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.

In other lawsuit news, the plaintiffs motioned to re-depose Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Jones is the alleged ringleader among the owners that designed the Kroenke-Spanos collaboration to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. He is Stan Kroenke’s strongest ally among the ownership group, and he is on the hook for punitive damages after Judge McGraugh ordered that he needed to hand over all financial records back in July. He is the alleged owner that stood up for Kroenke after Commissioner Roger Goodell asked Kroenke to leave the room the owners were meeting in last month to allow NFL General Counsel Jeff Pash to describe the repercussions from Stan Kroenke signing the indemnification clause to allow the Rams to relocate to Los Angeles. Jerry Jones might as well be considered the outspoken version of Stan Kroenke. All reports from the local St. Louis media and now the national media make it sound like Stan Kroenke acted on the NFL’s return to Los Angeles while Jerry Jones had to explain to the other 30 owners what this meant for not only Kroenke, but them as well in the form of profits, such as the relocation fees the Rams and Chargers had to pay. Jerry Jones is as much responsible for this unjustified relocation as is Stan Kroenke, which is why I believe the plaintiffs are seeking to re-depose Jerry Jones. Lastly, the NFL motioned to keep some files and evidence confidential earlier this week in a motion in limine. A motion in limine is a pre-trial motion asking that certain evidence is found inadmissible, and that it not be referred to or offered at trial. If the NFL is requesting this type of motion, they must know either St. Louis is not going to settle, or there is information that could harm their reputation. It sounds like, from this motion, they are trying to minimize the damage. They are like the kid who gets caught with the cookie in their mouth when the parent discovers the lid is off the jar. The NFL wants to keep confidential and hide as much information as possible from the jury when trial kick offs with opening statements on January 10th. Should the plaintiffs settle, the NFL should consider themselves lucky. As mentioned by Wickersham, Perez, and the St. Louis media, after signing the indemnification clause, Stan Kroenke has been responsible for all attorney fees the NFL owners incurred so far, and should the NFL owners either settle or lose at trial, he must indemnify the payment that each owner makes to the plaintiffs, St. Louis, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC), and the Regional Stadium Authority (RSA). With the recent news that Stan Kroenke tried to settle at $100 million, the NFL has reasons to start motions in limine because they likely know they were caught defrauding St. Louis of an NFL franchise, the Rams. They never thought this lawsuit would still be afloat 4 and a half years later. Jerry Jones’ comments about partnering Kroenke and Spanos as co-tenants in Los Angeles and his public backing of Stan Kroenke may come back to haunt him.

"If the commissioner comes in and investigates to see what the f--- is going on in Phoenix, [he] would be appalled." That is how one current Business Operations employee predicts NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, will react when he receives the findings from Wachtell Lipton, the law firm now tasked with an impartial investigation. The NBA hired the independent law firm on November 4th, just hours after the release of the ESPN article written by Baxter Holmes, exposing a disturbing pattern of inappropriate behavior by Suns majority owner Robert Sarver. Holmes interviewed 70 current and former Suns employees from various ranks who all seem to tell similar tales of abhorrent language and childish actions displayed through Sarver’s 17-year tenure as the team’s majority owner. Sarver has vehemently denied the vast majority of the allegations through a wall of attorneys and the few he does admit to; he describes as “taken out of context” or meant in a joking manner. They are not jokes when they are hurtful and made at the expense of your subordinates Mr. Sarver. Earl Watson was the head coach in Phoenix from the end of the 2015-2016 season through the early stages of the 2017-18 campaign, when he was let go by Sarver following the team’s 0-3 start. Watson’s head coaching record was very below average, but he does not believe it was wins and losses that ousted him. However, a grudge held by Robert Sarver against Watson’s representation “Klutch Sports” and its owner Rich Paul. The bitterness for Paul began when the two were having a conversation about, then Suns guard Eric Bledsoe, who was looking to attain a contract extension during the 2017-18 offseason. Sarver questioned the guard’s ability to stay healthy among other things and when Paul refuted him by stating, “We aren’t talking about tennis” (Sarver’s childhood sport) the Suns owner became irate. He told Paul he would fire Watson if he did not cut ties with his agency, when Watson got wind of the news and the outrageous ultimatum he got this from Sarver: "Yeah, I will f---ing fire you," Sarver told Watson. "You have 10 days to think about it. Don't wait too long." Watson refused to fire Paul and the agency, his time in Phoenix ended shortly after. This interaction is a microcosm of the boorish behavior that has been attributed to Sarver during his tenure as the Suns owner. Others infractions include, the use of the ‘N’ word in several instances amongst coaches and staff as well as belittling female staff members by making sexist and misogynistic comments often. NBA Spokesman Mike Bass commented publicly following the release of the article saying they had not "received a complaint of misconduct at the Suns organization through any of our processes, including our confidential workplace misconduct hotline or other correspondence." There is certainly a reason for that as well. Many employees both current and former said they felt as if Sarver “owned them” and would often ask questions of that nature to his subordinates in some sort of twisted power trip. A feeling of being trapped in this unhealthy workplace environment led over a dozen employees to seek professional help through psychologists. A current employee who works in the human resources department commented: “If something happens, don’t go to HR.” Alluding to the fact that retaliation efforts would be taken by executives. Another former HR employee recounts several instances where he took employees who were attempting to seek help outside of the team’s property so they weren’t seen by superiors speaking with HR. The constant berating and mental abuse took its toll and led one former female employee to say this regarding her time in the organization. "It wrecked my life. I was contemplating suicide." Chilling. The NBA has a serious problem here and although a few higher executives such as GM James Jones and team president Jason Rowley have stood up for Sarver. Being quoted saying things like this isn’t the man they know/work for/respect, the majority of people in far less powerful positions sing a very different tune. Could we be heading for the third NBA owner removal under Silver’s tenure? The NBA board of governors would need a ¾ vote to do so, but regardless of that, things need to change in Phoenix immediately. Crude remarks might work on a Netflix comedy special, but this behavior crosses far past that line. If ousted as an NBA owner, my advice to Sarver would be to not pursue a career in stand-up.

