In 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), opening the floodgates for legalized sports betting in the United States. Ever since, the sports betting industry has grown rapidly and is showing no signs of slowing down. According to PBS, Americans have bet over $220 billion on sports with legal gambling outlets as of May 2023 in the five years since the Supreme Court’s ruling. While the revenue derived from sports betting is certainly an overwhelming positive, there are obvious externalities that were expected and have come to light in the past few years. The concept of “point shaving” and “throwing games” is by no means a new phenomenon, with the most famous episode being the 1919 “Black Sox” scandal over a century ago. But with increased ease and access for many Americans to place bets on games these days, the risk has elevated and we’ve seen some instances where athletes and coaches have run into trouble. One of these unfortunate stories surfaced last spring when the state of Ohio detected “suspicious betting activity” surrounding a University of Alabama baseball game. You can read my Conduct Detrimental article at the time here. The Crimson Tide’s head coach at the time, Brad Bohannon, was connected to the probe. Shortly after the story broke, Bohannon was fired for cause by Alabama.  However, additional details didn’t emerge until this week when Bohannon was punished by the NCAA and charges were filed against an Indiana man connected to the probe. According to the NCAA, Bohannon messaged an individual he knew to be engaged in betting on the Alabama’s April 28th game against LSU (the eventual national champion). Bohannon texted the bettor “[Student-athlete] is out for sure ... Lemme know when I can tell [the opposing team] ... Hurry.” After receiving the information from Bohannon, the bettor -- identified Wednesday as Bert Eugene Neff -- attempted to place a wager of $100,000 on the game but was limited to a $15,000 bet by the sportsbook's staff, according to the NCAA. The bet was placed with the BetMGM sportsbook at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati, according to gaming regulators in Indiana and Ohio. Alabama followed through by scratching its starting pitcher ahead of the game, which LSU ended up winning 8-6. Neff pled guilty this week to federal obstruction charges related to the situation. Neff is facing up to 10 years in prison and a fine of no more than $250,000 for the destruction of evidence, tampering with witnesses, and providing false statements to the FBI, according to the plea agreement released this week. In addition, Bohannon’s for cause termination last spring was only the beginning of his punishments as the NCAA instituted a 15-year show cause against the coach. A show-cause penalty, which can and usually does make coaches unhireable, is the most severe recourse the NCAA has against coaches. Bohannon joins former Penn basketball coach Jerome Allen and former UNC-Greensboro basketball assistant Phil Collins as the only three people to ever catch a 15-year show-cause penalty from the NCAA, the stiffest individual penalty it's ever doled out to a coach. Bohannon failed to cooperate in the NCAA's investigations, which likely didn't help in the matter. Even before knowing all the details, this was an unfortunate story for everyone involved. But as more information has surfaced, it’s even more unfathomable that a coach would sell out his players in this fashion. Before this situation unfolded, Bohannon held a great reputation among college baseball circles. He was an SEC Baseball “lifer” who had done tremendous work as an assistant before taking over the Alabama program in 2017. Nonetheless, this story is just the latest unfortunate sports betting episode involving players or coaches. Hopefully, we won’t see many more instances of this because careers are put in jeopardy by doing so. But as sports betting continues to gain in popularity and convenience, the temptation will undoubtedly be there. The saving grace is that many of these sports books and betting services these days have safeguards in place to suspect suspicious activity. Let’s hope that we don’t have to read more stories like these moving forward. Brendan Bell is the Southwest Regional Rep on the Conduct Detrimental Law Student Board. Follow him on Twitter (X) @_bbell5 and check out his work https://t.co/JvQdqfwFuN

Last weekend, the internet broke when Taylor Swift and Brittany Mahomes arrived at the Chiefs game wearing jackets made from up-cycled Nike football jerseys. The media and fans soon realized the jackets were made by fashion designer Kristin Juszczyk, who has a history of repurposing NFL apparel and jerseys to create unique game-day outfits. Both fashion and football fans came together to support Juszczyk and began to ask how they too can wear one of her designs. Despite the demand for these unique jackets, Kristin Juszczyk finds herself constrained by legal limitations, delving into the intricacies of trademark law. For Juszczyk to sell her upcycled clothing designs, she must face those challenges within the United States trademark law framework and the Lanham Act. Under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement consists of unauthorized use of a registered (or similar) mark that creates a likelihood of confusion, deception, or misconceptions about the source of the goods or services.[1] Tweets and announcer's comments during the Chief's game manifested evident confusion regarding the origin of the jackets, with even Kyle Juszczyk, Kristin’s husband, clarifying on social media that the jackets were not of Nike origin. The jackets and other upcycled clothing that Juszczyk designs appear to change the form and function of the original product. On Mahomes and Swift's jackets, the registered trademark of the Nike logo was displayed on each sleeve. This could result in confusion among consumers, and if Juszczyk sold the jackets, a lawsuit could ensue. Kristin Juszczyk 's husband's tweet showed some people were confused about the jacket's origin. Navigating the legal landscape, certain exceptions to trademark law exist, such as the first sale doctrine. This permits the resale of products containing intellectual property without the owner's consent, provided the original owner lawfully owns the product. However, this doctrine is not absolute, as misrepresentation or material differences can nullify its protection. For example, in 2020, Ralph Lauren filed a lawsuit against a California-based company, VDNS, for trademark infringement and counterfeiting.[2] The potentially infringing products included a hat made from Ralph Lauren swim shorts. The court decided that since the resold good was materially different from the original product, it fell outside the scope of first sale protection and infringed on Ralph Lauren’s trademark. Juszczyk’s designs similarly repurpose another item of clothing; therefore, a court would likely decide in the same manner as they did in the Ralph Lauren case. In Kristin's effort to clarify the legal constraints, she took to Instagram, acknowledging the inability to vend the jackets currently and expressed optimism that she would be selling designs in the future. A prospective collaboration with Nike emerges as a potential solution, paving the way for legal distribution of the jackets and other similar apparel. While Kristin Juszczyk may not be able to currently sell her designs due to trademark law, she has emerged as a leading figure in the expanding realm of women's sports apparel. The timeline for the availability of her designs in retail spaces will continue to be a matter of interest. Undoubtedly, her continued status as a viral sensation is assured, accentuated by the endorsement of notable personalities like Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner and the anticipated appearance of Olivia Culpo this upcoming weekend. [1] 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114 [2] Ralph Lauren Files Suit Against “Custom” Apparel Maker in Light of the Continued Rise of Fashion “Bootlegs”, Fashion L. (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ralph-lauren-files-suit-against-custom-apparel-maker-in-light-of-the-continued-rise-of-fashion-bootlegs/ [https://perma.cc/Z6RU-QFTS] Olivia Hellerich is a 3L at New York Law School and is the President of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached at [email protected].

On January 10, 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the NFL’s appeal (Case No. 85527) from a state court decision denying its motion to compel arbitration of claims filed by former Raiders head coach Jon Gruden. The state Supreme Court paused the underlying case, Gruden v. National Football League (Case No. A-21-844043-B), while the arbitration decision is resolved. In November 2021, Gruden sued the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell (but not the Raiders) in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, alleging that Goodell and the NFL intentionally and tortiously interfered with Gruden’s contract with the Raiders by leaking offensive emails, which ultimately forced his resignation as head coach of the Raiders. The NFL quickly filed a motion to compel arbitration of Gruden’s claims, relying on two separate provisions. First, the NFL pointed to Article 8.3(e) of the NFL Constitution which gives the Commissioner “full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate . . . (a)ny dispute involving . . . any employees of members of the NFL . . . that in the opinion of the commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the NFL or professional football.” Gruden’s contract with the Raiders included a provision acknowledging that he read and understood the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, and that he agreed to “abide by and be legally bound by” them. But notably, the NFL did not provide Gruden with a copy of the NFL Constitution prior to executing his contract with the Raiders. Second, the NFL pointed to Gruden’s employment agreement with the Raiders which contained an arbitration agreement stating that “all matters in dispute between Gruden and [the Raiders], including without limitation any dispute arising from the terms of this Agreement, shall be referred to the NFL Commissioner for binding arbitration, and his decision shall be accepted as final, conclusive, and unappealable.” The NFL argued that this arbitration provision provides independent grounds to compel arbitration because all of Gruden’s claims arise out of the Gruden-Raiders contract. Ruling from the bench, Judge Nancy Allf denied the NFL’s motion to compel. As to the NFL’s argument regarding the NFL Constitution, Judge Allf found no reason to conclude that Article 8.3(e) is applicable to Gruden’s claims. The court also rejected the NFL’s reliance on the arbitration agreement in Gruden’s employment contract because that arbitration provision covered disputes only between Gruden and the Raiders. In addition, Judge Allf concluded that enforcing arbitration would be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The NFL made several arguments on appeal relating to Judge Allf’s determination that neither Article 8.3(e) nor the arbitration agreement in Gruden’s contract with the Raiders required Gruden to arbitrate his claims against the NFL. But perhaps the most interesting issue on appeal is Judge Allf’s conclusion that enforcing arbitration would be unconscionable—an issue that the Nevada Supreme Court Justices questioned the NFL about during oral argument. Like any contract, an agreement to arbitrate may be invalidated as unconscionable where it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability focuses on the circumstances of negotiation, such as the bargaining power of the parties or unfair surprise, whereas substantive conscionability pertains to the fairness of the agreement’s actual terms. Judge Allf found that procedural unconscionability was present in this case because Gruden lacked the ability to negotiate the terms of the NFL Constitution and could not negotiate the selection of the Commissioner as the arbitrator after the dispute arose. Judge Allf also concluded that enforcing arbitration would be substantively unconscionable because the arbitration provisions made Commissioner Goodell the arbitrator.