It is 2022 and the NFL has turned a blind eye to the Rooney Rule, having not made any amendments to it. There are fantastic assistant coaches that are not Caucasian, such as Kansas City Chiefs’ offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy. He has not received, to my knowledge, an interview request for an open head coaching vacancy. It is time the NFL, their owners, and possibly, the NFLPA, look over the Rooney Rule and amend it. NFL.com’s staff released a story about Dan Rooney’s son and current Steelers owner Art Rooney II. He addressed the NFL’s Diversity policies and their general state of affairs: "Over the past several years, our Diversity Committee has recommended, and Ownership has adopted, a number of enhancements to the Rooney Rule as well as new policies and fair consideration for coaching and front office positions." "The details of these enhancements and new policies have previously been made available. He is saying the Rooney Rule has adopted new policies and enhancements to the Rooney Rule, and all thirty-two NFL clubs know about them. The clubs are choosing not to either follow them correctly, or know they are there and not care about them. NFL teams are too worried about their reputation, and they are passing on quality minority coaches that could succeed as head coaches, such as Eric Bieniemy and if in the right situation, Tampa Bay’s coordinators, former Jacksonville Jaguars and Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Byron Leftwich and former New York Jets head coach Todd Bowles, respectively. If the NFL does not get their ducks in a row, they could be facing a massive class-action (multiple plaintiffs) lawsuit, headlined by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the thirty-two owners need to find a way to institute the Rooney Rule on a stricter basis to prevent the sham interviews mentioned in my Brian Flores Lawsuit article. The NFL seems stuck in its own way, and they need to figure out why clubs aren’t hiring minority coaches and front office personnel at the level Dan Rooney envisioned them to be hired. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

In July of 2021, Overtime Elite announced that it signed Francis “LeBron” Lopez, a 6-foot-5 shooting guard from the Philippines, to play in its inaugural season. “We’re delighted to have Lebron join the OTE family as we expand our international reach, bringing in top talent from across the globe,” said Brandon Williams, OTE EVP, head of basketball operations. “Francis is a young man who has impressed us with both the combination of pure passion for the game and self-improvement, physical athleticism, work ethic, as well as many leadership intangibles. He’s the kind of player we want and expect to thrive at OTE.” Lopez is represented by SDS Sports Agency. SDS is a full-service management agency for athletes, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, who filed a Form-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to classify Lopez as an O1A internationally recognized athlete. In its complaint, SDS claims that multiple government parties, including Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, improperly denied the I-29. With that, SDS now seeks judicial review of that denial via this lawsuit. This complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, a United States employer may sponsor a qualified foreign national who, inter alia, has “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics.” The Code of Federal Regulations has defined “extraordinary ability” as a “level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of their field of endeavor.” In addition to establishing “extraordinary ability” as defined above, a petitioner must also demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field of expertise. In its complaint, SDS writes the following in attempting to establish the "extraordinary ability" in athletics requirement: "Mr. Lopez, at only 18 years old, has already achieved more in his chosen profession than most people do in a lifetime. Just a month after Mr. Lopez’s 18th birthday, he had the distinguished honor of becoming one of the youngest players to ever play for the Philippines Men’s Senior Team in an official International Basketball Federation (“FIBA”) tournament, which is known as the highest level of international basketball competition outside of the Olympics." "Prior to competing in FIBA, he was named among the 2020 SLAM Philippines Rising Stars, which is a list of top high school basketball players in the country. In addition to the two honors, Mr. Lopez has received the following, non-exhaustive list of individual awards: 2020 NCAA Mythical 5, 2019 Batang Gilas U16 4-Star Prospect, 2018 BBI UI7 Mythical 5, and the 2018 MILCU U17 Most Valuable Player. Mr. Lopez’s exceptional achievements are why Overtime Elite Pro League (“OTE”) offered Mr. Lopez a professional contract." Lopez is a highly intriguing prospect and I hope to see SDS succeed in this action. 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.

