how the Blackhawks handled sexual assault allegations against former video coach Brad Aldrich during the 2010 Stanley Cup run. In a lawsuit, Kyle Beach alleged that Aldrich sexually assaulted him and another player during the 2010 Stanley Cup playoff run. The NHL fined the team $2 million for the "organization's inadequate internal procedures and insufficient and untimely response in the handling of matters related to former video coach Brad Aldrich's employment with the Club and ultimate departure in 2010." [1] Following the report, president of hockey operations Stan Bowman resigned from his position. In a statement following his resignation he said, "Eleven years ago, while serving in my first year as general manager, I was made aware of potential inappropriate behavior by a then-video coach involving a player, I promptly reported the matter to the then-President and CEO who committed to handling the matter. I learned this year that the inappropriate behavior involved a serious allegation of sexual assault. I relied on the direction of my superior that he would take appropriate action. Looking back, now knowing he did not handle the matter promptly, I regret assuming he would do so.” [2] This leaves the Blackhawks with an empty position for their president of hockey operations. Additionally, team USA has lost its general manager (GM) for the men's 2022 Olympic Hockey team. In March of 2021, USA Hockey announced that Bowman would be the GM for the men's ice hockey team that would compete in Beijing 2022. Bowman was selected for his success in hockey with Chicago. While with the Blackhawks he has seen the team win the Stanley Cup in 2010, 2013 and 2015. [3] However, Bowman is no stranger to having a say in the U.S. teams players and staff. He is the son of renowned NHL coach Scotty Bowman and has served as a member of an advisory group for USA Hockey since 2012. He has helped select players and staff for U.S. men’s national teams.[4] Following his resignation as GM from the Olympic team, in a press conference Bowman said, “In light of what’s happened today, I think it’s in the best interests of USA Hockey for me to step aside, I’m grateful to have been selected and wish our team the very best in Beijing.”[5] The possible replacement for Bowman would be Bill Guerin. Guerin is the current GM of the Minnesota Wild and was named the assistant GM of the U.S. team. However, Guerin is part of an open investigation for an alleged mishandling of an unrelated sexual assault when he was the assistant GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins.[6] At this time, no GM has been officially named by the men's ice hockey team. There also has been no work on whether Guerin will continue to be the assistant GM of the team. The current rooster for the U.S. team consists of Blackhawks winger Patrick Kane and defenseman Seth Jones, along with Toronto center Auston Matthews. The final roster for the 2022 team will be announced in January. The U.S. men's ice hockey team has not won a gold at the Olympics since the 1980 Miracle on Ice. [1] Kaplan, Emily. “Chicago Blackhawks Report out; President Stan Bowman Resigns.” ESPN, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32479861/chicago-blackhawks-report-president-stan-bowman-resigns. [2] Id. [3] Gardner, Steve. Stan Bowman Resigns as US Olympic Men's Hockey GM in Wake of Blackhawks Sexual Assault Investigation, 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/stan-bowman-resigns-as-us-olympic-men-s-hockey-gm-in-wake-of-blackhawks-sexual-assault-investigation/ar-AAPZd9F?ocid=uxbndlbing. [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] Id.