[1] In the court’s opinion, this necessarily deprived Gruden of a neutral arbitrator. Finally, Judge Allf determined that the arbitration provision in the NFL Constitution was illusory (and thus unconscionable) because it gave Goodell unilateral authority to determine whether a particular dispute was arbitrable or not. Judge Allf’s finding of procedural unconscionability finds support from a recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wherein a federal district court similarly concluded that an arbitration provision included in the NFL Constitution was unconscionable (and thus unenforceable against the plaintiff-coach) because it gave the NFL and its member clubs unilateral authority to modify the terms of the NFL Constitution, and to do so without providing notice to the plaintiff. See Flores v. Nat’l Football League, 2023 WL 2301575, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023).[2] In the instant case this conclusion is bolstered by the NFL’s failure to give Gruden a copy of the NFL Constitution at the time he signed his contract with the Raiders. Judge Allf’s determination that Commissioner Goodell could not serve as a neutral arbitrator, on the other hand, contradicts other courts’ rulings on the issue. As the NFL points out, the Second Circuit has rejected the argument that, as a matter of law, the NFL Commissioner cannot fairly arbitrate claims regarding the NFL’s conduct. See Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527, 548 (2d Cir. 2016). Here, however, Gruden may argue that in addition to the Second Circuit decision having no binding effect on the Nevada State Supreme Court, the instant case is readily distinguishable because Gruden has alleged that Commissioner Goodell was personally and directly involved in the tortious misconduct at issue. In addition, Gruden has claimed that Goodell would likely be a material fact witness to the case. Accordingly, Goodell’s ability to serve as a neutral arbitrator is arguably more likely to be compromised than in cases involving discipline of NFL players, as was at issue in Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council. Questions asked at oral argument suggest that the state Supreme Court Justices are likewise concerned about Goodell’s ability to serve as an unbiased arbitrator under the particular facts of this case. The NFL, however, maintains that the court’s concerns over Goodell’s ability to remain impartial should not disturb the parties’ clear intent to designate Goodell as the arbitrator of any disputes arising between them. Moreover, the NFL insists that any problems related to fairness that might arise from improper bias by Goodell can and should be addressed after arbitration, in accordance with § 10 of the FAA which permits courts to overturn arbitration decisions where there is “evident partiality or corruption.” Finally, Judge Allf’s finding that the arbitration agreement was illusory because it grants Commissioner Goodell the ability to decide whether a particular suit is arbitrable may warrant closer inspection by the Nevada Supreme Court. As the NFL points out, the FAA allows parties to delegate to an arbitrator question concerning the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, a court must defer to the arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability only where there is “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate those questions to the arbitrator. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (2019). The delegation provision at issue here, Article 8.3(e), gives the Commissioner authority to arbitrate “(a)ny dispute . . . that in the opinion of the commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the NFL or professional football.” (Emphasis added). Though the NFL argues that this provision simply delegates the “conduct detrimental” determination to Commissioner Goodell, a legitimate question remains as to whether that delegation is “clear and unmistakable.” Gruden argues that it is not. And even if Article 8.3(e) is sufficient evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability, perhaps the Nevada Supreme Court will find that this case is distinguishable given that the delegation clause at issue grants authority to decide the issue of arbitrability to not just any arbitrator, but an arbitrator who is also a party to—and potentially a witness in—the relevant dispute. To be sure, the NFL could have taken several steps to mitigate concerns of unconscionability. For example, the NFL could have provided Gruden a copy of the Constitution at the time he signed his contract with the Raiders. Moreover, the NFL could have included all substantive provisions of Gruden’s arbitration obligations in the contract itself, rather than merely incorporating by reference those provisions. Additionally, the NFL could have required Commissioner Goodell to appoint a neutral third-party arbitrator, rather than give him discretion to make himself the arbitrator. Any of these steps would have weakened Gruden’s argument that enforcing arbitration is unconscionable. While it remains to be seen how the Nevada Supreme Court will rule on the NFL’s appeal, the case certainly raises interesting questions about unconscionability as it relates to agreements to arbitrate, as well as the NFL’s ability to force coaches (rather than players) into arbitration via their employment agreements with NFL member clubs. Footnotes [1] As the NFL pointed out, the NFL Constitution gives Commissioner Goodell the option to appoint a third-party arbitrator instead of arbitrating the case himself. But because Goodell alone has the discretion to make this decision, and because nothing requires Goodell to appoint a third-party arbitrator, the court did not find that this caveat mitigated its concerns. [2] Notably, the NFL argued that unlike Massachusetts law (which the court applied in Flores), under California law (which applied here), a unilateral modification clause does not make an arbitration provision itself unconscionable. Alec McNiff (Twitter: @Alec_McNiff) is currently completing a federal district court clerkship after spending a year as a litigation associate at a major law firm. Alec earned his J.D. from University of Michigan Law School and holds a business degree from University of Southern California. All opinions are his own.

With Spring Training on the horizon, many MLB clubs are looking to fortify their roster as we enter the last month of the offseason. While we've seen a few teams (Hello Dodgers) spend big on free agents and trade acquisitions, others have been reticent to hand out lucrative contracts due to uncertainty pertaining to their local television revenue. In today's media environment, television networks have been facing an accelerated rate of cord-cutting in recent years as consumers opt for streaming services. Despite maintaining stable ratings, as live sports often do, regional sports networks (RSNs) have felt the brunt of the shift away from cable. Chief among these RSNs is Diamond Sports Group, the parent company of Bally Sports, who carries the rights to 37 sports teams across the NBA, NHL, and MLB. In March 2023, Diamond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, casting doubt on the company's ability to broadcast games moving forward. During the 2023 season, Diamond lost a bankruptcy court case to MLB in which it argued that the rights fees it owed clubs should’ve been reduced due to the change in market dynamics in the era of cord-cutting and decline of cable television. After previously skipping payments to a collection of MLB clubs, the company was forced to decide which contracts to keep or cut. As a result, broadcasts for both the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks were turned over the league after Diamond failed to reach an agreement to continue paying the respective teams broadcast fees. Heading into 2024, the expectation was that Diamond Sports’ long term future in broadcasting MLB games was highly in doubt. With the expectation it would be breaking up, Diamond had previously reached contingent arrangements with the NBA and the NHL to end its agreements with teams in each league after the 2023-24 season and was deep into negotiations with MLB over a similar arrangement. However, there is a new development on that front. This week, Diamond Sports has arranged a $450 million plan with creditors that would allow it to continue operating beyond 2024, pending court approval. In addition, Diamond will also get funding from Amazon as part of a streaming deal. The plan also ends Diamond’s litigation against its parent company Sinclair, which will pay $495 million for the support. MLB not coming to terms means, unlike with the NBA and NHL, there is no agreement to end their teams’ contracts at the end of the current season. Therefore, the 11 teams with Bally Sports deals will continue under the umbrella for linear past 2024 until the end of their contracts. The 11 teams are as followed ·      Atlanta Braves ·      Cincinnati Reds ·      Cleveland Guardians ·      Detroit Tigers ·      Los Angeles Angels ·      Kansas City Royals ·      Miami Marlins ·      Milwaukee Brewers ·      St. Louis Cardinals ·      Tampa Bay Rays ·      Texas Rangers From reports, it appears nine of these teams (all the above besides Cleveland and Texas) will have their games broadcasted on Bally Sports in 2024. Importantly, five of the teams also have digital rights deals with Bally Sports, and those will be offered on Amazon Prime. Those five are the Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, Miami Marlins, Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays. Nonetheless, this story is far from over. For the Rangers, Guardians , and Minnesota Twins (whos Ballys deal expired following the 2023 season), their status is still up in the air. A lawyer for Texas Rangers said the team is studying new bankruptcy exit plan and will provide a prompt response to Diamond Sports on whether it wants to engage in talks to reduce the rights fee or go out on its own. The Rangers sentiments are likely a reflection of MLB’s reaction to this week’s news. The fact that many of these teams’ rights will likely stay on Bally Sports is disappointing news for MLB. I’ve written for Conduct Detrimental for a while now that one of MLB’s goals is to create more a national product that would address the local blackout problem through in-market streaming. MLB.tv is a great product that many leagues are envious of. However, without control of broadcast rights, many fans are “blacked out” from watching certain games. The league undoubtedly wanted to take more control of these rights, and it appeared like Diamond Sports’ bankruptcy was an avenue to do that. With this news, that will be more difficult. All this came as a surprise," an MLB lawyer said of the news. MLB and Diamond were discussing an arrangement for 2024 that would have revised rights fees for at least some teams, including the Texas Rangers, whom Diamond has threatened to drop even for this upcoming season. The arrangement under negotiation likely would have returned all MLB teams’ rights to them following the 2024 season. But with Diamond appearing to carry forward beyond 2024, the tenor of any negotiations with MLB might now change. With all of this being new and somewhat unexpected, league executives and team officials are still trying to sort out what it all means and how to react. With that being said, it will be interesting to watch this situation develop moving forward. The RSN issue not only on MLB, but all leagues as well certainly has large scale implications on team revenues and accessibility for fans. On the bright side, getting games on Amazon Prime might be beneficial for enhanced ‘reach’ into the streaming world. MLB already has a handful of Apple TV and Peacock exclusive national games already. In addition, Amazon already has a foot in the door in local baseball games through a small package of New York Yankees games exclusively in New York. Nonetheless, the fact that only five of the teams also have digital rights deals with Bally Sports makes this far from a cure all. As mentioned before, this story is far from over and will likely have many twists and turns in the near future. Brendan Bell is a 1L at Arizona State Law School and can be found on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

