It’s 2022, nearly 4 years since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA, yet there are many states still depriving their citizens of the opportunity to legally place bets on sports. Maybe most notable of these states is Florida, who’s recent relationship with sports betting has been as dramatic as you will find in state-level policy making. State legislators approved a bill in May 2021 and a mobile betting app was launched on November 1st. On November 22nd, a federal court vacated the agreement, and by December 4th the app was taken down. So what happened, and what’s next for Florida? The Bill that Passed In April, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which was eventually approved by the state legislature in May. The effect of the compact was to expand the Seminole Tribe’s current gaming rights to include sports betting. Most importantly was the compact granted rights for mobile sports betting exclusively to the Seminole Tribe. In November, the Seminole Tribe launched their mobile betting app in accordance with the compact. Why it was Struck Down The legality of the compact focuses on one question: where is your bet placed? The Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA), is a federal law passed in 1988 for the purpose of regulating gambling managed by tribes. The IGRA only allows for betting “on Indian lands.” The very nature of mobile sports betting is that it would be able to occur anywhere within the state, not just “on Indian lands.” The United States District Court for the District of Columbia did not accept the Seminole Tribe’s argument that a mobile bet was placed where the servers were located. Instead, the court agreed with challengers to the compact, stating that the IGRA specifically states that betting can only occur “on Indian lands,” and simply deeming that betting occurred on Indian lands when it occurred elsewhere does not make it so. For that reason, the court vacated the compact in its entirety, leaving Florida with no avenue for legal sports betting of any kind at this time, mobile or otherwise. What’s Next No one will ever mistake the litigation process as an expeditious one. Appeals have been filed by both the Seminole Tribe and the U.S. Department of the Interior (who is arguing that the IGRA gives the Department authority to authorize the Florida compact). The legal battles over this case are far from over, and will continue to be fought for at least the next several months, if not longer. Since the compact gave gambling rights exclusively to the Seminole Tribe, companies like FanDuel and DraftKings were left completely out to dry with no presence in the state. In the aftermath of the Federal court ruling and the Seminole Tribe pulling their app, these betting companies began pushing for a sports betting initiative to be added to the 2022 ballot. Needing 892,000 Floridian signatures to make this happen, DraftKings began offering free bets to customers if they were able to get the signatures necessary, and Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy released a video urging his followers to sign up. Despite these measures, the companies were unable to secure the necessary signatures, announcing on January 31st that they were giving up their effort (which was more “we didn’t lose, we quit” than anything). With the ballot initiative push failing, the citizens of Florida are left with no recourse for (legal) sports betting at the current time. Another ballot initiative wouldn’t be able to come until the 2024 ballot, and wouldn’t go into effect until 2025. The only hope for a resolution in the near future would be for the Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court’s decision. However, even if that happened, it would not be an immediate solution. If the District Court’s ruling is upheld, Florida lawmakers would have to start from scratch, working on a new legislation that would either comport with the IGRA, or that does not grant exclusive rights to the Seminole Tribe. In any scenario, the current outlook for legalized mobile sports betting in Florida is bleak, and likely not to happen within the calendar year. This will be a long process, and Floridians have no options but to sit, wait, and hope. Jarred Stindt is a litigation attorney in Kansas City, Missouri. He received his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law, and has an M.A. in Political Science from Kansas State University. Jarred can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @jarredstindt.

It’s no secret that the sports industry has a history of being a boy’s club. But as of recently this once male-dominated field has welcomed more women to its upper ranks. In 2020, Kim Ng was named the Miami Marlins' general manager. In 2020, Katie Sowers made headlines as the second female full-time coach in NFL history and the first female and first openly gay coach in a Super Bowl. And, the AHL has 10 female officials for the 2021-2022 season. It has taken a long time but slowly the industry is trying to move toward a more inclusive environment for women. I personally love to see women getting promoted to positions that were once male dominated. That’s why I was ecstatic when the Vancouver Canucks announced their choice for their new assistant general manager. Émilie Castonguay was hired by the Canucks as assistant general manager for the team, and she has made history on two fronts. Castonguay is the first women to be an assistant GM in the Canucks history and she is the second women in the history of the NHL to hold such title.[1] Angela Gorgone was the first woman to hold the title when she was promoted by the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (now known as the Ducks) in 1996.[2] Before joining the Canucks Castonguay worked for Momentum Hockey a player management group. She was the first woman to be certified by the NHL Players' Association as a player agent in 2016.[3] Her most prominent client was Alexis Lafreniere, who was selected first overall by the New York Rangers in the 2020 NHL Draft. Prior to becoming an agent, Castonguay was named one of the 25 most powerful women in hockey by Sportsnet in 2020 and played four years of NCAA Division I hockey as a forward at Niagara University.[4] At the press conference announcing the choice Castonguay said "It's a historic day, and it goes to show that women have a place in sports and in hockey, I've always had such a good reception from everybody in the sport, and it's important for women that want to be in the sport to know that. Sometimes you get intimidated, but you shouldn't. If you have the knowledge and you've done the work, there's a place for you here. If it needs to start with me, good, but for me, it's just always been my experience."[5] As a woman who loves hockey and hopes to one day work for the NHL or one of the 32 teams, the naming of a female assistant GM gives me hope. In the coming years, I hope for more diversity in executive positions in the sports field. I want to wish Émilie the best of luck in her new position knowing the future is bright for women in the NHL. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Wyshynski, Greg. “Vancouver Canucks Hire Émilie Castonguay as Assistant GM, Making Her Second Woman in NHL History to Hold the Title.” ESPN, 24 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33139847/vancouver-canucks-hire-emilie-castonguay-assistant-gm-making-second-woman-nhl-history-hold-title. [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Woodley, Kevin. “Castonguay Hired by Canucks as Assistant GM.” NHL.com, NHL.com, 25 Jan. 2022, www.nhl.com/news/vancouver-hires-teams-first-female-assistant-gm/c-330132858. [5] Id.