Last Tuesday, attorneys for former Miami Dolphins Head Coach Brian Flores filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court broadly alleging racism by the NFL and team owners in the hiring process for coaching and front office positions. Some of Flores’ claims certainly have merit. After all, the league has a pretty troubling history with racism. The emails from former Raiders coach Jon Gruden to former Washington Commander’s GM Bruce Allen is just one example noted in the Class Action Complaint.[1] The Rooney Rule, initially intended to improve racial disparities in leadership positions, has not lived up to its expectations. That is evident because Mike Tomlin of the Steelers is currently the only black head coach in the NFL and only a few more are general managers. Assuming that Flores’ complaint makes it to discovery (barring the success of a possible motion to dismiss), the evidence unveiled against the NFL and team owners may be devastating. In the meantime, the New York Football Giants have been the subject of much discussion after being specifically named in the lawsuit this week. While Brian Flores has several legitimate reasons for suing the NFL, claiming that the Giants ownership and front office discriminated against him in the hiring process is absurd. Under owners John Mara and Steve Tisch, the New York Giants have long been one of the most highly regarded organizations in the NFL despite a lack of success in recent years. Within the last couple of weeks, they hired Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll from the Buffalo Bills to be their General Manager and Head Coach respectively. However, the process by which the Giants hired Daboll was called into question by Flores who revealed text messages between himself and Bill Belichick pertaining to the Giants head coaching job. Belichick, thinking he was texting Daboll, mistakenly congratulated Flores for being hired by Big Blue three days before Flores interviewed with the team. Even if litigation proceeds in this case, we may never know where Belichick got advanced information, but it is understandable why Flores may have thought the Giants were just interviewing him to fulfill the Rooney Rule. However, if we actually look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Giants search for a GM and head coach, it is obvious that the organization conducted a thorough and fair interview process. In terms of the GM position, four of the Giants' nine candidates were black.[2] While all were eminently qualified, they likely went with Joe Schoen because of his involvement in the Bills' flourishing offense with Josh Allen under center. As for the head coach, three of the six candidates Schoen interviewed (including Flores) were black.[3] In both instances, the Giants more than satisfied the Rooney Rule. Why then did the Giants go with Daboll over Flores? Given the state of the organization, it was not because of any unfair discrimination. Rather, it was because the team needed a coach who had demonstrated the ability to develop an offense and a Quarterback. After three years of failing to develop Daniel Jones and the offensive players around him, Brian Daboll was that guy. There’s no question that Brian Flores has proven himself to be a successful head coach. He certainly deserves a head coaching job in the NFL this year, as does a proven offensive coordinator like Eric Bieniemy in Kansas City. But, Flores was not the right person for the Giants this time around. I hope that Flores’ concerns with racial discrimination in the NFL are addressed promptly. It takes a lot of guts to do what he did especially considering the position he is in. However, there should be no quarrel with the way the New York Football Giants conducted their hiring process. It was thorough and fair. End of story. A.J. Lise is a 2L at New York Law School. He is a member of his school’s Dispute Resolution Team and has been a personal injury paralegal since 2018. He can be reached at [email protected] and @aj_lise on Twitter. [1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/brian-flores-nfl-lawsuit/44f04359fa5bb496/full.pdf [2] Lewis, Hayden. 2022. Overview of the New York Giants’ 9 general manager candidates. January 15. Accessed February 4, 2022. https://empiresportsmedia.com/new-york-giants/overview-of-new-york-giants-9-general-manager-candidates/. [3] Brown, Larry. 2022. Timeline of New York Giants head coach interviews and Rooney Rule Requirement. February 1. Accessed February 4, 2022. https://larrybrownsports.com/football/timeline-new-york-giants-head-coach-interviews-rooney-rule-requirement/591390.