State laws that allow student-athletes to receive compensation from licensing their name, image, or likeness (“NIL”) were introduced to benefit student-athletes and remedy a longstanding regime that allowed colleges and universities to extract a financial windfall at student-athletes’ expense.[1]  These laws are flawed, however.  In only two years, we have seen multiple examples of high-profile student-athletes agreeing to exploitative or sham NIL contracts.  One way to prevent student-athletes from signing similar NIL contracts in the future is to include strict reporting requirements in a federal NIL law. NIL Laws Have Exposed Student-Athletes to New Forms of Exploitation On July 1, 2021, bills that allowed student-athletes to earn compensation from licensing their name, image, and likeness went effective in multiple states, including California, Texas, and Florida.  These bills have empowered student-athletes and provided unprecedented financial opportunity.  Somewhat paradoxically, though, these laws also created new ways for studentathletes to be exploited.  Indeed, in the less than three years since their enactment, multiple highprofile student-athletes have agreed to troubling NIL contracts. Gervon Dexter, Sr. and Jaden Rashada are two such examples. Gervon Dexter, Sr. was a defensive tackle at the University of Florida from 2020 to 2022.  Dexter was drafted in the second round of the NFL Draft by the Chicago Bears, and signed a fouryear, $6.72 million contract. On September 1, 2023, Dexter filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Big League Advance Fund II, L.P.  (“BLA”) in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida seeking to invalidate an NIL contract he had entered into with BLA, a company that markets itself as “Investing in the careers of athletes to empower them to achieve their dreams:  making it to the next level.”[2]  The Complaint alleges that in May 2022, when he was 20 years old, Dexter entered into an NIL contract with BLA after a BLA agent offered Dexter a “6 figure financial/NIL opportunity.”[3]  According to the Complaint, the NIL contract required BLA to pay Dexter $436,485.00.[4]  In exchange, BLA was authorized to use Dexter’s name, image, and likeness and athletic reputation in connection with BLA’s own business from the effective date of the agreement to twenty-five years after the NFL Draft.[5]  Dexter was allegedly obligated to pay BLA fifteen percent of his pre-taxed NFL earnings for twenty-five years – essentially guaranteeing BLA fifteen percent of Dexter’s earnings for his entire NFL career.[6]  After only one contract in the NFL, Dexter already owed BLA over $1 million.[7]  The Complaint seeks a judgment that Dexter’s NIL contract is null and void because it violates multiple provisions of the Florida NIL statute.[8] Jaden Rashada is another example of a student-athlete entering into a concerning NIL contract.  In October 2022, Rashada had reportedly committed to the University of Florida and entered into a $13.85 million NIL contract with the Gator Collective, a collective not affiliated with the University of Florida’s athletic department.[9] In exchange, Rashada agreed to make a certain amount of social media posts, attend events, and autograph merchandise.[10] Notably, the Gator Collective had never promised a student-athlete anything near $13.5 million before.[11] The first payment was due to Rashada on December 5, 2022.[12]  The Gator Collective did not make the payment and terminated the NIL contract with Rashada a few days later, before Rashada enrolled at the school.[13]  It was later reported that the Gator Collective did not have the money due under the Rashada NIL contract.[14]  After the university released Rashada from his letter of intent, Rashada ultimately left the University of Florida and enrolled at Arizona State University. Dexter and Rashada suffered distinct, but foreseeable harms that may befall other studentathletes who sign NIL contracts.  On one hand, Dexter may lose millions of dollars over the course of his NFL career.  Without protection and access to information, young student-athletes, inexperienced in reading or negotiating sophisticated agreements, may suffer a similar fate because their tremendous earning power attracts nefarious actors looking to hoodwink an unsuspecting student.  Even seemingly unfair contracts are difficult to nullify, so arming student-athletes with information before they sign is critical. [15]  By contrast, Rashada’s story highlights harms that student-athletes can suffer under NCAA transfer rules, which force students who are transferring to a second four-year school to sit out a year. Fortunately, Rashada’s NIL deal was terminated before the deadline to enroll in classes, and the University of Florida released Rashada from his letter of intent, so he did not need to transfer to Arizona State.  However, future student-athletes may not be so lucky – they may have to use a “free transfer” or even sit out a year if their NIL sponsor backs out of a deal. Certain States Have Adopted Reporting Requirements that may Protect Student-Athletes Gervon Dexter, Sr. and Jaden Rashada may not have entered into sham and potentially illegal NIL contracts if reporting requirements had been in effect, and they had access to information about other NIL contracts college athletes had entered into.  For example, if Dexter had access to a database of information about NIL contracts, Dexter may have realized that the terms of his particular contract – specifically, the requirement that he provide 15% of all his future NFL earnings to BLA – were not “market” and potentially violated NIL laws.  Furthermore, if Jaden Rashada or his representatives had known that other NIL contracts the Gator Collective had signed were for far less than $13.5 million, he may have questioned whether the Gator Collective had the means to pay him. Certain states have already attempted to address these issues by establishing reporting requirements for NIL contracts.  Texas’s law governing NIL contracts requires a student-athlete who attends school in Texas to disclose to his or her school “any proposed contract the studentathlete may sign for use of the student-athlete’s name, image, or likeness” before entering into the contract.[16] The NIL law that Florida enacted in 2021 required students to disclose any NIL contracts to their college or university and prohibited NIL deals that lasted longer than a studentathlete’s participation in a school athletic program.[17]  Surprisingly, those specific provisions were removed in the 2023 amendment to Florida’s NIL law.[18] These laws are a step in the right direction, but they fall short in myriad ways.  For instance, some of these laws require students to provide NIL contracts to the schools before they are signed.  But the laws do not establish the schools’ powers or obligations to review or revise the contracts.  These laws also do not require the schools to compile or disseminate information about the NIL contracts once they have been signed, including the services provided and the compensation received by the student-athletes.  That information is critical for increasing transparency into these negotiations and establishing market terms and value for services provided by student-athletes. Even if these state NIL laws did require the schools to do so, students would only have access to that information on school-by-school basis, creating a substantial burden on student-athletes to aggregate such information from across the state, without mentioning the country.  Additionally, these laws do not make clear how the schools or the students would be penalized for violations, or who would enforce such penalties. A Federal NIL Law Should Adopt Detailed Reporting Requirements and Establish a National Clearinghouse The current patchwork of reporting requirements in state NIL laws provides studentathletes with incomplete access to information, and therefore leaves them vulnerable.  Even if every state enacted an NIL law containing effective reporting requirements with actionable enforcement policies, a federal NIL law would have at least two additional benefits for student-athletes.  First, the enforcement of the federal NIL law would be left to one body and thus more consistent.  Second, a federal NIL law requiring the dissemination of information about NIL deals would provide a complete view into market value and terms.    Therefore, a federal NIL law should expand upon the reporting requirements of certain state NIL laws and establish a national clearinghouse. Specifically, a federal NIL law should require student-athletes to submit all NIL contracts to their respective schools.  The law should require the schools, in turn, to submit those NIL contracts (with no identifying personal information) to a national clearinghouse run by an independent entity, which the federal law should also arm with the power to investigate and enforce violations of the federal NIL law.  The federal NIL law should require the clearinghouse to maintain a public database of all NIL contracts and publish a semi-annual report of all NIL contracts entered into during the prior six months.  The database and report should include all the essential provisions of the NIL contracts, including, but not limited to, (i) services provided by the student-athletes; (ii) compensation received by the student-athletes; and (iii) duration of the contract. This type of law would make transparent an otherwise opaque market, which, in turn, should help establish market terms and value for services by student-athletes; reduce the risk that schools, boosters, and collectives will offer contracts they cannot fulfill; and, ultimately, protect student-athletes from exploitation. Some of the federal NIL bills that have been introduced already include aspects of this proposal by requiring student-athletes to disclose NIL deals or establishing a national clearinghouse for NIL contracts. •   The Fairness in Collegiate Athletics Act (“FCAA”) would require the NCAA to establish procedures that require student-athletes to disclose to the NCAA and the student-athlete’s school any compensation or NIL contract.[19]  The FCAA does not, however, specifically mandate the compilation or proliferation of any data related to the NIL contracts submitted to the NCAA. •    The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act (“SALPFA”) would require (i) the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to establish a clearinghouse for “endorsement contracts,”[20] (ii) student-athletes to disclose to the clearinghouse each endorsement contract,[21] and (iii) the clearinghouse to make “such disclosures available to the public on a regular basis.”[22] •   The Protecting Athletes, Schools and Sports Act (“PASSA”) would require studentathletes to disclose NIL contracts to their schools[23] and require the FTC to create a website containing anonymous data about NIL deals.[24] •   The College Athlete Protection and Compensation Act (“CAPCA”) would require student-athletes to disclose NIL contracts to their school[25] and would create the College Athletics Corporation, which would be required to publish an annual report containing information from colleges and universities, such as revenues and expenditures of athletic programs.[26] The CAPCA does not purport to establish a clearinghouse of information related to NIL contracts, however. Despite its benefits, this proposal will face opposition.  