The Emergence of the Super Golf League World Golf Hall of Fame member Greg Norman is spearheading the most aggressive effort yet to create a golf league to rival the PGA Tour. The Super Golf League (“SGL”) is a Saudi-funded effort that purports to bring together fields of 40-50 of the best golfers in the world for individual and team competitions approximately 18 times per year. Greg Norman, who failed in the 1990s to create a similar “World Golf Tour”, is set to become the Commissioner of the SGL. The compensation structure is the primary difference between the PGA Tour and the SGL. On the PGA Tour, golfers do not earn appearance fees for playing in an event. If they miss the cut, they do not earn money that week. Conversely, the SGL has reportedly offered golfers contracts and appearance fees north of $2 million just for showing up. In response, the PGA Tour has taken several steps. First, they announced a “strategic alliance” with the European Tour. Next, they created a Player Impact Program (“PIP”), which is a $40 million fund that is paid out to the 10 players who drive the most engagement among fans and sponsors. Finally, the Tour increased individual tournament prize pools and the total FedEx Cup prize pool from $50 million to $75 million. Despite these initiatives, Phil Mickelson has criticized the PGA Tour for what he believes is their failure to share digital assets with its members. Mickelson has stated that the PGA Tour only pays out 26% of its revenue to members and “would rather throw $25 million here and $40 million there than give back the roughly $20 billion in digital assets they control. . . .” Mickelson has also stated that the PGA Tour’s “obnoxious greed” in the control of his media rights has “opened the door for opportunities elsewhere”. Mickelson’s criticism of the Tour, which has enabled him to earn over $800 million in his career, is misguided. First, the Tour distributes 55% of its revenue to its members, not 26%. That is a higher percentage than any other major professional sport in the United States. Second, there is no sports league that allows their athletes to own and control their own media rights, including the NFL, MLB, and NBA. To do so would torpedo broadcasting deals, thus making the increased prize pools and PIP, which was ironically won by Mickelson this year, impractical. Finally, the profits generated from the revenues are used to pay Tour employees and provide the necessary infrastructure for tournaments. It is under this backdrop that Mickelson, along with another 20 of the top 50 players in the world, recently accepted millions in appearance fees to play in the 2022 Saudi International at Royal Greens Golf & Country Club. The event, however, appears to have been both a golf tournament and a full-on courtship. On the first day of the event, it was reported that Bryson DeChambeau – one of the biggest young stars in golf – was offered $135 million to become the “face” of the SGL. Although Bryson has denied these claims, earlier reports claim that Ian Poulter has been offered nearly $30 million, and Dustin Johnson has also suggested he has been offered more than nine figures. While most of these players have signed non-disclosure agreements, Mickelson has acknowledged that “everybody in the top 100 (in the Official World Golf Ranking) is being talked to” about joining the SGL. For players like Poulter and Lee Westwood, who are past their prime, the money grab makes more sense. However, for the SGL to succeed, they will need a young face like Bryson to lead the charge, and it sounds like they are sparing no expense in that recruitment effort. PGA Tour’s Response and Antitrust Considerations In response to the SGL, the PGA Tour has threatened to impose lifetime bans for any golfer that leaves for the rival league. This type of language naturally raises some antitrust questions regarding their power to do so and the legal challenges they might face. Notably, the stance taken by the PGA Tour is not new but is merely a reminder and warning to its members. Golfers on the PGA Tour are independent contractors, but they agree to honor and abide by regulations and codes including the Player Handbook and Code of Ethics. The players also acknowledge that the Tour’s commissioner has the authority to ban a player from playing in certain events if they violate its rules. Leaving the PGA to play for a controversial rival league, the PGA could argue, is a violation that warrants expulsion. However, just because the PGA can make that decision does not mean that it will be free from legal challenges, specifically in the area of antitrust. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act makes it illegal for a company to “monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire to monopolize”. The purpose of Section 2 is to guard against companies’ use of their monopoly to fix prices, gain a competitive advantage, block competition, or destroy competitors. In short, federal law does not necessarily prohibit a company from obtaining monopoly power, but it does prohibit the abuse of that power through anticompetitive practices. To successfully bring an action under Section 2, a party would need to show that the PGA Tour has a monopoly in the professional golf industry, and that their actions are an effort to maintain that monopoly through anticompetitive means. Under the first prong of the analysis, it seems clear that the PGA Tour does enjoy a monopoly in the professional golf industry. The Tour is synonymous with professional golf, and they are the preeminent force in both the domestic and international markets. The remaining question, therefore, is whether the PGA Tour’s threats to bar players is an anticompetitive practice that purports to maintain that monopoly. This question is not without precedent. In 1997, Harry Toscano, a former golfer who appeared on the PGA Tour for over a decade, sued the Tour alleging that their policy of restricting members from playing on rival tours prevented the emergence of competing senior professional golf tours. In essence, Toscano claimed that the PGA Tour monopolized the market for senior professional golf, and that their rules had a significant anticompetitive effect. Toscano’s claims ultimately failed on two fronts. First, the court pointed out that Toscano’s argument that other senior tours would have emerged if the PGA Tour did not threaten to ban anyone who joined them was speculative. This is one area where Toscano is not directly on point with the current SGL situation. The SGL is already in the works, meaning that no speculation will be necessary to see the effects of the PGA Tour’s policies on its development. Second, and more importantly, Toscano’s arguments failed under the “Rule of Reason” analysis that courts use to review claims of anticompetitive practices. Courts ask three questions when analyzing claims under the Rule of Reason. First, whether the defendant’s behavior produces significant anticompetitive effects. As mentioned, the court answered this question in favor of the Tour, reasoning that the claims under this prong were merely speculative. Second, courts ask whether there is a procompetitive explanation for the behavior. In Toscano, the Tour successfully argued that their policies and restraints were necessary to assure TV networks and sponsors a reliable supply of quality golfers for its events. These explanations are genuine, legitimate, and still exist today. Finally, courts ask whether less aggressive behavior could accomplish the same procompetitive goals. In Toscano, the court also answered this in favor of the Tour, and likely would do the same with in the face of an SGL challenge. Ultimately, the PGA Tour would likely prevail on a Section 2 challenge to their policy of banning golfers that leave for rival tours. It is notable that the Tour has successfully defended against federal antitrust investigations in the past. In the 1990s, the FTC initiated an investigation into the same Tour policies now in question, but the commissioners ultimately voted 4-0 in favor of ending that investigation. Armed with the precedent from Toscano and the defeated FTC investigation, the Tour would likely succeed again. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act The Tour could also face challenges under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which bars anticompetitive agreements. As mentioned, the PGA Tour and European Tour entered into a “strategic alliance” shortly after the emergence of the SGL. The European Tour then subsequently removed its co-sanctioning of the Saudi International Tournament. Although the explanation for the alliance was to “collaborate on global scheduling, prize money, and playing privileges for both tours’ memberships”, the timing of the announcement invites speculation. Additionally, golf’s four major tournaments and the Ryder Cup are not operated by the PGA Tour, but qualifying for them is tied to performance in Tour events. If, for instance, the Masters also banned players who compete in the SGL from playing at Augusta, it could invite questions about anticompetitive agreements. Additionally, the Masters, the Open Championship, and the PGA Championship extend lifetime invitations to past winners. A revocation of those invitations for past winners who join the SGL would be an even more overt action on their part. Relatedly, the top 50 or 60 golfers in the Official World Golf Ranking (“OWGR”) are usually given automatic invites to those tournaments. Given the OWGR’s close ties to the PGA Tour, it remains to be seen if they would recognize points earned from SGL events. Finally, the Tour has strong relationships with many sponsors whose revocation of endorsement deals for SGL participants would, whether right or wrong, give the appearance of a group boycott. Thankfully for us, Toscano also filed a claim under Section 1 of the Act on these very grounds, alleging that the Tour and its sponsors conspired to restrain trade in senior professional golf. The court, however, quickly disposed of these claims by calling them no more than a “conspiracy theory” and pointing out that any party, including “sidewalk vendors, limousine services, and local businesses seeking advertising”, would all be subject to antitrust liability for doing business with the PGA Tour under this argument. In the context of the SGL, a court would very likely dispose of such a claim in a similarly swift fashion. To begin with, major tournaments and sponsors have a multitude of reasons to take a hostile approach toward the SGL. For instance, many commentators have opined that the SGL is in line with similar efforts by Saudi Arabia in the sports of tennis, Formula One, and horse-racing to “sportswash” its human rights abuses. There is little incentive for sponsors to align themselves with a nation with that type of track record. Additionally, the primary market for most sponsors is golf fans in the United States. It would make little sense for DraftKings, for example, to continue to sponsor Bryson DeChambeau while he plays in a market they cannot tap into and in tournaments that take place in the middle of the night for most of its demographic. For these reasons, a Section 1 challenge would likely also be unsuccessful. Conclusion and Final Thoughts Despite the inevitable legal challenges that the PGA Tour would face if they chose to ban players if they join the SGL, they will likely prevail in both Section 2 and Section 1 antitrust challenges. Although Toscano is not directly on point, it will serve as strong precedent when combined with the FTC decision and the alternative explanations available to sponsors and tournaments for distancing themselves from the Saudi-backed SGL. Notwithstanding the threat of being banned by the PGA Tour, older golfers will likely consider offers from the SGL as it may be their last chance at a significant payday at the end of the career. However, young players should not defect given the prestige of the PGA Tour and its majors, the inevitable loss of endorsement opportunities, and a significantly harmful impact on their legacies. These reasons are why Tiger Woods, Jon Rahm, and Rory McIlroy have all spoken out in support of the Tour, and why many young golfers will likely follow suit. John Nucci is a 3L at Penn State Law and can be reached via Twitter @JNucci23 or by email at [email protected].

According to the BOARDROOM, attorneys for Giannis Antetokounmpo have filed a lawsuit against Leaf Trading Cards (“Leaf”) over the use of the NBA superstar’s “Greek Freak” nickname and likeness. Prior to the 2013 draft where he was selected 15th overall, Leaf and Antetokounmpo agreed on an intellectual property licensing agreement. The details included Antetokounmpo signing 1,000 autographs at $8 each with the option for more along with rights to include Antetokounmpo’s name, nickname, and photo in its trading cards. (Sprung, 2022). Antetokounmpo’s attorneys say it was only a one-year deal and was terminated May 2014. Therefore, the deal was never renewed. However, Leaf continued selling items with the Greek Freak mark and Antetokounmpo’s name, nickname, picture, and likeness after May 2014. “Antetokounmpo’s legal counsel wrote to Leaf, demanding that it cease its infringing activities and provide a full accounting of all merchandise sold that included Antetokounmpo’s registered trademarks and rights of publicity.” (Heitner, 2022). The 21-page suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York by law firm, Pardalis & Nohavicka, alleges trademark infringement, dilution, interference with prospective economic advantage, and as well as confusing and deceiving the public that Leaf and the NBA champion were still associated. Growing up most sports fans collected sports cards and could not wait to open a pack to find their favorite player. Surprisingly this has gone on since the 1800s. Sports cards were marketed with big businesses and were found inside packs of cigarettes, gum, and even taffy. (Huddleston, 2021). Multiple generations have passed down their old sports cards and, in some families, could even be a tradition to do so. Due to the pandemic people started to get their card filled shoe boxes out of the attic and started to uncover cards they probably have not seen in decades. This has created a surge of nostalgia and people wanting to get back to their roots as a child by collecting cards again. In February 2021, eBay reported that sports card sales in 2020 increased on the site by 142 percent over 2019, with more than 4 million cards sold. (Beer, 2021). When a product becomes popular it always turns into a huge business. Seven of the ten biggest sports cards sales in history have taken place over the past eight months and, during that span, the record for the “most expensive card ever sold” has been shattered twice. As of March 30, the current record holder is a 1952 Topps Micky Mantle card that was purchased for $5.2 million, according to Action Network. Topps who is one of the most popular sports card companies is valued at $1.3 