For many years, female athletes have been expected and encouraged to compete in skimpy, revealing uniforms in the name of following “tradition” and conforming to stated rules. On November 1, 2021, the International Handball Federation announced they will no longer require female athletes to compete in bikini bottoms. This unsurprising change was due to nationwide criticism and a July 2021 protest by the Norwegian female beach handball team. The players, dismayed by the rules, made a defiant statement by wearing shorts during a championship match. The women claimed they felt uncomfortable in the bikini bottoms, the bottoms made it difficult when managing their menstrual cycle and ultimately turn away many young athletes from the sport that they love. In response to this provocative yet harmless protest, the Federation fined the team 1,500 euros ($1,728). This fine shocked many and sparked widespread disapproval of the Federation. Appalled, popstar Pink offered to pay this penalty, even publicly calling the female uniform rules “sexist.” Compared to the men’s team, whose uniform consists of shorts that are four inches above the knee, there is obvious discrimination based on the gender of the athletes who participate in this sport. The question is: why can’t the women’s team wear shorts? Norway’s Minister for Culture and Sports, Abid Raja, tweeted in response to the fine: “What a change of attitude is needed in the macho and conservative international world of sport.” Norwegian politician, Lene Westgaard-Halle, asked, “Can you please stop the forced bikini nonsense at your beach handball games? It is embarrassing, disgraceful, and sexist. You are ruining both the sport and your own reputation.” In response to this controversy and immense anger, the European Handball Federation (“EHF”) donated the collected fine to a major international sports foundation dedicated to “equality for women and girls in sports.” The team responded to this donation through an Instagram post, “Babysteps. It feels so good to know that we have EHF’s support, and we believe that a change is in motion… thank you for all the support – you are amazing.” Unfortunately, this is not solely an issue with European handball uniforms. The overwhelming sexism revolving around female sports uniforms has been an issue for ages. It became a sizable talking point at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. Protests over skimpy uniforms, by two women’s sport teams, occurred before the Olympic games even started. This left the Olympians, viewers, fans, and aspiring athletes wondering: why are female athletes EXPECTED to show their bodies, but men can cover up? It is understood that these uniform rules and standards are designed to highlight femineity and beauty, but what the standard fails to consider is that girls abandon their sport careers because of uncomfortable body-baring uniforms. This policy places tremendous pressure on female athletes by indirectly suggesting that women are expected to be thin, muscular, hairless, able-bodied, and period-free. Male athletes have never been subjected to this pressure. What is needed? We need more women in leadership positions in the sports world. The EHF’s uniform rule change is one step in the right direction. Other international federations have to adjust their rules to allow the female athletes to choose the uniform that suits their comfortability and preference. These changes can and will motivate young female athletes to remain in their sport and encourage participation from more conservative cultures. If we recruit more women from diverse backgrounds into leadership positions, we will surely see a beneficial change. Women should not be punished for wearing an outfit that feels comfortable, functional, and practical. Women should be allowed the freedom of participating in their sport without exposure to unwanted comments and sexual harassment. Female athletes want to be remembered for their performance and strength, not for their bodily appearance. Ariana Gonzalez is a 2L at Seton Hall University School of Law who is interning for Emily Staker Representation. She is currently working on research regarding NIL Laws and how they vary amongst universities. You can reach Ariana at [email protected] or message her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariana-elise-gonzalez/.

In a move that shocked the sports world, the Denver Broncos traded eight-time Pro Bowl linebacker and fan favorite, Von Miller, to the Los Angeles Rams the day before the trade deadline. Miller was one of two remaining Super Bowl 50 players on the team. He was coming up on the tail end of his six-year contract, but many did not expect him to leave Denver even after his contract was up. Fans and players, alike, debated how Denver’s big trade would affect the team. The Broncos were likely not headed to the Playoffs with their 4-4 record, but the news of one of their best players being traded mid-season was surely unexpected. When asked if he had expressed an opinion on the team’s plan for the trade deadline, Coach Fangio revealed he told Broncos General Manager George Paton to “do whatever he needs to do and we're going to coach and coach winning football with what we've got....I've not tried to influence him one way or another.” News of the trade added a match to the flame for fans who were already doubting team leadership and coaching staff’s ability. Many expected the possibility of a drastic change in leadership, but Miller was low on the list of expected casualties. Miller’s departure leaves a hole in team leadership - as the longest-tenured player on the Broncos, Miller helped lead the team on and off the field. Even current Broncos players expressed their disappointment in Miller’s trade. The news seems to have come as a surprise to Miller, as well. “When I said, 'Broncos for life,' I meant that -- it will always be in my heart,'' Miller said. However, he seems to have a positive outlook on his new team. On his new teammates, Miller said, “Great team... They got a great defense.... I'm excited, [I’ve] always been a great teammate and I'm going to continue to do that." The change of scenery and teaming up with the likes of Aaron Donald will hopefully spark Miller into an even more impressive career. In Miller’s absence, the Broncos’ salary cap opens up. With the gain of a second-round pick and third-round pick, the Broncos can sign new athletes to help rebuild the franchise. Miller’s contract was worth $114.5 million, signed after he won Super Bowl 50 MVP. Denver agreed to pay $9 million of the $9.7 million left in Miller’s contract, but refraining from re-signing Miller leaves plenty of room for the Broncos to draft up-and-coming talent with the hopes of bringing success back to the franchise. Fans have unsurprisingly come out on either side of the debate. While many mourn the loss of Miller, some think it was the best decision, not only for Miller, but for the Broncos as well. Miller will get to play for a team that is generally considered a Super Bowl contender this season and won’t have to spend another couple of years rebuilding a team he has already spent so much time on. Meanwhile, the Broncos can recruit fresh faces at a much lower cost. James Merilatt of DenverFan expressed his thoughts on the trade: “It would’ve been foolish for Paton not to make the trade... Miller is in the final year of his deal... It wouldn’t have made any sense for the Broncos to re-sign him even if he wanted to stay. The money could be spent better in other places. They need to get young players on the field.” As much as the fans will miss seeing Miller rep the blue and orange on the field, it seems they understand the need to rebuild. The Broncos dominated the Dallas Cowboys in a shocking 30-16 game this past weekend, successfully stifling Dallas’ high-powered offense. Fans worried that Denver’s season was over left with hope that things are looking up. Young leaders on the team are stepping up to fill the void left by Miller on defense and in the locker room. With a defense that ranks in the top 5 across the board, it is up to those left to keep the team united and keep moving forward. For Miller, fans will be excited to see him don his old Texas A&M jersey number as he joins the Rams on the field. As Miller said: he went to sleep 4-4, and woke up 7-1.