Some may argue that the market for NIL contracts should have little to no regulation, especially regulation that would force willing parties to disclose the details of their private deals.  Such regulation, the argument may go, may disincentivize sponsors from entering the NIL market altogether, which may lower the price for student-athletes’ services and consequently undermine the entire purpose of NIL. The reality is that this type of regulation is necessary here.  NIL is in its infancy.  Market terms and value for student-athletes’ services have not been set, and thus the market is ripe for bad actors to offer young people ostensibly attractive, but actually predatory NIL deals.  If the market stays a black box, the downside risk of signing NIL contracts that fall below market terms or are predatory or unconscionable will fall squarely on the shoulders of student-athletes, a class of individuals who, due to their age, are likely to have had very few or no opportunities to negotiate a sophisticated commercial agreement, like an NIL deal.  It would be simply unfair and naïve to allow student-athletes to remain vulnerable when we already have concrete examples in Gervon Dexter, Sr. and Jaden Rashada of how NIL deals can go wrong for student-athletes. Conclusion State NIL laws have exposed student-athletes to newfound opportunities and risks.  Enacting a federal NIL law that expands upon the reporting requirements that certain states have introduced and creates a national clearinghouse that aggregates anonymous information about NIL deals will promote transparency in an otherwise opaque market, ensure student-athletes reap the fruits of their hard work, and limit their exposure to continued exploitation. John Kane, Esq. is the first-prize winner of the 2023 Conduct Detrimental NIL Writing Competition. He is an associate in the litigation group of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP's New York office. Mr. Kane received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2015, where he was a member of the Senior Editorial Board of the Virginia Law and Business Review.  He received his B.A. in History from Boston College in 2010. References: [1] See, e.g., FLA. STAT. § 1006.74 (2023) (“[P]articipation in intercollegiate athletics should not infringe upon an intercollegiate athlete’s ability to earn compensation for her or his name, image, or likeness.  An intercollegiate athlete must have an equal opportunity to control and profit from the commercial use of her or his name, image, or likeness, and be protected from unauthorized appropriation and commercial exploitation of her or his right to publicity, including her or his name, image, or likeness.”). [2] See BIG LEAGUE ADVANTAGE, https://bigleagueadvantage.com (last visited Nov. 10, 2023). [3] Complaint at ¶ 40, Dexter v. Big League Advance Fund II, LP, (No. 1:23-cv-00228-AW-HTC) (N.D. Fl. Sept. 1, 2023), ECF No. 1. [4] Id. at ¶ 29.  [5] Id. at ¶¶ 53, 54. [6] Id. at ¶ 56. [7] See “Penalty Flag Thrown: Former Florida Gators Sues to Void Controversial NIL Contract,” Jonathan D. Wohlwend, September 7, 2023, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/penalty-flag-thrown-former-florida-gatorssues-to-void-controversial-nil-contract. [8] See FLA. STAT. § 1006.74(2)(a); Complaint at ¶¶ 68, 69, Dexter (No. 1:23-cv-00228-AW-HTC), ECF No. 1. The Complaint also alleges the NIL contract was an agent agreement, but that BLA and the individual agents of BLA who interacted with Dexter were not licensed in Florida as athlete agents. As a result, the Complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the NIL contract is null and void because it violated multiple provisions of the Florida athlete agent act, including the provision that requires agent agreements with student-athletes to contain specific language regarding the student-athlete’s eligibility. See Complaint at ¶¶ 43, 75–82, Dexter (No. 1:23-cv-00228-AW-HTC), ECF No. 1. [9] See Stewart Mandel & Andy Staples, Jaden Rashada’s unprecedented recruitment: How a 4-star QB went from $13.85 million to no NIL deal, THE ATHLETIC (February 6, 2023), https://theathletic.com/4149181/2023/02/06/jadenrashada-nil/. [10] Id. [11] Id. [12] Id. [13] Id. [14] Id. [15] See, e.g., Gilman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 72 N.Y.2d 1 (1988) (noting the high standard to prove a contract is unconscionable under New York law). [16] See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.9246(g)(1); see also N.Y. EDUC. LAW. § 6438-c 6(b) (2023) (“A student-athlete who enters into a contract providing compensation to the student-athlete for use of the student-athlete's name, image, or likeness shall disclose the contract in advance of executing it to an official of the college, as designated by the college.”); VA. CODE ANN. § 23.1-408.1(G) (2022) (“Prior to executing an agreement concerning the use of his name, image, or likeness, a student-athlete shall disclose such agreement to the institution at which he is enrolled in a manner designated by the institution. If a student-athlete discloses a potential agreement that conflicts with an existing institutional agreement, the institution shall disclose the relevant terms of the conflicting agreement to the studentathlete.”); MICH. COMP. LAWS § 390.1737(1) (“A student who intends to enter into a verbal or written opportunity or contract that would provide compensation to the student for use of his or her name, image, or likeness rights shall disclose the proposed opportunity or contract to a designated official of the postsecondary educational institution that the student attends[.]”). [17] See FLA. STAT. § 1006.74(2)(i), (j) (2021). [18] See generally FLA. STAT. § 1006.74 (2023). [19] Fairness in College Athletics Act, S. 4004, 116th Cong. (2020) § 3(2)(A) (“[A]ny intercollegiate athletic association shall establish . . . rules and programs for the administration the policy described in paragraph (1), including . . . requiring student-athletes to report any compensation described in such paragraph, or any agreement to receive such compensation, to the institution of higher education in which they are enrolled and the intercollegiate athletic association within a reasonable period following . . . (i) the date on which an agreement to receive such compensation is reached between the student-athlete and the third party; and (ii) the date on which such compensation is received by the student athlete[.]”). [20] See Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, H.R. 3630, 118th Cong. (2023) § 5(b)(2)(A). [21] See H.R. 3630 § 5(b)(2)(B)(i). [22] See H.R. 3630 § 5(b)(2)(C). [23] See Protecting Athletes, Schools and Sports Act of 2023, S. --,118th Cong. (2023) § 6(a). [24] See Protecting Athletes, Schools and Sports Act of 2023, S. --, 118th Cong. (2023) § 6(e). [25] See College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2023, S. --, 117th Cong. (2023) §§ 4(b)(4)(A), (B). [26] See College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2023, S. --, 117th Cong. (2023) § 8.

I. Introduction State legislation has varying opinions on college athletes’ publicity rights, also known as Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights. Currently, the state of Mississippi is employing the most effective use of NIL state legislation. Furthering Justice Brandeis’ view of states as the laboratories of democracy, such states along with the NCAA are in a phase of analytical testing. This brief seeks to show that the state of Mississippi and its approach to NIL rights can help inform the federal push for a NIL bill. II.   History of the NCAA In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt, a longtime football fan, called together athletics leaders from some of the top football schools and urged them to clean up the game.[1] The NCAA was founded in 1906 to regulate the rules of college sport and protect young athletes.[2] After World War II, the NCAA adopted principles that covered financial aid, recruitment, and academic standards with the intention to ensure amateurism in college sports.[3] In June 2021, governance bodies adopted a uniform interim policy suspending NCAA NIL rules for all incoming and current college athletes in all sports.[4] Over decades, the NCAA has become a sprawling enterprise.[5] The NCAA’s current broadcast contract for the March Madness basketball tournament is worth $1.1 billion annually.[6] The NCAA television deal for the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conference’s College Football Playoff is worth approximately $470 million per year.[7] In 2017, the total revenue of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) exceeded $650 million, making more than $409 million from television contracts alone.[8] The president of the NCAA earns nearly $4 million per year.[9] Commissioners of the top conferences take home between $2 to $5 million. College athletic directors average more than $1 million annually.[10] Annual salaries for top Division I college football coaches’ approach $11 million, with some of their assistants making more than $2.5 million.[11] Prior to 2021, everyone involved in college athletics received generous compensation, except for the athletes themselves. III.  Evolution of NIL Rights In 1984, the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Board of Regents discussed NCAA violations under 15 U. S. C. § 1.[12] Section one of the Sherman Act states, every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.[13] Although Board of Regents discussed the authority of NCAA policies and regulations in connection with television plans, the Supreme Court provided the guidelines for claims made against the NCAA in connection with the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court explained that the Sherman Act is intended to prohibit only unreasonable restraints of trade.[14] In addition, the Supreme Court provided that an unreasonable restraint of trade may be based either (1) on the nature or character of the contracts or (2) on surrounding circumstances giving rise to the inference or presumption that they were intended to restrain trade (also known as “the rule of reason”).[15] In 2015, NIL violations by the NCAA under the Sherman Act were discussed by the Supreme Court in O’Bannon v. NCAA[16], when a former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA over whether Division I men’s basketball and football players ought to be compensated for the commercial use of their NIL (in video games).[17] In 2019, Senator Chris Murphy released a report supporting the push in NIL rights, stating that college sports are an American tradition because of the college athletes, but these college athletes deserve more than our fanhood.[18] Senator Murphy argued for a system that guarantees a meaningful education as well as financial security.[19] Finally, Senator Murphy advocated for a system that respects college athletes’ contribution and dedication.[20] Recently, in NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court discussed NCAA violations under section one of the Sherman Act in reference to the use of college athletes’ NIL rights. Using the rule of reason, the Supreme Court decided that NCAA restraints were stricter than necessary to achieve demonstrated procompetitive benefits and declared a violation of the Sherman Act.[21] The Supreme Court made clear that the decades-old comments about college sports and amateurism made in NCAA v. Board of Regents have no bearing on whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are lawful.[22] Concurring, Justice Kavanaugh stated that the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.[23] IV.  Mississippi’s Approach to NIL As of July 1, 2021, all NCAA athletes are able to profit from their NIL after the governing bodies from all three NCAA divisions voted to approve the interim NIL policy.  College athletes still have to adhere to NIL rules in their specific states but can profit from sponsorships and endorsements.[24] On April 16, 2021, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed into law 2020 Bill Text MS S.B. 2313 (2021) (“Bill 2313”), allowing college athletes in the state of Mississippi to receive compensation for the use of their NIL.