billion. (Schwartz, 2021). A fun activity that was done as a child now has huge money and even more potential involved. Famous people and influencers such as Steve Aoki, Quavo, Snoop Dogg, and Gary Vaynerchuk are getting in on the action. Along with physical cards, NBA sports cards are now digital. Dapper Labs created digital collectables called NBA Top Shot. These digital cards capture an NBA player's best highlights within a blockchain-based NFT which are called moments. Each moment has a specific serial number to them so they cannot be duplicated or counterfeit unlike physical cards. People can now own and sell moments from their favorite player’s career instead of a plain card with a picture on it. On Feb. 26, 2021, more than 200,000 collectors waited in an online queue for the chance to buy one of just 10,600 new virtual packs of NBA Top Shot moments. Top Shot reportedly is valued at $2 billion, and more than $280 million has been spent on the NBA Top Shot platform since it launched online in October 2021, according to data tracker CryptoSlam. (Huddleston, 2021). Accordingly, due to the increase of potential in the sports card world whether that’s physical or digital there is huge money to be made and Leaf was not going to miss out on the opportunity. In the last few years, Antetokounmpo has taken the league by storm. At only 27 years old, he has already won an NBA championship, Finals MVP, 2x NBA MVP, 5x All-Star, NBA Defensive Player of the Year, and many more accolades. Antetokounmpo has propelled himself to being a top-three player every year and one of the most marketable players in the league, with his unique length and athleticism (hence the nickname “Greek Freak”). Antetokounmpo’s Top Shot 2014 layup sold for $137k and his rookie card sold for $1.8 million in 2020. (Huddleston, 2021). Truly, Antetokounmpo is a once-in-a-generation talent, and people are willing to pay a significant amount of money for any of his memorabilia. In order for this case to be settled, the specifics of the licenses will be vital. “Licenses means a contract exists allowing one company (the licensee) to use the property of another (the licensor). Most commonly for cards, the licensed content includes the player's image, the team name, uniform, professional league logo, etc.” (Baseball Card Legal Terms, 2011). If the case results in Antetokounmpo’s favor, then it is likely that the wording in the licenses is clear that it was just a one-year deal, and Leaf can no longer use his trademarked phrase “Greek Freak.” On the other hand, there could be a few reasons why this case would not result in Antetokounmpo’s favor. Typically, to protect something on the card, a patent number will be listed. Antetokounmpo did not receive registration of the “Greek Freak” trademark until February 2018. With no trademark in 2013, there could be a way for Leaf to create these cards up to that point. Therefore, with the trend of physical and digital sports cards increasing, Leaf wants to do everything in their power to be able to create as many cards as possible with Antetokounmpo’s name, image, and likeness. Citations Baseball Card Legal Terms. (2011, June 16). Retrieved from The Cardboard Connection: https://www.cardboardconnection.com/baseball-card-legal-terms Beer, T. (February, 11 2021). EBay Reports Increase Of 4 Million Trading Cards Sold In 2020. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/02/11/ebay-reports-increase-of-4-million-trading-cards-sold-in-2020/?sh=7ab00f801963 Heitner, D. (2022, January 20). Giannis Antetokounmpo Attacks Leaf Trading Cards For Using His Marks And Publicity. Retrieved from Above the Law: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/giannis-antetokounmpo-attacks-leaf-trading-cards-for-using-his-marks-and-publicity/ Huddleston, T. (2021, March 6). The Sports Trading Card Boom: Baseball Cards Selling for Millions and the Crypto Craze Hits NBA Top Shot. Retrieved from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/06/explaining-sports-trading-card-boom.html Schwartz, N. (May, 16 2021). Sports Card Collecting is Having a Historic Boom Right Now and Here’s Why. Retrieved from Deseret: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2021/5/16/22334507/sports-card-collecting-boom-explained-nft-future Sprung, S. (2022, January 17). Giannis Antetokounmpo Sues Trading Card Maker for “Greek Freak” Infringement. Retrieved from BOARDROOM: https://boardroom.tv/giannis-antetokounmpo-greek-freak-lawsuit/

News and allegations of domestic and sexual violence have plagued the sports world. From Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics to ex-NFL player Zac Stacy, no sport remains unscathed from the ramifications of violence. Fans of every sport are stuck between feelings of hope that victims are speaking out and fighting for justice, and the dread of condemning their favorite players or teams for how they handle any allegations. The latest allegations of player misconduct surround Manchester United’s forward, Mason Greenwood. The 20-year-old forward was arrested late last month after rape allegations were posted on Instagram, including images and an audio file purported to be a recording of the attack. In one fell swoop, Manchester United issued a statement condemning violence, suspended Greenwood "until further notice", and sent supporters an email offering those who have purchased a Greenwood jersey to exchange it for another player, free of cost. The email stated: "As a United Direct customer we are writing to you regarding your previous purchase of a Manchester United shirt personalised with Greenwood, given the current circumstances relating to Mason Greenwood.” While many commend Manchester United and Adidas for the exchange option, others question why other teams and leagues have not utilized this system before. Sponsors drop players, deals fall through, and athletes are benched. However, Greenwood is not the first athlete accused or charged with violent conduct, yet the option for fans to obtain a replacement jersey is unheard of. Manchester United’s stance encourages a multitude of questions surrounding the different player contracts amongst sports leagues and teams. An interesting comparison to Greenwood’s situation would be to that of the Houston Texans’ quarterback, Deshaun Watson, who is the subject of 22 civil lawsuits and 10 criminal charges, including allegations of sexual assault. However, Texans fans were never given the option to exchange their Watson jerseys when news of the allegations broke in March 2021. Watson was never even formally suspended from training and playing with the Texans, nor did the NFL ever put Watson on the Commissioner’s Exempt List. Instead, the NFL refrained from taking a true stance on Watson’s future with the league while news of a possible trade with the Carolina Panthers or Miami Dolphins circulated on social media. Differences in contracts are likely at play in both of these situations, but fans are questioning whether Manchester United’s actions may inspire other teams and leagues to react similarly if the situation arises. Exchanging jerseys of players in the midst of controversy likely will not have much of an effect on the royalties collected from jersey sales, and likely not more so than the drop (if any) in the sales of said player’s jersey when under investigation. However, in a society that has promoted the support of domestic and sexual violence survivors, many fans may be more comfortable supporting teams that have displayed actions in solidarity with survivors.