On January 31, 2022, The National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) Player Association and the NWSL’s league representatives ratified the first Collective Bargaining Agreement in the NWSL’s history. The NWSL’s president, Tori Huster, commented on the CBA, stating, “Our mission in this historic CBA was to put this same philosophy at the center of NWSL’s future. With the amount of care and attention that we have given this process since Fall 2020, we are proud that players can confidently enter the tenth season of the NWSL in a better position than ever before.” The Player’s Association was also excited for the potential of the CBA to protect players beyond just the scope of the individual team’s rules and guidelines. Some terms of the CBA are outlined below. The NWSL’s CBA provided that all teams must provide the services of, at minimum, a team physician, massage therapist, sports psychologist, sports scientist, and team clinician to provide mental health services. Player safety was a focus of the CBA, with the focus on improved workers’ compensation for the women athletes. Further, the CBA added layers of protection such as six months of paid mental health leave. To support the women athletes in an amplified manner, the CBA stipulated for eight weeks paid parental leave, private nursing facilities for parents, and professional minimum staffing standards for healthcare professionals. Finally, the league agreed to protect players by ensuring a fix season with start and end windows, with a built-in guaranteed forty-two days of vacation, and a seven-day summer break during the season. Further, the CBA took a massive step regarding pay for the women athletes. The CBA requires compensation of a minimum salary of $35,000, with four percent yearly increases. This salary is a 160 percent increase from the previous minimum salary within the league. The CBA also includes a step ladder increase in 2022, with a purpose to protect players above the minimum in 2021 401k plan with matching contributions from the NWSL commencing in 2023. Beginning in 2023, there will be minimum standards for housing stipends. The NWSL also states that there will be improved group licenses provisions, with commitment by the league for $255,000-$300,000 per year for group licensing rights. This CBA took much negotiation by the NWSL’s Player Association, with more than thirty players involved in the negotiating process. The NWSL’s Player Association released a statement regarding the CBA, stating they are “grateful to our brothers and sisters in the labor movement who paved the way for us to get here, and to our fans and partners for their unwavering support. We want to especially thank our legal team of Deb Willig, Jessica Caggiano, and Larry Goodman of Willig, Williams & Davidson. There is no one else we would have wanted to spend more than 400 hours on a Zoom with. To the players who came before us: We stand on your shoulders. We hope we made you proud.” Since the NWSL just began pre-season, time will tell to see how effectively the CBA serves the players. In the meantime, NWSL supporters everywhere are proud to see the steps taken by the NWSL’s Players Association to amplify the rights of our professional soccer players. Ashlyn can be found on Twitter @Ashlyn_Stone2.

Plaintiff Continuum Capital filed a lawsuit against NBA agent Charles Briscoe on Wednesday in the Superior Court in Delaware. Continuum alleges breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The plaintiff, a Bahamian company, demands a jury trial and requests no less than $2 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages and costs. This lawsuit arises out of the formation of Icon Legacy Group. Icon was formed in March 2021 by Continuum (the majority owner) and Briscoe (the minority owner), and was intended to be a sports agency focused primarily on serving athletes playing within the NBA. According to the complaint, at that time, Briscoe represented to Continuum that he was Dwight Howard’s agent and that he was finalizing a new contract for Howard that would generate fees to fund the new business, Icon. Continuum claims that, based on said representation by Briscoe, it gained confidence to invest significant capital into Icon. Specifically, based on Briscoe’s representations and his promise to contribute his existing business, Continuum says that it agreed to invest up to $1.4 million in Icon to enable Briscoe to grow and develop the business. In connection with Continuum’s investment, Briscoe entered into an employment agreement with Icon in April 2021, pursuant to which he agreed to serve as Icon’s CEO and “lead and develop all revenue generation of Icon.” Continuum claims that even after Icon was formed and funded, Briscoe continued to make misrepresentations that business was thriving. Briscoe allegedly told the plaintiff that (1) Icon had signed Chris Duarte, at that time a recent graduate of Oregon University who was likely to be a first-round pick in the NBA draft; (2) Dwight Howard signed a shoe deal that would net Icon $1 million; (3) Duarte later signed a contract with the Indiana