[25] Mississippi’s NIL law is rather strict in comparison to other states’ NIL laws.[26] Mississippi universities are allowed to place limitations on when their college athletes can participate in endorsement-related activities, have sole control over what athletes wear during a sponsored event, and require their athletes to notify their university of any NIL transaction within three days of the agreement coming into effect.[27] Bill 2313 speaks to the necessity of a bill passed at the Federal level.[28] What made Mississippi unique was the direct mention of boosters in particular.[29] Mississippi took a step further in 2022 with the passage of 2020 Bill Text MS S.B. 2690 (2022) (“Bill 2690”), allowing schools in the state to be involved in athletes’ NIL deal conversations.[30] The University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) has enhanced their partnership with INFLCR, a sports social media and education platform, to create Next Level.[31] Next Level is a holistic platform on which Ole Miss college athletes can create content and boost their following.[32] Bill 2690 provides that individuals or entities may “collectively” license publicity rights in exchange for compensation to student athletes.[33] Thus, The Grove Collective was founded, ensuring that NIL is done right by the law and right by Ole Miss student athletes.[34] V. The University of Mississippi and The Grove Collective The University of Mississippi aids student-athletes through their Next Level Exchange, which exists to equip Ole Miss college athletes with the resources to build their personal brand, expand their professional network, and navigate NIL opportunities.[35] Next Level provides (1) streamline payments and reporting, (2) consolidated tax documentation, (3) no transaction fees, and (4) no deal facilitation.[36] College athletes may not enter into a contract for use of their NIL that uses the licensed marks or logos of the University unless the University has provided written permission in advance of signing the NIL contract.[37] In compliance with Bill 2690, which provides that individuals or entities may collectively license publicity rights, The Grove Collective was formed. The Grove Collective markets college athletes’ businesses, provides contracts for use, assists with accounting and taxation, and fulfills the compliance disclosure required by Ole Miss.[38] Executive of The Grove Collective, Walker Jones, stated that the relationship between Ole Miss and The Grove Collective is a team effort, and the Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics, Ole Miss coaches, Ole Miss administration, and the university added validity.[39] The Grove Collective has recently expanded into soccer, volleyball, and track and field, in addition to baseball, football, and men’s and women’s basketball.[40] Walker Jones stated that the collective is trying to branch out and assist as many of the athletes as they can.[41] VI. Key Factors of The Grove Collective: William Liston and Walker Jones The Grove Collective was founded at the end of 2021 by attorneys William Liston and Mac McDonald.[42] Liston was involved in helping write the Mississippi state legislation of NIL and had a good understanding of what was required and what the state would allow.[43] Liston raised his hand to form a third-party collective to provide an NIL platform for Ole Miss college athletes per Mississippi statute.[44] The goal was to create an entity that seeks to leverage and capitalize on the commercial value that college athletes create at Ole Miss and utilize that value to build a program that serves the best interests of Ole Miss college athletes.[45] Liston emphasizes three portions of Mississippi’s NIL bill: (1) the importance of amending Bill 2313 to include the term “collective,” (2) the provision against NCAA penalization, so long as college athletes are following Mississippi statute, and (3) the provision which grants collectives to cooperate with their respective universities. Liston has exhausted these points of emphasis in the Mississippi statute; however, he continues to advocate for protection from the transfer portal. There are many potential remedies for the harm caused by the transfer portal, including buyout clauses or guaranteed contracts to protect collectives and universities. NIL and transfer portal issues will continue to affect one another. The executive of The Grove Collective, Walker Jones, has played a crucial role in its recent development. Jones stated that to make money from NIL college athletes need opportunities.[46] Jones explains that The Grove Collective works separately but in tandem with Ole Miss, providing college athletes with exposure to opportunities and counseling on deals.[47] In comparison to other states and universities, Jones feels blessed to have a very advantageous state statute that gives The Grove Collective the ability to have a lot of creativity and a lot of coordination with the Ole Miss.[48] As an alumni and former player of the Ole Miss football team, Jones is in the best position to consider all approaches and issues that college athletes may encounter with NIL opportunities. VII. Conclusion As one of the many states to adopt an NIL bill, the state of Mississippi has continued to prove why it created the most effective NIL bill today. The University of Mississippi and The Grove Collective have played a major role in contributing to this outcome. To help inform the federal push for an NIL bill, legislation should consider the approach used by the state of Mississippi in forming the most effective NIL bill. Nolan Forthaus is the third-place winner of the 2023 Conduct Detrimental NIL Writing Competition. He is currently a 2L at Saint Louis University School of Law. He graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from The University of Mississippi in 2022. References: [1] NCAA, History, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx, (2023). [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. [12] Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 104 S. Ct. 2948 (1984). [13] 15 U. S. C. § 1. [14] Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). [15] Id. at 103. [16] O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015). [17] Michael McCann, In denying O'Bannon case, Supreme Court leaves future of amateurism in limbo, https://www.si.com/college/2016/10/03/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-supreme-court, (Oct. 3, 2016). [18] Chris Murphy, How everyone is getting rich off college sports – except the players, https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/NCAA%20Report_FINAL.pdf, (Mar. 27, 2019). [19] Id. at 14. [20] Id. at 14. [21] NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). [22] NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). [23] Id. [24] Id. [25] Icon Source, State of Mississippi NIL Laws: What College Athletes and Businesses Need to Know, https://iconsource.com/mississippi-nil-laws/, (Feb. 2, 2022). [26] Id. [27] Id. [28] Id. [29] Braly Keller, NIL Incoming: Comparing State Laws and Proposed Legislation, https://biz.opendorse.com/blog/comparing-state-nil-laws-proposed-legislation/, (May 25, 2023). [30] Id. [31] Id. [32] Id. [33] The Grove Collective, About The Grove Collective, https://thegrove collective.com/about/, (2023). [34] Id. [35] Ole Miss Athletics Foundation, Next Level, https://givetoathletics.com/nil-home-page/, (2023). [36] Id. [37] Ole Miss Athletics Foundation, Frequently Asked Questions for Businesses, https://givetoathletics.com/nil-faqs/, (2023). [38] The Grove Collective, About The Grove Collective, https://thegrove collective.com/about/, (2023). [39] Donna Sprabery, Exciting things on the horizon: Walker Jones discusses the progress of The Grove Collective, new opportunities coming for fans, https://therebelwalk.com/2022/12/exciting-things-on-the-horizon-walker-jones-discusses-the-progress-of-the-grove-collective-new-opportunities-coming-for-fans/, (Dec. 12, 2022). [40] Id. [41] Id. [42] David Johnson, The Grove Collective executive director Walker Jones answers questions about major Ole Miss NIL, https://247sports.com/college/ole-miss/article/the-grove-collective-executive-director-walker-jones-answers-questions-about-major-ole-miss-nil-initiative-194791552/, (Oct. 5, 2022). [43] Id. [44] Id. [45] Parrish Alford, Ole Miss group announces business to aid NIL opportunities, https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/ole-miss-group-announces-business-133200984.html, (Jan. 23, 2022). [46] Donna Sprabery, A Visit with Walker Jones: NIL and The Grove Collective’s Journey to Streamline the Process, https://therebelwalk.com/2022/10/a-visit-with-walker-jones-nil-and-the-grove-collectives-journey-to-streamline-the-process/, (Oct. 20, 2022). [47] Id. [48] Id.

I. Introduction While the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) guidance and state law are fairly new, the discussion on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) has been prevalent in the college athletics landscape for many years. From O’Bannon v. NCAA, to California’s passing of the “Fair Pay to Play Act” in 2019, the NCAA doubled down on their stance towards amateur sports and student-athletes' compensation.[1] After months of back and forth regarding student-athletes’ right to market their own NIL, the NCAA threw their hands up, told their members to follow state laws and provided guidance for those members who did not have state laws on July 1, 2021. [2] At the core of the NCAA’s guidance, they instructed that there shall be no inducements for pay for play, no recruiting inducements, no institutional involvement, no conflict with Team Activities, no institutional trademarks, and no resale of memorabilia.[3] The policy also created agent protocols and included several disclosure requirements.[4] Hailed as one of the least restrictive NIL laws in the country, Missouri has taken an innovative approach in allowing student-athletes to utilize their own NIL, and influencing the rest of the country. II. Legal Background After the Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Alston, that the NCAA’s current practice of limiting “non-cash education related benefits” and limiting the type of compensation student-athletes could earn was a clear violation of antitrust rules, the NCAA essentially gave up its fight to stop NIL.[5] The court noted that “…the NCAA’s justification for its remaining rules — that they enhance collegiate athletics by distinguishing them from professional sports — impermissibly balances harm in the labor-side market against benefits in the consumer-side market,” versus the benefits gained by the student-athletes.[6] While the decision did not discuss student-athlete NIL restrictions, the NCAA realized after a stern warning from Justice Brett Kavanaugh reminding them, “that the NCAA was not above the law.”[7] The NCAA essentially gave up and adopted their Interim NIL Policy from the Division I Council Working Group for member-schools that had no state law one day prior to state law being enacted across the country.[8] Stressing multiple times throughout the policy, the NCAA’s interests were to continue to follow “…current NCAA rules regarding recruiting and pay-forplay…” to reinforce the ideas of fairness and integrity. While the three-page policy asked more questions than providing answers, states like Missouri found it imperative to pass their own state law. A. 2021 Missouri NIL Law In response to the new NCAA guidelines, Missouri legislators passed initial guidance in 2021.[9] House Bill 297, initially allowed student-athletes, “…to garner compensation for the issue of their name, image, and likeness rights as well as athletic reputation without hindering their ability to fully participate in athletics or receive grants and stipends…”, while also being able to hire professional representation in relation to NIL deals.