The settlement offer that Seth Wickersham mentioned in his ESPN article last month was revealed by A.J. Perez, senior reporter for Front Office Sports. The offer, mentioned by Jeff Pash, the NFL’s General Counsel that was “worth than more than some people in that room” was $100 million. A lawsuit that has been ongoing for 4 ½ years, and the best offer the defendants, namely Stan Kroenke, can offer the plaintiffs is $100 million. Stan Kroenke, according to Forbes, is worth $10 billion alone. Stan Kroenke is being shrewd again, trying to “buy” this lawsuit and end it, like he did when he bought the Rams and ended their time in St. Louis. Howard Balzer mentioned Kroenke helped move the Rams to St. Louis as a minority owner, but in the early 2000s, he was on the NFL to Los Angeles commission. He got his wish in 2016 when he could relocate, but it is coming at a steep price to him, hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions, if it proceeds to trial. He must pay all fees, or he violates the indemnification clause. Stan Kroenke is trying to avoid the indemnification mess he backed himself into, and the legal repercussions that come with it. Kroenke agreed to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles after winning the secret ballot 30 votes to 2, the two votes being Arizona Cardinals’ owner, Michael Bidwill, and former Carolina Panthers owner, Jerry Richardson, as reported by Randy Karraker of 101ESPN St. Louis. Bidwill’s father moved the Cardinals to Phoenix from St. Louis in 1988, and Richardson, deposed earlier in discovery, formerly owned the Carolina Panthers and favored the Carson Project the Raiders and Chargers brought forth in the race for L.A. back in 2015-16. He was on the Los Angeles Committee that voted for the Carson Project in favor of Inglewood, Kroenke’s project 5-1. Simply put, Stan Kroenke is paying all attorney fees and litigation matters for the defendants, the National Football League and its 32 owners. Stan Kroenke is trying to fight this clause, and he recently has threatened to sue the NFL over this clause. His actions rival Al Davis’ tactics brought forth in the early 1980s when he threatened to sue the NFL as he fought for the Raiders to be allowed to move to Los Angeles from Oakland. Stan Kroenke thought each owner would be paying their own legal fees, but he thought wrong. New York Giants owner John Mara was aghast, and he was quoted in Wickersham’s article: “[i]f we knew you would not be paying these fees, we (the owners) would not have voted for your project.” This is more than likely why the plaintiffs requested to re-depose Stan Kroenke on video a week ago. The plaintiffs hold all the cards in their hands after the Missouri Appellate Court shot down the NFL’s writ to change venues. The NFL fears St. Louis has “home-field advantage.” Stan Kroenke is afraid he will be exposed for the shrewd owner he is, for the guy who promised to do whatever it took to keep the Rams in St. Louis when he bought them in 2010 only to relocate them six years later.