Dan Wallach, sports betting expert and “Conduct Detrimental” co-host, tweeted out that a member of a focus group in St. Louis that discussed the city’s interest in the Rams, or if the Rams left, spoiler they did, their support for another franchise. The article, located on insidestl.com and reported by various insidestl.com members, reports focus group member, Kip Starnes, describing the atmosphere among the fifteen members as a “tailgate” to The Hollywood Casino Press Box. Rams COO and according to Fox 2’s Charlie Marlow, “professional liar,” Kevin Demoff attended this meeting. This focus group, as described by Mr. Starnes, “looked like people were there to tailgate for the Rams, half the people in the room came in jerseys. It was pretty wild. There was passion and…people are frustrated. It [was] very difficult when you have great owners like the DeWitts with the Cardinals and Stillman with the Blues, and we [had] an owner here who [did not] give us…any hope at all. There are people who [had] a high [angst] level and it was shared among the focus group members and Rams fans.” The way Mr. Starnes described this meeting while the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers were competing in the Los Angeles relocation derby shows that St. Louis is passionate about their sports teams. The St. Louis City FC are going to kick off their Major League Soccer presence, and should the city and the other plaintiffs receive or be asked to settle with an expansion team as a settlement piece, St. Louisans are willing to welcome that team. As reported earlier, Mayor Jones is non-committal, although she is not going to finance a stadium. If the city receives an expansion team, they better settle or persuade the jury to grant them a stadium as well at no cost to them. All financing should be provided by either the defendants, or they can ask for installments in financing, one option as an installment could be private seat licenses (PSLs), season tickets, equipment, and so forth. Howard Balzer, former St. Louis football writer and guest on “Conduct Detrimental” described St. Louis as a football town. He provided Dan Wallach with some astonishing numbers (see second page for these numbers). These numbers show St. Louis supported the Rams, although from 2007-2011, the Rams went through their worst skid in history, 15-65. The Rams never made the playoffs past 2004, but St. Louis always had their backs. The Dome seats 66,000 and they averaged 60,200 in attendance while the Rams played in St. Louis. The fact that Kroenke and the other defendants stated St. Louis did not support the Rams is a farce. The NFL may not offer an expansion team because they do not want to lose another piece of the pie. The owners hate splitting up TV revenue and other sources they must split among the current thirty-two teams. However, it may be cheaper in the long-term to offer St. Louis an expansion team. Should the NFL be forced or settle to pay all expenses the plaintiffs are seeking, this could impact the league severely to the point where a quarter of their revenue may be heading St. Louis’ way. Simply put, St. Louis would support another NFL team, but be aware of the old adage: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The NFL has fooled St. Louis twice, and as most people say, the third time is usually the charm. An expansion team seems like the logical option, but is the NFL too prideful and greedy to split the pie into a thirty-third piece? Time will tell. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.