[10] The provision also gave protection to the institutions, by not allowing student-athletes to enter into contracts with competition companies of existing sponsors, for immoral products, and not allowing students to use school marks and logos. B. 2022 Amendment Missouri realized quickly that they needed an amendment to current state law to “keep up with the Joneses” and passed a new NIL bill on June 16, 2022.[11] The bill went into effect on August 28, 2022, and allowed for Missouri Institutions to be more hands-on with their student-athletes.[12] The key change to the former law was the allowance of more involvement from the institution during the NIL process.[13] Schools were now allowed to facilitate deals and provide annual financial development programs.[14] While the 2022 amendment gave more flexibility to schools, the real benefit occurred during the 2023 amendment. C. 2023 Amendment In response to NIL laws being passed in Texas, Alabama and other parts of the country, Missouri lawmakers opted to go back to the drawing board in year three.[15] In July 2023, Missouri Governor Mike Parsons amended current state law for the third time, which included ways to bypass NCAA NIL oversight.[16] Beginning on August 28, 2023, college coaches could now have a more active seat at the NIL table, allowing the Tiger Fund[17] to be actively involved in fundraising instead of as a third-party collective, allowing the use of school logo and marks, and allowing Missouri High School student-athletes to start profiting of their own NIL.[18] Now coaches can participate in NIL meetings where the 2022 amendment only allowed them to only facilitate deals. However, coaches are not allowed to receive compensation for facilitating these deals.[19] For the first time, high schoolers are now able to join in and profit from their own endorsement deals. The major catch is “as long as they sign a letter of intent to attend a public university in Missouri.”[20] State Representative Kurtis Gregory stated that this new rule could “incentivize some of Missouri’s top talent to remain in their home state, helping to “close down the borders and keep Missouri’s best athletes in the state of Missouri.” An exact example of a recruiting inducement that the NCAA wanted to avoid. Interestingly enough, the Show-Me state laxed its amendment in favor of the boosters. With the passage, the Tiger Fund is now allowed to directly fundraise for NIL instead of through a third-party collective.[21] Now Boosters can donate directly to student-athletes and receive a tax deduction.[22] Finally, student-athletes are allowed to wear team gear, and use school marks in logos in advertisements.[23] While the amendment has been praised, the third passage included a roadblock. Part of the amendment reads “[t]he provisions of this section shall not be construed to qualify a student athlete as an employee of a postsecondary educational institution.”[24] For the most part, the Show-Me State’s NIL bill was almost the exact opposite of what the NCAA envisioned, however the part of the bill regarding student-athletes not being employees leans into the NCAA’s current stance on employment for student-athletes. III. NCAA Compliance and NIL While schools still have to follow NCAA Compliance Rules in order to compete, however, state law will still trump NCAA legislation. However, the NCAA is trying to assert its control in a few by-laws. NCAA Compliance and Enforcement The NCAA’s stance on Pay-For-Play is shown in By-Law 16.02.03 which requires student athletes to not accept extra benefits while participating in intercollegiate athletics.[25] In terms of NIL, student-athletes are not supposed to enter into contracts where they are not providing a service in return. In October 2022, the NCAA adopted By-law 19.7.3 which discusses Violations Presumed in Select Cases. [26] In cases involving NIL, the infractions process “…shall presume a violation occurred if circumstantial information suggests that one or more parties engaged in impermissible conduct. The enforcement staff may make a formal allegation based on the presumption. The hearing panel shall conclude a violation occurred unless the institution or involved individual clearly demonstrates with credible and sufficient information that all communications and conduct surrounding the name, image and likeness activity complied with NCAA legislation.”[27] Unlike any other violation, the member-school has to produce evidence that the NIL violation did not occur. [28] Even in the simplest criminal case, the presumption is innocent before proven guilty. In enacting By-law 19.7.3, the NCAA is trying its best to assert what little control they have over NIL. IV. Why College Athletics Needs a Federal Bill If the NCAA wants to regulate NIL in a way that promotes “fairness, integrity, and sportsmanship,” then it’s time to work with Congress to enact Federal Legislation.  The Missouri rule in particular has been a source of contention around the country.[29] Coaches nationwide have argued that the bill has created an uneven playing field and creating a competitive disadvantage.[30] While many of these schools have large athletic budgets and have their own state laws, there is an argument that the newest amendment was purely made for recruiting purposes and goes completely against NCAA NIL Policy. The Missouri law allows everything that the interim policy did not. States are willing to show the NCAA that they do not care about their policies and will enact rules to keep the NCAA from acting on its policy. Currently, no state law mirrors another, each state legislator is trying to outdo the other. If the NCAA is serious about creating a level playing field, they need to work on creating a bill that is uniform, and reasonable on restraint. Student-athletes should be able to pick the school they want to attend versus picking the school that can give them the most NIL money. If the NCAA is truly about creating a landscape where fairness, integrity, and proper recruiting tactics are paramount, they’ll take a look at all the state NIL laws and work with Congress to enact a law that encompasses the student-athletes right to publicity while protecting their own goals. University of Missouri Head Coach Eli Drinkwitz put it best: “Until there’s a uniform rule or a standard rule in place, then every institution and university, as well as state, is privileged to do what they believe is in the best interest of their student-athletes and their citizens,” in a program presser.[31] V. Conclusion Many strides have been made in allowing student-athletes to profit off of their own NIL, but more can be done. If the NCAA wants to hold on to their justification told in Alston, “that college athletes should not be paid because the distinguishing feature of college athletics is that college athletes are not paid,” then the NCAA needs to work with Congress to create a bill that not only benefits the student-athletes but also encompasses the rules they treasure so much.  Specifically, the Missouri state law is an example of how state legislators don’t care about the NCAA policy and want to put their student-athletes first. The NCAA should follow suit. Brittany Archer is the second-place winner of the 2023 Conduct Detrimental NIL Writing Competition. She is currently a 2L at the University of Missouri School of Law, and she earned her B.S. from the University of Texas in 2021. Additionally, she earned her M.S.A. from Ohio University in 2022. References: [1] Anthony M. Dalimonte, NIL Timeline: The Events that Transformed College Sports, https://www.fosterswift.com/communications-timeline-NIL-cases-transform-college-sports.html [2] Id. [3] Mizzou Athletics, Mizzou NIL Regulations & Guidelines, https://mutigers.com/sports/2022/12/28/mizzou-nilregulations-guidelines [4] Mizzou Athletics, Mizzou NIL Regulations & Guidelines, https://mutigers.com/sports/2022/12/28/mizzou-nilregulations-guidelines [5] Tamara H. Bennett, NCAA V. ALSTON, 2022 TXCLE-AIP 11-III, 2022 WL 657144 [6] Sherman Act – Antitrust Law- College Athletics – NCAA v. Alston, 135 Harv.L-Rev.471, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/ncaa-v-alston/,(2021). [7] Bennett, NCAA V. ALSTON, 2022 TXCLE-AIP 11-III, 2022 WL 657144; Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). [8] NCAA Interim NIL Policy, NCAA (Jul. 2021), https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/NIL/May2022NIL_Guidance.pdf [9] Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Missouri to allow student-athletes to profit off of likeness, (July 13, 2021), https://themissouritimes.com/missouri-to-allow-student-athletes-to-profit-off-of-likeness/. [10] Id. [11] Kurt Erickson, Parson Signs New Missouri NIL Law for Student Athletes, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (June 16, 2022), https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt and-politics/parson-signs-new-missouri-nil-law-forstudentathletes/article_bf80ea48-a278-5495-8f0c-2dd127f7e9b5.html [https://perma.cc/NF3K-EMDN]. [12] Id. [13] Tyler Kraft, Pay-for-Play(ers): Missouri’s Recent NIL Amendment Is a Solid Blueprint for Federal NIL Regulation, 88 MO. L. REV. (2023), https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol88/iss2/13. [14] Id. [15] See Darren Heitner, The New Race by States to Remove NIL Restrictions on College Athletics, (April 27, 2022), https://abovethelaw.com/2022/04/the-new-race-by-states-to-remove-nil-restrictions-on-college-athletes/ [16] Eric Prisbell, Examining the NCAA’s aggressive push for federal NIL laws, (September 25, 2023) https://www.on3.com/nil/news/ncaa-aggressively-pushes-for-federal-nil-bill-corey-booker-lindsey-graham-tommytuberville-joe-manchin/ [17] The Tiger Fund is the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Fundraising arm of the athletic department. [18] Dave Matter, Missouri lawmakers revise state's NIL law, expand college coaches' role in negotiations, (May 9, 2023), https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/missouri-lawmakers-revise-states-nil-law-expand-collegecoaches-role-in-negotiations/article_56ee420a-ee95-11ed-bbf8-077630df774d.html. [19] Missouri Western University, Name, Image and Likeness Information, https://gogriffons.com/sports/2021/7/8/name-image-likeness-information (last visited November 9, 2023). [20] Liam Knox, Missouri to Open NIL Profits to High Schoolers, (July 18, 2023), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/07/18/missouri-law-will-open-nil-profits-highschoolers#:~:text=Missouri%20to%20Open%20NIL%20Profits%20to%20High%20Schoolers&text=The%20law%20will%20allow%20athletes,a%20public%20university%20in%20Missouri. [21] Id. [22] Id. [23] MO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 173.280, (2023), https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=173.280 [24] MO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 173.280 [25] NCAA, DIVISION I MANUAL BYLAW 16.02.3, https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=33406#result, (last visited Nov. 7, 2023). [26] Monica Matias, NIL Enforcement Actions are Here: How Can Institutions Prepare for Possible NIL Enforcement Actions?,https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nil-enforcement-actions-are-here-how 1632284/; see also NCAA, DIVISION I MANUAL BYLAW 19.7.3 https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=126324#result ( last visited Nov 7, 2023). [27] NCAA, DIVISION I MANUAL BYLAW 19.7.3, https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=126324#result,(Nov 7, 2023). [28] Matias, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nil-enforcement-actions-are-here-how-1632284/. [29] On 3 Staff Report, Eli Drinkwitz says Missouri’s new NIL law is ‘in the best interest of the state of Missouri’,(Aug. 30, 2023),https://www.on3.com/college/missouri-tigers/news/eli-drinkwitz-says-missouri-new-nillaw-in-the-best-interest-in-the-state/. [30] On 3 Staff Report, https://www.on3.com/college/missouri-tigers/news/eli-drinkwitz-says-missouri-new-nil-lawin-the-best-interest-in-the-state/. [31] On 3 Staff Report, https://www.on3.com/college/missouri-tigers/news/eli-drinkwitz-says-missouri-new-nil-lawin-the-best-interest-in-the-state/.