One step forward, and two steps back. Though this is a common idiom in literature, it’s becoming all too real in terms of the NFL trying to perfect its image. They have taken steps towards equality since 2015, with Jen Welter becoming the first female coach in NFL history in 2015. Since then, multiple scandals have rocked the league, with the most recent (and certainly most concerning), being the handling of the Deshaun Watson case. Since it hit headlines, nothing has really happened. That is the problem. On the flip side, the MLB is dealing with an issue that is similar in nature. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Trevor Bauer was placed on administrative leave pending the result of sexual assault allegations that were pitted against him. Though the MLB decided to leave any definite punishment for the end of the season, they placed him on leave almost as soon as they could have investigated the issue, making their stance clear. The NFL, however, did not do the same. That is where the issue lies. Though the NFL has made many strides in terms of equality for women and standing up against racism, they have not made their stance very clear regarding the situation of Deshaun Watson, which has made some speak up against them. They have not made the decision to place him on the commissioner’s exempt list, which has been done in the past to players like Kareem Hunt and Reuben Foster. In the past, the NFL put players on this list, removing them from the field even before an investigation had been completed. There is one small caveat that the NFL must deal with before Watson is handed any type of punishment. Per Article 46, Section 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, “the Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct.” Under this section, Watson cannot be punished by the Houston Texans and Roger Goodell. Though Watson has not played a game through five weeks of the NFL season, this has been listed as a “coach’s decision.” It is essentially left up to interpretation if this is considered to be a punishment because, if it is, then Watson in turn cannot be suspended by the NFL. Given that the Houston Texans never explicitly punished Watson for these allegations, it’s been left up to the NFL. Therein lies the issue, because the NFL has every opportunity to do something, yet nothing has happened to this point. This limbo that Watson has been left in was created through the poor handling of this case by the NFL, as there was a clear step that could have been taken that never was. The MLB made their thoughts on the Trevor Bauer allegations very clear, and as a result, they have caught less attention than the NFL has from the media, given that the NFL never crafted any response on how they wanted to handle this situation. Though the situation is extremely sensitive as well as still evolving, a case as serious as this, you would think, would warrant a response from a corporation as massive as the NFL. Though the company may have a lot on its plate on any given day, it should be assumed that crafting its position regarding this issue would be on the top of its agenda. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached at [email protected].

The NFL has been handing out hefty fines left and right this season. One of the league’s recurring victims is Dallas Cowboys wide receiver CeeDee Lamb. Lamb has been fined roughly $46,000 since the beginning of the 2021-22 season. These fines have been the result of an untucked jersey, low socks, an illegal block, and an over $10,000 fine for waving at New England Patriots defensive back Jalen Mills after his game-winning touchdown. Lamb’s experience with the NFL’s fines may make fans believe the NFL is cracking down on its players, but with Aaron Rodgers receiving only a flimsy fine for lying about his vaccination status, the disparity exudes a more nefarious reason. Aaron Rodgers was fined only $14,650 for violating the league’s COVID-19 protocols, which seems a little low in comparison to Lamb’s. Granted, Lamb’s results from five separate fines, but imperfect attire pales in comparison to endangering your fellow teammates by disregarding the protocols preventing the spread of the pandemic. While Rodgers’ fine barely made a dent in his pocket, the Packers were stuck with a $300,000 fine after an NFL review determined that the team should have penalized Rodgers according to NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo. Rodgers did not agree with the fine he was facing, since his decision to remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 was allegedly due to Rodgers’ health concerns. Rodgers avoided answering questions at a press conference on his vaccination status, claiming he was “immunized,” but did not elaborate on the subject. He instead participated in his own “immunization protocol,” however, scientists assert COVID-19 immunity is gained via vaccinations or recovering from the virus. Rodgers' reasoning for remaining unvaccinated is not the most convincing. Rodgers stated he could not receive mRNA vaccines due to an allergy he has to an ingredient used in them. He never stated what this ingredient is, but it is possible to have an allergy to ingredients in mRNA vaccines. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine, which makes it a viable option even for Rodgers, despite his allergy. Following the news of Rodgers’ controversial views on the vaccine, two of Rodgers’ sponsors stated they did not agree with the statements he made regarding the vaccine. Meanwhile in Dallas, CeeDee Lamb has so far been fined 3.75% of his total salary, per Adam Schefter’s calculations. Even with the stacked fines against him, and the risk of paying another $46,000 if his jersey is untucked again, Lamb has acknowledged his role in being given the fines. When asked about his uniform violations, Lamb said: “I just know for sure I’m more conscious of it... I guess I got to look down, pull my jersey down. Stuff like that. It’s weird.” Second-year player Lamb has shown he can take responsibility for accruing over $46,000 in fines, while veteran Rodgers has evaded taking any responsibility for a fine worth a fraction of Lamb’s. A question arising on social media has been if the NFL should fine veteran players more than newer players, since they have experience and familiarity with the league’s protocols. Others question why two uniform violations cost the same as risking the infection of the team with a virus that has caused world-wide lockdowns. An even larger and more worrisome question is: are fine disparities another sign of systemic racism in the NFL? One would think the health of the players would mean more to the NFL than an untucked jersey and a little wave.