Pacers that Icon would receive a significant fee from; and (4) Duarte signed a shoe deal with Nike that would pay Icon 20% of the contract’s value ($200,000 per year plus certain performance bonuses). Due to Briscoe’s representations, Continuum says it ultimately poured $900,000 of funding into Icon. However, plaintiff claims that it discovered in August 2021 that Briscoe lost Howard as a client and that Icon never received any of the proceeds that Briscoe claimed were forthcoming from the Howard and Duarte contracts. On Duarte, Continuum claims that it had good reason to believe that the former Oregon guard signed as an Icon client. On April 12, 2021, Chris Haynes, a Yahoo Sports reporter covering the NBA, announced on his Twitter account that Duarte had signed with Icon. Additionally, on that same day, Briscoe posted on Icon’s Instagram page (@icon_legacy_group) that Icon had signed Duarte (as of the filing of the Complaint, the post is still active). On Howard, Continuum claims that it also had good reason to believe that the center was an Icon client. Consistent with Briscoe's representations asserting such to be true, three posts were put up on the Icon Instagram page that related to Howard (which further supported Briscoe’s claim that Icon was representing him). However, in August of 2021, Continuum says it learned through the media that Howard had signed a contract with the Los Angeles Lakers with another agent. This announcement, released by ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski on August 2, 2021, stated that Howard’s agent was Qais Haider, not Icon (as Briscoe had represented both personally and via the Icon Instagram page). Icon never received payment for the Howard or Duarte shoe deals, nor any contract in connection with either player. Upon said discoveries, Continuum demanded that Briscoe buy the company out of Icon. According to the complaint, Briscoe did agree to do so and the parties entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement on September 29, 2021, to memorialize the terms of the buy-out. Pursuant to the agreement, Continuum says Briscoe agreed to make three scheduled payments to Continuum by November 29, 2021, for a total amount of $900,100 in exchange for all of Continuum’s interest in Icon. Despite multiple demands, Continuum claims it has yet to receive a single payment from Briscoe under the agreement, and thus filed this lawsuit. Accordingly, per the complaint, "Continuum seeks a judgment awarding it (1) compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000 resulting from Briscoe’s breach of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments thereunder; (2) compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000 resulting from Briscoe’s fraudulent misrepresentations inducing Continuum to enter into the Term Sheet and fund Icon; (3) punitive damages; (4) Continuum’s costs in bringing this action; and (5) such further relief that the Court deems just and proper." 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.

Apart from the San Diego lawsuit, there may be some controversy in St. Louis about their settlement with the NFL. Dan Wallach, co-host of “Conduct Detrimental,” made an interesting discovery regarding St. Louis’ city attorney. The city attorney is a former equity partner at the Dowd Bennett LLP law firm. The Dowd Bennett law firm was one of the two firms that represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the NFL. Less than two months before she became St. Louis’ city attorney, the firm still considered her a partner. In attorney fees, the Dowd Bennett firm received a figure that reached nine figures, approximately $125 million they received from their work and involvement as the plaintiffs’ co-attorneys. This is an interesting discovery because the public may wonder why the plaintiffs settled when the dollar amount could have reached billions, and this may be a link to it, or this could be a plain coincidence. Trial would have started January 10th, and now that the Rams are participating in Super Bowl LVI at SOFI Stadium, Kroenke’s gem, this litigation would have put the football world on notice to St. Louis rather than all attention to Inglewood, California. Mayor Jones said she did not agree to a settlement, but her statement could be taken out of context. The client has the ultimate say in their case, but the attorneys could have advised her to take the money now rather than litigate it against the NFL in a court of law where nothing was certain. I find it hard to believe she had influence over Mayor Jones’ and County Executive Page’s decision to settle the lawsuit. The money is guaranteed, and there is no pending litigation. They do not have to pay any more attorney fees, and they guaranteed St. Louis with over $500 million for public funding. The attorneys, on a thirty-five percent contingent fee, took in over $200 million for their respective firms. Over six long and grueling years of litigation are over for St. Louis. They can forget about the NFL, as most St. Louisans have after the Rams left on that grim day in 2016, January 12th to be exact. St. Louis