On the December 23, 2023, episode of The Ringer’s NBA Show Group Chat Podcast, the hosts: Justin Verrier, Rob Mahoney, and Wosny Lambre criticized Adam Silver’s player punishment policy in light of the indefinite suspension of Draymond Green. The group made the following points: -  “I don’t like this idea that the player’s union is ceding ground to Silver and giving him autonomy to suspend long term.” -  “I would love [NBA] to put a number of games on this. I would love for an an actual determination to be made by the League and the Union to come to have some kind of agreement or to make a ruling and have it challenged and let it play out. But, the reason that a lot of those things do not happen is that the league is dodging precedent. They don’t want people to say 'Well, Myles Bridges got this but player X got this.' Then, you are doing an equivalency game of intimate partner violence versus DUI. It feels to me that the league is trying to skirt that stuff as much as it can. I think that’s bull****, frankly. I think that it’s a pretty cowardly way to go about this process and trying to dodge accountability for trying to suspend players for committing actual crimes.” -   “There is definitely a chilling effect of the lack of transparency that all of us are against.” -   “It is also not the NBA’s responsibility. This is where we lost the plot for a lot of these player punishments. It is not the league’s responsibility to facilitate Draymond Green’s therapy. The league needs to check damaging and destructive behavior and not the mental health behind that behavior. You give him a set number of games that he is suspended for a set action.” This hot take episode is aptly named, “NBA Festivus: The Airing of Grievances!” These sports, business, legal, and moral issues can be broken down into (1) the power of the players union and indefinite punishment, (2) the NBA is dodging precedent and scope of NBA’s responsibility, and (3) the NBA’s lack of transparency. 1.      Did the NBA Players Union cede too much control to the NBA for Draymond Green’s indefinite punishment? Is there a slippery slope for future players? On Saturday, January 6, 2024, the NBA reinstated Draymond Green and officially ended his indefinite suspension which totaled 12 games. Did the NBA Players Union give up too much control? Joe Dumars explained the indefinite suspension when he said, it was due to “Green's "repeated history of unsportsmanlike acts."[1] In the 2023-2024 season, Green has been ejected 3 times for the most in the league with the Denver Nuggets’ Nikola Jokic and Detroit Pistons’ Jalen Duren behind Green with 2 ejections.[2] This season included 6 different suspensions with Draymond Green possessing 2 of the 6 suspensions—5 games and 12 games.[3] Other than Ja Morant’s 25 games suspension and Miles Bridges 30 games, the other two suspensions were 2 games for Devonte’ Graham and 4 games for Joshua Primo.[4] One may look at Morant who is a repeat offender like Green and who could be a bad Instagram post away from an indefinite suspension. Since Morant is out for the season with a torn labrum, there is currently little, if any, risk of future indefinite punishments. 2.      Should the NBA continue to dodge precedent? What is the scope of NBA’s responsibility? According to the American Bar Association, “stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honor ‘precedent’ or the decisions, rulings, or opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable—and less seemingly random.”[5] The term “precedent” is frequently used in sports media. Usually, the term arises when player contracts are discussed such as “DeShaun Watson’s fully guaranteed contract set a precedent for other quarterbacks.” What people really mean is that “the market” or “fair market value” for a specific type of player has been set. This gives negotiators leverage to demand for an amount, because if one team fails to pay, then another team will surely pay. However, there is no legal obligation to obey what the market deems as fair. No General Manager breaks the CBA language when a team underpays or overpays for a player. In sports, the market is not required to be consistent nor predictable. In practice, precedence seems to be in the spirit of a line from the film, Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl, “The Code is more like a guideline than actual rules.” Just as sports precedence is a guideline for the market, it is also a guideline for punishment. In this case, the Ringer NBA Show Group Chat used “precedent” as a benchmark for punishments. Similar to the fair market value of players, the CBA language does not require that punishments be consistent or predictable like the legal system. Under-punishing or over-punishing leads to a poor public-relations-look which can cause bigger problems in the future. This under-punishing lesson was harshly learned by Roger Goodell after his initial light punishment against Ray Rice. The light punishment caused such an uproar when the video was released that Rice was out of the league and the NFL had to revamp its entire punishment system. One wonders whether Rice would have lasted longer in the NFL if Goodell initially punished Rice hard like he did with DeShaun Watson. Adam Silver is not trying to perfect a player punishment system; rather, he is trying to perfect the NBA.[6] If the media rights companies do not want to pay for boring games, Silver finds a way to make them exciting. If the All-Star game is bad, Silver works with the Players Association to fix it. While the NBA Ringer Show Group Chat disagrees about the wide scope of Silver’s power, just remember Draymond Green’s conversation with Silver where Green was “going to retire.”[7] Judges do not care about whether a guilty suspect retires. Silver does. Fortunately, Silver’s hands were not tied to a punishment system and said, “You’re making a very rash decision and I won’t let you do that.”[8] Silver went beyond the scope of judges and the NBA’s business is better for it. 3.      Adam Silver’s view of punishment fails to be transparent. What is Silver’s method? The Ringer Group Chat levels a fair criticism that Silver’s punishment policy lacks transparency. At best, Silver has taken a lesson from Former Texas Rangers Owner and Former President, George W. Bush who said, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee. I know it’s in Texas. It says, Fool me once, shame on…..you. If we get fooled, we can’t get fooled again.” In recent high-profile cases of punishment, we might find a way to make sense of Silver’s nebulous policy. Step 1 is Silver stays in the shadows and advises the Owner. In the cases of Kyrie Irving and Ime Udoka, the teams issued their punishments. Irving and Udoka returned quietly. When rumors rose of Udoka possibly taking the New Jersey Nets head coaching job, it is reasonable to assume that the NBA advised against it. The Nets later hired in-house Assistant Coach, Jacque Vaughn. Step 2 is that if a player repeats the poor behavior, then Silver puts on his George Bush Jr. hat and punishes hard. For example, initially, Morant received an 8-game suspension and Green received a 5-game suspension. Then, Morant and Green returned and later repeated their poor behavior. Silver stepped out of the shadows and punished both players hard: 30 games for Morant and 12 games for Draymond. Silver may get fooled the first time but makes up for it the second time. Overall, creating a perfect player punishment system is not the best business strategy, and that’s a positive outcome for the NBA. John Camacho is a graduate of South Texas College of Law where he earned a J.D. and a graduate of the University of Missouri, St. Louis where he received a M.A. in Philosophy. He is a Co-Founder of The Moral Questions of Sports Podcast and a Co-Host of the Oxford Public Philosophy Podcast. You can connect with him via Linkedin or via The Moral Questions of Sports. He can be reached on Twitter @Camachotalk and Instagram @themoralquestionsofsports. References: [1] See Paul Kasabian’s Bleacher Report article, “Warriors’ Draymond Green: ‘Very Confident’ I Can Remove Antics After NBA Suspension.” https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10104310-warriors-draymond-green-very-confident-i-can-remove-antics-after-nba-suspension#:~:text=Green%20was%20initially%20suspended%20indefinitely,Irving%20of%20Sporting%20News%20noted. [2]“NBA Festivus: The Airing of Grievances!” Podcast can be found at https://www.theringer.com/2023/12/25/24014545/nba-festivus-the-airing-of-grievances. [3] Spotrac, “NBA Fines & Suspensions” See https://www.spotrac.com/nba/fines-suspensions/fines/ejection/ [4] Spotrac, “NBA Fines & Suspensions” See https://www.spotrac.com/nba/fines-suspensions/suspensions/ [5] “Understanding Stare Decisis” American Bar Association, Dec. 16, 2022 https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/understand-stare-decisis/#:~:text=Stare%20Decisis—a%20Latin%20term,and%20opinions%20from%20prior%20cases. [6] Even if Adam Silver wanted a legal-like player punishment system, judges have discretion during sentencing which explains why some criminals receive harsher sentences than others for the same conduct. See the Las Vegas judge’s “extensive” judicial reasoning when determining whether a man should go to prison. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-caught-camera-attacking-las-vegas-judge-sentenced-106198407 [7] Anthony Slater and The Athletic Staff, “Draymond Green considered retirement, said NBA commissioner Adam Silver talked him out of it. https://theathletic.com/5187590/2024/01/08/draymond-green-podcast-comments-warriors-retirement/ [8] Id.

On May 14th, 2018, the national landscape of sports betting underwent a significant transformation as the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in NCAA v. Murphy as unconstitutional, ruling it in violation of the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle. No longer were states prohibited from passing new legislation allowing gambling on professional and amateur sports. This decision was music to the ears of many Native American tribes, who have long held permissions to conduct gambling activities. Primarily governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988, the legislation codified three classes of games with a different regulatory scheme for each. Class 1 gaming includes traditional Indian gaming and social gaming for minimal prizes. Class 2 gaming encompasses bingo, while Class 3 functions as a “catch-all” and covers various forms of gaming, including sports betting. Before a Tribe may lawfully conduct Class III gaming, it must be permitted in the state, a compact with the state must be negotiated and approved, and the Tribe must adopt a gaming ordinance approved by the local state’s Chairman of the Gaming Commission. In Florida, for instance, the Seminole tribe, owners of the famous Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, inked a compact with the state in 2021 worth at least $2.5 billion, allowing the tribe to run statewide gaming, sports betting included, in return for the funds. The judicial branch has stood behind the state’s executive branch and supported the Seminoles in their gaming business and compacts, fending off legal battles aimed at removing the monopoly created by the compact. As recently as November 2023, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a request by two pari-mutuel companies to halt online sports betting offered by the Seminole Tribe. The focus of the legal fight is at the part of the deal aimed at allowing gamblers to place mobile sports wagers anywhere in the state, with bets handled by computer servers on tribal property. The private companies contend that allowing people physically located outside of tribal property to place sports bets would violate the state’s 2018 constitutional amendment requiring voter approval of any expansion of gambling to be approved by Florida voters. The state, on the other hand, argues that the language of the amendment does not include sports betting under its definition of casino gambling. Irrespective of legal disputes, after the approval of online sports betting, the market has thus exploded. A demographic particularly enthusiastic about joining the game is young American college students. According to an April 2023 survey of 3,527 Americans between ages 18 and 22, nearly 60% have bet on sports, while 6% reported losing more than $500 in a single day. This demographic engages in betting through various means, with 28% favoring the mobile app approach for their wagers. Albeit the thrill of online sports betting runs rampant among college students, it is crucial to delve into the darker side of this burgeoning trend: sports betting addiction. While the excitement of placing bets on favorite teams or players can be enticing, it is essential to recognize the potential risks and consequences associated with compulsive gambling behaviors. Although gambling addiction affects people of all backgrounds and ages, adolescents of college age are uniquely likely to engage in impulsive or risky behaviors due to developmental factors and the college lifestyle. Like other addictive behaviors, gambling can stimulate the reward centers of the brain, making it difficult to stop, even with accumulating losses. Colleges are not oblivious to this knowledge, actively engaging in multi-million-dollar advertising deals, such as the seven-figure agreement reached in 2021 between Louisiana State University and Caesars Entertainment to advertise sports betting across the campus. In response to concerns about partnerships between sportsbooks and universities, the American Gaming Association (AGA) took decisive action in March 2023 by implementing stringent code changes. AGA member sportsbooks are now explicitly barred from future collaborations with universities for sports gambling promotion, except for engagements with alumni networks or content on responsible gaming. The revised code eliminates terms like “free” or “risk-free” in promotional bets and standardizes the “legal age of wagering” to 21 or over, despite state variations allowing those 18 or older to participate. Notably, these changes do not apply retroactively to existing partnerships, allowing them to continue as mutually agreed upon. However, they exclusively pertain to AGA member companies, leaving entities like Caesars Sportsbook unaffected (LSU ended its agreement with Caesars shortly after the AGA’s update to its responsible marketing code). Moving beyond the realm of college students, the vulnerability to sports gambling addiction extends beyond campuses. Estimates put the problem-gambling rate among Native Americans at more than double the rate among all U.S. adults. Considering the history of tribal gaming (see IGRA), it’s no surprise Native Americans suffer at a statistically significant rate of gambling addiction. Consequently, various tribes have enacted programs to assist problem-gambling and support responsible gaming. The Washington Indian Gaming Association, for example, contributes more than $3 million per year to promote education on responsible gambling, as well as the development, prevention, treatment, and well-being programs. These include implementing diverse treatment programs for tribal and non-tribal members, funding problem gambling initiatives, promoting prevention and education, training staff to recognize and address problem gambling, designing culturally appropriate treatment approaches, facilitating the Intertribal Providers Coalition for monthly meetings, and offering self-exclusion programs for guests with problem gambling behaviors. As “Exhibit A” of tackling gambling addiction among college students, lawmakers and regulators alike can look at the initiative’s tribes have enacted. This is not to say betting on sports is wrong or “needs to be fixed.” Rather, for the sake of vulnerable populations, we must regulate this vice, just like any other in this beautiful country, to ensure the least amount of victimization as possible. Ultimately, college students have every right to gamble on sports, just like any other American of majority in a state where it is legal. The profits extrapolated from these wagers go to important resource allocations, such as state taxes, and help fund pivotal tribal infrastructure, including community programs, charities, emergency services, and cultural preservation, among others. The key is to work within this protected niche to provide a win-win for all parties involved, whether that be having fun, procuring funds for important means, or, simply, for the thrill of the game. References: https://time.com/6342504/gambling-addiction-sports-betting-college-students/ https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/5/24/media-center-ncaa-releases-sports-wagering-survey-data.aspx https://theconversation.com/colleges-face-gambling-addiction-among-students-as-sports-betting-spreads-204434 https://www.ncpgambling.org/responsible-gambling/safer-sports-betting/ https://www.stlpr.org/fixed-odds/for-native-americans-tribal-casinos-help-and-hurt https://www.washingtonindiangaming.org/issues/supporting-responsible-gaming/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/11/17/sports-betting-seminole-tribe-supreme-court-block-app-gambling/ https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/sports-betting-on-college-campuses-what-to-know https://lailluminator.com/2023/06/02/lsu-to-fold-on-its-controversial-sports-betting-deal-with-caesars/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/12/04/2018-gaming-amendment-never-included-sports-betting-florida-attorneys-tell-supreme-court/ Aaron Polonsky is a 3L at the Boyd School of Law @ UNLV. He can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaron-polonsky/.