Originally Published on offthecourtdocket.com. The National College Players Association (NCPA) has filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board accusing the NCAA, Pac-12, UCLA, and USC of unlawfully violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, the NCPA has accused the parties of misclassifying college football and basketball players as non-employees when the players should be classified as employees. The NCPA is a nonprofit advocacy association that includes current and former college athletes. The NCPA has advocated successfully on behalf of student-athletes since 2001. The organization’s advocacy efforts have led to changes to NCAA rules, including allowing for athletes to compensate off their Name, Image, and Likeness and new transfer rules. The charges filed with the NLRB could pave the way for athletes to unionize. On September 15, 2021, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum taking the position that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and thus afforded all statutory protections. Abruzzo’s memorandum was supported by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston, which found that the NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation violated the Sherman Act. The NCAA is currently battling a similar issue in Johnson v. NCAA. Judge Padova has recently elevated employer-employee issue in Johnson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court must decide the following: “Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, solely by virtue of their participation in interscholastic athletics.” Any ruling is likely to make its way to the United States Supreme Court. In light of the majority opinion in Alston and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, it is likely that the Supreme Court will find that student-athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2021, student-athletes gained a significant victory when the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in Alston. Now, with the NCPA filing charges with the NLRB and Johnson heading to the appellate level, student-athletes could see further gains in the near future. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com.

For over 10 years, Gary Grandison was the head women's golf coach at Alabama State University. There, he made an immense impact on the program, turning the Hornets into a Southwestern Athletic Conference powerhouse. Grandison's teams won 7 SWAC Championships and he was named the SWAC women's golf coach of the year 5 times. In 2019, the University decided not to renew his contract, forcing Grandison to move on. In July of 2020, he was hired as the head men's and women's golf coach at Texas Southern University, staying in the conference. While Texas Southern presented an exciting, new opportunity, Grandison believes that there was foul play involved in his Alabama State exit and overall treatment. He sued Alabama State under Title IX, alleging that ASU decided not to renew his contract "on the basis of sex." Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Grandison also claimed that he was wrongfully paid less than coaches of men's sports teams at ASU. He had signed a one-year contract extension with ASU in 2018. His salary was $55,000, and the contract specified that $21,489 would be paid from the women's golf budget and $33,511 would be paid from the men's golf budget (which he was also the head coach of). Grandison also had performance-tied bonuses included in his contract. Specifically, $3,500 for winning the SWAC championship; $5,000 for being crowned Black College national champions; and $3,000 for exceeding the team's multi-year academic progress rate (APR) of 950. Plaintiff testifies that he won the SWAC championship in 2018 but that he did not receive a $3,500 bonus. Grandison also incorporated perceived inequities between the women's golf team and other men's sports teams at ASU into his Title IX claims. He alleges his operating budget for the women's golf program dwindled in two years from $36,000 annually to $13,000 annually. He says he had to spend $7,000 of his own money to cover approved expenses for travel and competitions for the women's golf program. Finally, among other University wrongs, Grandison said, "to this day I still have not received the . . . 2018-2019 championship rings as a women's golf coach." In response, the University argued that allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff, not his sex, largely motivated its decision to not renew his contract. According to the decision, "[p]rior to the expiration of the 2018 Contract, the athletic director recommended to ASU President Quinton Ross that [Grandison] be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct reported by female student athletes and their parents. In one instance, it was reported that Plaintiff had made inappropriate comments to a player on the women's golf team about her lifestyle and that he had refused that player's request to wear pants instead of a skort during competitions. Another reported incident concerned Plaintiff's allegedly inappropriate comments concerning a female golf player's sexual relationship with her boyfriend. There also were complaints—'more than a few'—from parents against Plaintiff." Grandison argued that the complaints were overblown and false. In his deposition, Deputy Athletic Director Jones articulated ASU's reasons for nonrenewing Plaintiff's contract as "(1) his contract was expiring on its own terms; (2) an investigation revealed "some merit" as to the players' and parents' complaints of misconduct by Plaintiff; and (3) Plaintiff disobeyed a directive not to return to practice after he was accused of having an altercation with a student athlete on the golf course." The court found these reasons to be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Grandison's claims of disparate pay were not given merit by the court because the former ASU head coach failed to draw a comparison between his duties and the duties of assistant coaches or between his duties and the duties of the head coaches for football, men's basketball, and baseball. "Making assumptions about similarities of job duties is improper." With that, the Alabama Middle District Court held that Grandison failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination or show that ASU's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decisions were pretext for discrimination. Therefore, ASU's motion for summary judgment was granted, throwing out Grandison's claims. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

In the aftermath of skipping the Olympics to reschedule regular season games postponed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the NHL announced that the owners and players’ association conducted initial meetings centered on hosting another World Cup of Hockey in 2024, when COVID-19 will hopefully no longer have an impact on public sporting events. For those unfamiliar, the World Cup of Hockey was the NHL’s substitute for their players competing in the 2018 Olympics after a series of disputes between the owners, players, International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) over costs and advertising associated with NHLers participating in the Olympics.[1] On its surface, this move looks like a positive response to the public dissatisfaction from many NHL players over not being able to participate in this year’s Olympics. NHL Players clearly want to compete at the Olympics and have the chance to be part of moments that will transcend their playing careers and live on in the histories of their respective countries. Men’s Ice Hockey at the Olympics has hosted some of the most memorable games in the history of the sport, games like the 1980 “Miracle on Ice”, the Crosby (BOO!) Winner in overtime in the 2010 Gold Medal Game, and T.J. Oshie’s legendary shootout performance against Russia in 2014. Those opportunities don’t exist in the World Cup of Hockey, a tournament with no such historic lineage and, while being well organized, has always felt like a money grab by the NHL and its owners. The current CBA between the NHL and NHLPA includes a commitment to participate at the 2026 Olympics, but the current CBA also expires immediately after that Olympics and the 2026 season, where an unfortunate series of events could lead to an ugly rehashing of this dispute between the players and owners. The Owners’ motivations for wanting to restrict their players from competing in the Olympics are somewhat easily understood and perhaps reasonable from a business perspective. The Owners do not want to pay for the travel of their athletes to the Olympics, assume the risk of injury in the middle of the season (when most teams are gearing up for a playoff run, as happened in 2014 with Toronto Maple Leafs’ star John Tavares, at the time a member of the New York Islanders) and get nothing of monetary value in return (as they can’t use the media produced by the Olympics without the approval of the IOC, one of the points of contention in 2018). So, they initiated the World Cup of Hockey to monetize their players’ desire for international competition in the short term, and may attempt to rehash this issue in the next CBA negotiation if the following, or something similar, happens: The Beijing Olympics ratings come in lower than expected (The NHL Owners could argue this is because they didn’t participate, and attempt to leverage this into a new partnership with the IOC) The 2024 World Cup of Hockey is a surprising success, capitalizing on the vacuum of international hockey competition involving NHL players over the past 6 years The NHL Participates in the Milan Olympics and another major star gets hurt (Let’s say someone like an Auston Matthews, a US star playing for the Leafs, who are a Canadian Original 6 Franchise. This type of injury would have the greatest impact on NHL Owners across both countries) If all of that were to unfold, you can imagine the NHL Owners would be pretty upset with their current arrangement. Now, all those things happening exactly how I described them is unlikely, but if it happens, the Owners of the NHL may be determined to monopolize their players’ participation in international tournaments in the future. Attempting to do so may cause another lockout, as it’s clear from the players’ reaction to skipping these games they are committed to participating in the Olympics in the future. The more likely outcome is that the Owners use this as leverage to ask for other concessions in the CBA, and whether or not they get them will depend on how attached the players are to having the opportunity to become the next Mike Eruzione or Vladislav Tretiak. Michael DiLiello is an Army Officer transitioning to the Sports Law field and will enroll as a 1L in the Fall of 2022. His opinions are purely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the United States Army, the Department of Defense, or any other external agency. Michael can be found on Twitter @Mike_DiLiello and LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/michael-diliello-1057b439. [1] Campigotto, Jesse. 2017. The NHL's beef with the Olympics, explained. April 2. Accessed February 11, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-olympics-dispute-1.4054830.

Former NBA champion and current collegiate golfer J.R. Smith has signed with Excel Sports Management for NIL representation. Smith spent 16 years in the NBA and amassed nearly $90 million in salary. But after a long NBA career, Smith hung up his basketball shoes, picked up his golf bag, and went back to school. In 2004, when Smith entered the NBA, he jumped directly from high school to the pros. So walking around a college campus is uncharted waters. At age 35, Smith enrolled at North Carolina A&T and joined the school’s Division I golf team. He’s documented his Happy Gilmore/Billy Madison-esque journey through his twitter account. Somewhere, 1996 Adam Sandler is smiling. Despite not having top-level success or a legitimate shot of taking his golf game to the professional ranks, Smith immediately became the country’s most popular Division I golfer. Success on the course isn’t a prerequisite for success in the NIL free market. Are there better college golfers than Smith in the country? Sure. But Smith’s marketability transcends his scorecard. Smith’s agent Lance Young told ESPN, “There's significant NIL interest among golfing equipment and clothing manufacturers and video game companies”. The NIL opportunities for Smith as a collegiate golfer are fascinating. His following fills a void within the golf community. He can reach audiences that no other golfer can. Smith’s career as an NBA player turned him into a cult NBA fan favorite. He was famous for his on-court flare and shirtless championship celebrations while constantly battling rumors involving his love for New York City nightclubs.[1] The transformation from once throwing a bowl of soup at an assistant coach to now playing the ultimate gentleman’s game deserves its own documentary – brands must be salivating. So what type of deals NIL deals can J.R. Smith expect? If you believe the words from his agent, which I do, he will have plenty of suitors. The former NBA player brings a unique sense of style to the golf course that is unparalleled, and brands can look to take advantage. Throughout his NBA career, Smith routinely laced up Nikes on the court. His on-court shoe choices consisted of LeBron James’ Solider 10, Kyrie Irving’s Kyrie 4, and Paul George’s PG2; all athletes signed to Nike, and all shoes showcasing the signature swoosh.[2] Falling in line with his choices of the past, it’s a natural fit for J.R. Smith to become another face of Nike golf and join players such as Tiger Woods, Rory Mcllroy, and Brooks Koepka. A quick examination of North Carolina A&T’s uniforms shows the school has partnered with Nike: Another opportunity for Smith may arise in Nike’s subsidiary, Jordan. The brand synonymous with basketball has attempted to break onto the country club scene over recent years. Jordan currently sponsors one professional golfer, Harold Varner III, who recently just won his first PGA tour event. Reportedly, Jordan was particularly drawn to Varner because of his roots where he proudly represents his home state of North Carolina, the state where Michael Jordan went to college.