The NCAA Division I Council voted this past week to implement new regulations aimed increasing "protections" afforded to student-athletes concerning their name, image, and likeness (NIL). These rules shift control to athletic departments and teams on campus, thereby placing constraints on student-athlete autonomy. Notably, schools and associated NIL collectives are still prohibited from negotiating deals with recruits or transfers before their enrollment. Commencing in August, individuals entering into NIL deals will be mandated to register with the NCAA, providing details about their agreements. Additionally, the organization intends to introduce new contract standards and deliver education on NIL matters to both athletes and institutions. Student-athletes are obligated to disclose information related to NIL agreements exceeding $600 in value to their schools within 30 days of entering or signing the NIL agreement. The NCAA will use that information to develop an aggregated database to help schools and athletes have a more realistic picture of the going rates for endorsement deals. The council's decision establishes a consistent national requirement, aligning with over 20 state laws already mandating similar disclosures. Additionally, the NCAA plans to create a voluntary registration process for NIL service providers, such as agents and financial advisors. This registry, based on feedback from athletes who have worked with these providers, aims to centralize credible and trusted agents while assisting student-athletes in making informed decisions. Details will be finalized and overseen by a committee yet to be determined, ensuring alignment with student-athletes' needs. Collaborating with schools, the NCAA aims to provide education on contractual obligations, including the development of a template contract and recommended terms. This initiative seeks to ensure student-athletes and their families make informed decisions about NIL agreements. Ongoing general education and resources will be extended to support student-athletes and those assisting student-athletes on policies, rules, and best practices pertaining to NIL. This education will also be extended to other key stakeholders. Morgyn Wynne, Vice Chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and former softball student-athlete at Oklahoma State, expressed confidence in the council's actions. She stated that the standardized contract recommendations and voluntary registration of service providers will boost student-athletes' confidence as they explore NIL opportunities. Wynee emphasized "Division I student-athletes in many states are already reporting the details of their NIL agreements. Disclosing that same information to schools — which would later be shared with the NCAA for the purposes of identifying trends — will offer student-athletes the benefit of better understanding about what a reasonable agreement might be for them." Despite the NCAA's recent steps toward NIL regulations, which appear to address the need for enhanced protections, these new rules and the shift in control back to athletic departments may inadvertently restrict the autonomy of student-athletes. As the landscape of NIL policies continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether these changes balance safeguarding athletes' interests and preserving their individual freedoms. The true impact of these regulations will unfold in the coming months, raising questions about whether the NCAA's quest for oversight may unintentionally infringe upon the very essence of student-athlete independence in NIL decisions. Madelyn Feyko is a 2L at the Hofstra Law and is the Vice President of Sports for the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. She can be found on LinkedIn at the following link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/madelyn-feyko-8942b520a/ or on Twitter @madelyn_feyko.

NBA agent Jarinn Akana filed a lawsuit against Indiana Pacers Head Coach Rick Carlisle for breach of contract and promissory estoppel in Dallas County Court. Akana worked closely with the late agent Dan Fegan before Fegan's passing. Fegan represented stars including DeMarcus Cousins, John Wall, and Monta Ellis. Fegan and Carlisle were close friends, according to the complaint. With that, Akana claims that he, Carlisle, and Fegan had conversations in late 2017 and early 2018 about Fegan's intention to renegotiate Carlisle's contract with the Dallas Mavericks. Shortly thereafter, Fegan unfortunately passed in a car accident. Akana says that he and Carlisle later arranged a meeting in Dallas wherein the parties reached an oral agreement that Akana would represent Carlisle in contract negotiations with the Mavericks and Carlisle would "take care of [Akana] and pay him what was fair." Prior to this agreement, Fegan was helping Carlisle out with negotiations with the Mavericks (which Akana claims in the complaint was a "direct violation of the NBPA Regulations Governing Player Agents, which prohibits a person from simultaneously representing coaches and players in the NBA"). Per the complaint, Akana met with Mark Cuban and lawyers for the Dallas Mavericks concerning the renegotiation of Carlisle's contract. Akana says that he ultimately achieved an incredible result and "fully performed" his duties, helping to make Carlisle one of the highest paid coaches in the NBA and securing his alleged principal a salary increase of seven figures per year. Carlisle was extended through the 2022-2023 season. Prior to the negotiations, Carlisle was on a five-year deal initially worth $35M. The parties allegedly agreed that Akana would be paid annually a percentage of Carlisle's salary until the contract's expiration. Akana says that Carlisle balked at the amount of money Akana expected, and instead wrote a check to Akana for $200,000 on January 1st, 2019. Akana had asked for a larger percentage of Carlisle's salary but nonetheless says he begrudgingly agreed to proceed under those terms. But Akana couldn't bear what happened next. The following year, Akana says, Carlisle refused to pay him at all and even made threats that Carlisle would report him to the NBPA for violating regulations (specifically, representing both players and coaches simultaneously). Akana claims that Carlisle offered Akana a one-time payment of $250,000 which he was to accept or receive nothing at all. The total amount potentially due at that time was $800,000, per the complaint. Akana says he refused the offer. Akana says Carlisle has refused to pay him since then. Thereafter, on June 17, 2021, Carlisle ended his tenure with the Mavericks. As the life of the contract was not fully lived out, Akana says he is still owed $400,000. With that, he filed a lawsuit against Carlisle, alleging he has suffered damages in the amount of $400,000. Jason Morrin is a Workers’ Compensation, Injury, and Employment attorney in New York. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report, and more. He may be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

Over the last several years, it’s undeniable that front offices across Major League Baseball have become more analytically driven. As a result, many that cover and follow the sport have wondered about scouts and their place in the modern game. While Moneyball and the success of organizations like the Houston Astros have certainly validated the concept of valuing analytics, the common sentiment you’ll hear is that a blend of the subjective evaluations and the objective data is the best approach to building a winning baseball team.However, that has not stopped every club from downsizing their “old school” scouting departments in favor of “new school” analytics or simply as a means to reduce expenses. In response to their terminations following the 2020 season, two former scouts for the Detroit Tigers have filed a lawsuit against the club alleging age discrimination. Gary Pellant, 68, and Randall Johnson, 67, filed the suit last week in U.S. District Court in Detroit, claiming a shift toward analytics was accompanied by a "false stereotype" that older scouts lacked acumen for newer scouting tools. In recent years, baseball as a whole has incorporated more and more technology into the player evaluation process. In the past, “analytics” consisted of merely a radar gun and/or a stopwatch. Today, services like Rapsodo, Statcast, KinaTrax, Pitchf/x, etc have certainly expanded the way professional and amateur players are scouted. They claim wrongful termination and post-termination employment interference in violation of the Age Discrimination and Enforcement Act of 1967 and violations of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, a Michigan law that took effect in 1977. They also alleged disparate treatment age discrimination and/or disparate impact age discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen act. The complaint stated that "Plaintiffs are among hundreds if not thousands of employees to be separated from employment with defendant in the last eight years as a result of a decision by the defendant and the MLB to replace older employees with younger employees.” In addition, the scouts said that they were among four Tigers scouts over 60 who were terminated and that remaining scouts ranged in age from early 20s to early 50s. The suit said 51 of at least 83 "older scouts" were let go among the 30 teams. This comes after seventeen former MLB scouts sued the league, its teams and commissioner Rob Manfred this past June in U.S. District Court in Denver. They alleged violations of the ADEA along with laws in 11 states and New York City. Moreover, the lawsuit noted that after Manfred took over as commissioner in 2015, "MLB endeavored to begin heavily recruiting younger scouts, at the same time intentionally pushing out from the older scouts with prior knowledge, qualifications, expertise, and training, based on a false stereotype that older scouts lacked the ability to use analytics and engage in video scouting with the same acumen as younger scouts." Given this is not the first lawsuit filed by fired scouts, it will be interesting to see how these cases develop. Were these terminations truly related to the scouts age and stereotypical inability to adapt to the times? That is the major question. Regardless, the apparent trend of scouts being terminated for potentially discriminatory reasons is something to monitor moving forward. MLB and its clubs should be interested in how the courts view this case. Brendan Bell is a 1L at Arizona State Law School and can be found on Twitter @_bbell5