[3] J.R. Smith’s college career is also unfolding in the Tar Heel state. Golf course style has gone through a transformation. Recently, professional golfers have started to break away from the suburban middle-aged dad look that often-featured plaid sweater vests and clunky golf shoes. Instead, many global superstars bring streetwear to the golf course, wearing several high-profile Jordan and Nike shoes during their rounds. When Brooks Koepka was asked about his choice to wear a Nike AirMax/Off White collaboration golf shoe during the Tour Championship he responded, plain and simply, “It’s fashion, bro”. Perhaps Smith can be another golfer to push the limits of on-course attire for Nike, exciting sneakerheads while causing confusion amongst the traditional golf crowd. But Smith’s NIL opportunities don’t start and stop with sneaker companies. Originally starting as a skateboard brand, Supreme has developed into a streetwear lifestyle empire that features creative designs that often rely heavily on hip hop and pop culture influences. The brand has partnered with companies such as Budweiser, Playboy, Louis Vuitton, and many others. This isn’t the brand you associate with golf. However, a few years ago Supreme released a collection in collaboration with Lacoste that started to resemble golf fashion[4]. J.R. Smith is no stranger to the brand. In fact, a quick scan of his tattoos will reveal he’s actually quite a big fan. If Supreme is looking to expand their influence into golf, why look any further than the high-profile golfer that has the brand inked on his body. Smith has modeled for Supreme off the court in the past and even attempted to bring that relationship onto the court by sporting a Supreme shooting sleeve during an NBA game. He was swiftly scolded by the NBA for this wardrobe decision and refrained from any similar acts moving forward. Smith made it clear he hasn’t been paid by Supreme, but feels a connection with the brand stating, “[Supreme] represents the streets, it represents that gritty, weird personality. And that’s what I represent as a person”.[5] It’s clear that J.R. Smith can fill a void in golf marketing that no other athlete can touch. Thanks to NIL, Smith as a college golfer can use his influence to grow the game. His effort could be part of a larger movement for the sport to modernize and diversify its audience. Unlike other college athletes, Smith may not need the financial incentives that come with NIL deals. But these deals can have a positive and lasting impact on the sport at large. Smith has expressed a desire to bring golf into the lives of underrepresented minority groups. NIL grants him an opportunity. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow in the Office of the General Counsel at Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] Jacob Emert, Cavaliers’ J.R. Smith sued for $2.5 million over alleged nightclub incident, The Washington Post (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/03/26/cavaliers-j-r-smith-sued-for-2-5-million-over-alleged-nightclub-incident/. [2] J.R. Smith, Baller Shoes DB (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://ballershoesdb.com/players/jr-smith/. [3] Tyler Lauletta, Michael Jordan texted Harold Varner III with an offer to be just the second Jordan Brand golfer and had a deal 2 days later, Insider (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.insider.com/michael-jordan-signs-harold-varner-iii-jordan-brand-2021-6. [4] Brittany Romano, This Lacoste X Supreme collection might be the closest thing to a Supreme golf line yet, Golf Digest (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.golfdigest.com/story/this-lacoste-x-supreme-collection-might-be-the-closest-thing-to-a-supreme-golf-line-yet. [5] Cam Smith, NBA Tells J.R. Smith to Cover Up His Supreme Tattoo Or Else, GQ (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.gq.com/story/jr-smith-supreme-tattoo-nba.

Since the birth of organizations such as DraftKings and FanDuel, the niche area of online sports gambling has grown throughout time. Though some recent developments have turned the tides considerably on this area and how the Supreme Court and other legal organizations have felt about this issue. So, let’s go on a small walk through the history of sports gambling and see how it’s been reflected on a national scale before we zoom in on my home state, Connecticut. During the 1900’s, scandals rocked sports and made way for legislation in the area of sports gambling. Most notably, the Chicago “Black Sox” scandal. To summarize it quickly, players on the Chicago White Sox intentionally lost the 1919 World Series in exchange for bribes from outsiders who would handsomely profit off their loss. This, along with many other gambling scandals, led Congress to eventually pass the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, in 1991.https://www.thelines.com/betting/paspa/. This law reflected the views of Congress regarding the fact that gambling was a “national problem.” Congress continued to clamp down on sports betting laws, ensuring that they would never develop into something big. This was, until May of 2018. In May of 2018, the Supreme Court voted against PASPA in a 6-to-3 decision in Murphy vs. NCAA. In short, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government may not force state governments to carry out its will, or that it violated the anti-commandeering principle. So now that we have gone through the history of sports betting, lets dissect the most recent Connecticut sports gambling law. My major issue with the Connecticut law that was passed in May of 2021 is that there is a lack of oversight. The American Gaming Association has made the argument that federal oversight of online sports gambling is not necessary, as it should be left to the states. The issue with this is the fact that the states don’t exactly have the resources to oversee this in comparison to the federal government. In Connecticut, the oversight of online sports betting is tasked to the Gaming Division of the Department of Consumer Protection. This is an issue because the state department is not funded to the same degree that the National Indian Gaming Commission is. Specifically, the NIGC had a $121 million budget in 2021, and is projected to have this same budget in 2022. This is compared to the $16 million budget for the Connecticut Consumer Protection department as a whole, never mind the budget for the Gaming Division itself. This has obvious risks, because less resources being dedicated to a certain effort will result in the department being able to do less to ensure that there is nothing nefarious going on. For example, as discussed in the Conduct Detrimental Podcast titled “Ben Simmons & The Sports Vaxx Standoffs,” the Netflix documentary “Bad Sport” has an episode that covers the Arizona State men’s basketball team and how they shaved points in order to ensure that the underdog would cover the spread for their bet, leading to the people that paid the athletes making a lot of money. It was only because there was a plethora of resources to help supervise the sportsbooks that the people behind this scandal got caught, and since the Connecticut department has less resources to catch these schemes, they could continue to go on if there is nothing done regarding the supervision of online gambling in Connecticut. So, after analyzing the history of sports gambling and the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, it should be easy for them to be able to maintain that the federal government has a way to supervise gambling. If they don’t, these cases of point shaving could make their way to your favorite sports teams, and then it’ll be the scandals and infamy of the “Black Sox” scandal all over again, just with some other sports franchise. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

Now that the Super Bowl is over and the Rams have their first championship in Los Angeles under their belt, the NFL offseason has officially begun. It was in mid-March of last year when the Houston Texans’ offseason took a serious turn as their star quarterback, Deshaun Watson, became the Defendant in 22 civil lawsuits as well as the subject of both Houston Police Department and NFL investigations. As a result, Watson did not see the field at all in the 2021-2022 season. Meanwhile, Texans head coach Lovie Smith is hoping to trade Watson ahead of the new league year starting on March 16. Smith recently spoke to Albert Breer of SI.com and indicated he wants a resolution to Watson’s status: “As soon as possible. I’m not running away from the question, but as soon as possible,” Smith said. “There are things that need to be taken care of before the football part comes into play. We’re patient, we’ve waited an entire year and I just feel like this offseason, it’ll come to an end and we’ll get it solved and it’ll be good for both parties, whatever that might be. There’s no other answer to give right now except for that one, and we’re going to try to get it resolved as soon as we possibly can. But we don’t play tomorrow. We have a little bit of time, and we’ll get it done.” It is apparent that where Watson’s football career is headed largely depends on the current legal proceedings in which Watson is accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. But contrary to Smith’s [and Watson’s] wishes, the legal process may not be over as soon as they would like. Unbeknownst to many, there are signs that the Watson case has taken a new turn as of late. On February 3, 2022, one plaintiff—a professional masseuse who lives in Houston—filed her Second Amended Complaint to include an additional allegation. Specifically, this plaintiff amended her complaint to include an allegation that goes beyond Watson just asking for an inappropriate massage. A copy of the complaint with the new allegations highlighted is below. Filing an amended complaint with new allegations is not something a Plaintiff would do if they were about to settle a case. An Answer has not yet been filed. Interestingly, this plaintiff was one of the few who was not highlighted in Watson’s Original Answer filed in April 2021. While Watson generally denied all of the allegations set forth in each of the separate lawsuits, Watson’s Answer also included a section titled “Problems with Plaintiffs’ Allegations” to support his belief that the plaintiffs’ claims were not true or accurate. This section directly named 16 of the 22 women in relation to the following assertions: A. After the massage therapy sessions with Mr. Watson, Plaintiffs bragged about, praised, and were excited to massage Mr. Watson. B. Plaintiffs willingly worked, or offered to work, with Mr. Watson after the alleged incidents. C. Plaintiffs lied about the number of sessions they actually had with Mr. Watson. D. Plaintiffs lied about their alleged trauma and resulting harm. E. Plaintiffs told others they wanted to get money out of Mr. Watson. F. Plaintiffs have scrubbed, or entirely deleted, their social media accounts and the relevant evidence they contained. This new development comes ahead of Deshaun Watson’s deposition, which is scheduled to take place on February 22, 2022. As a reminder, a deposition is used to gather information and facts by way of a witness’s sworn out-of-court testimony. While Watson’s attorneys may object to questions throughout the deposition, very few objections actually stop the question from going forward. Unless Watson "pleads the Fifth" (which would be quite suspicious), he will be forced to answer questions under oath, including any related to the new allegations detailed above. While the Texans would prefer to trade Watson sometime soon, I'd suggest all NFL teams hold off on those discussions for now. Stephanie Weissenburger is an Associate Attorney at Geragos & Geragos. Stephanie is the Website Manager for Conduct Detrimental and co-host of "Miss Conduct" (@sportslaw on TikTok). You can find her on Twitter @SWeissenburger_ and Instagram @Steph_ExplainsItAll

It has been almost one year since the NCAA was put in the spotlight for equity disparities in their men’s and women’s basketball championship tournament. Just about one year ago, Oregon standout, Sedona Prince, put the NCAA in the spotlight via TikTok videos, exposing the inequities of the female athlete’s weight room, their NCAA Tournament gear, and their meals. With the NCAA facing this inequity crisis, a common question came to mind: How can the NCAA avoid Title IX requirements? The answer is an often-forgotten 1999 Supreme Court ruling. NCAA v. Smith was brought to court by a female intercollegiate volleyball athlete. Smith played two seasons at St. Bonaventure University, and after graduation, she sought to complete her athletic eligibility at a school she could begin a postgraduate program. The Postbaccalaureate Bylaw allows postgraduate student-athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics only at the institution where they received their undergraduate degree. Smith petitioned the NCAA to waive these restrictions, as was often done. Smith was denied multiple times. Smith then sued the NCAA for violating Title IX, claiming the NCAA discriminated on the basis of sex by granting more waivers from eligibility restrictions to male athletes than female athletes. The question before the court became: Is the NCAA, a private organization that does not receive federal financial assistance, subject to Title IX? The answer, sadly, was no. Basically, the court said that even though the NCAA profits from federally funded colleges that are subject to Title IX regulations, the NCAA themselves are not subject to Title IX regulations. NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S. Ct. 924 (1999) Even though there is no Title IX protection over the NCAA’s actions, there has been social pushback for the NCAA to address its equity issues. As a result, last spring, the NCAA retained the law firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (“KHF”) to conduct a comprehensive review of gender equity issues in the NCAA. You can read KHF’s executive summary report here. Some of the headlines from the report include: “The NCAA’s organizational structure and culture prioritizes men’s basketball, contributing to gender inequity.” “The structure of the NCAA’s media agreements perpetuates gender inequity.” As we gear up for another year of March Madness, the questions will be: Did the NCAA learn from last year? Will they step up and provide the true NCAA Championship experience female athletes deserve? I am unhopeful, but to give credit where credit is due, the NCAA has already agreed to include the use of the “March Madness” slogan for the NCAA women’s basketball tournament. That’s right, 2022 will be the first year the NCAA women’s basketball tournament will be allowed to use the branding “March Madness,” a brand the NCAA has only been using for men’s basketball since 1939. I suppose the slow burn of change is better than no change. Rachel Emendorfer is a 1L at the University of Minnesota Law School. Prior to law school, she attended the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, where she captained the Pioneer women’s basketball team. She can be found on twitter (@_rachel_15) and on LinkedIn under her name.