does not need the NFL. They have the Cardinals and are considered a “baseball town.” They rally behind their sports teams, the Cardinals, the NHL’s Blues, and the MLS’ St. Louis City, who begin play in 2023. The NFL is a bygone for the city, and they are hoping they receive the Battlehawks again once Dwayne Johnson rejuvenates the Xtreme Football League (XFL). They despise Stan Kroenke and Kevin Demoff, akin to Mr. Burns and Waylon Smithers from The Simpsons, but it has been six years since the Rams left town. If it was not for Kroenke partnering with then Rams owner Georgia Frontierre, the Rams never would have left Los Angeles for St. Louis. Kroenke cares about the money, not the cities or people he “hurts” in the process. The NFL is a business, and it stands for “Not For Long” for markets to keep their teams if the owners do not get their way. I’m still rooting for whichever team plays the Rams, but it is not the players fault or Sean McVay’s fault they left St. Louis. It is Stan Kroenke’s pursuit for money that caused the Rams to leave St. Louis, and he played the league like a fiddle, with the alleged help from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Roger Goodell may have played a part, but the NFL wanted Los Angeles, and Kroenke was one of the few owners who had the pockets to get them there. I hope this is addressed in greater detail prior to Super Bowl LVI. St. Louis has not discussed what they plan to do with the settlement money, and who had the final say to accept the NFL’s settlement offer. Thank you to Dan Wallach for his deep dive into the settled St. Louis lawsuit. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71

Dan Rooney, the former Pittsburgh Steelers' owner, proposed a rule where NFL clubs must interview at least one minority for their head coaching job and other open positions. However, this process has become a laughingstock and an embarrassment in the NFL. The Rooney Rule was instituted with great intentions to include diversity among coaches and front office personnel in the National Football League (NFL) when it was introduced in 2002-2003 following the controversial firings of head coaches Tony Dungy and the late Dennis Green. Dungy was the Buccaneers head coach, and Green was the Minnesota Vikings head coach. It is supposed to institute affirmative action. However, only three head coaches are minorities. Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers is African-American, Robert Saleh of the New York Jets is Lebanese, and Ron Rivera of the newly named Washington Commanders is Latino. Minority coaches make up a whopping 0.09% rate of head coaches in the NFL. Clearly, the rule has good intentions, but it is not working Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment. Currently in the NFL, minority head coaches make up . Allegations are arising that former head coaches were asked to lose games, and if they did, they would be paid a salary bonus by the club’s owner. As reported by ESPN, the NFL Network, The Athletic, and other sources, former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores was “interviewed” by the New York Giants after the club made its decision to hire former Buffalo Bills offensive coordinator Brian Daboll. Technically, the Giants adhered to the Rooney Rule, but the story gets worse. Brian Flores was an assistant under Bill Belichick, the New England Patriots’ head coach. Coach Belichick sent Mr. Flores a congratulatory text about receiving the head coaching job with the Giants. Mr. Flores responded, saying he did not receive the job. Coach Belichick said something along the lines of “oops, my bad.” Now, Kevin Seifert of ESPN reports Brian Flores has filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL and its teams this week, accusing them of sham interviews, incentivizing losses and pressure to improperly recruit players. An example is Hue Jackson during his tenure with the Cleveland Browns. Browns’ owner Mr. Haslam allegedly told Coach Jackson for every game he lost, he would pay him an extra $100,000. Brian Flores was offered monetary awards by Dolphins owner Stephen Ross for the same action. Brian Flores was fired after two seasons at the helm, and he did not have a losing season. Another example is an African-American coach being interviewed by the Denver Broncos, and there are accusations that team president John Elway walked in, conducted a quick interview, and left. The Broncos conducted the interview to meet the Rooney Rule requirement. Late Thursday evening, the Jacksonville Jaguars announced they hired former Philadelphia Eagles head coach Doug Pederson. One can wonder if there were any “sham” interviews conducted by their owner Jeffrey Lurie. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

This week has been a whirlwind of reveals in the NFL. Brian Flores filed suit against the NFL for a plethora of claims including racial discrimination. Brian Flores also claimed that Miami Dolphins Owner, Stephen Ross, offered him $100,000 bonus for every loss in the 2019 season. That was a stunning revelation, yet it was hearsay (admissible hearsay), but hearsay nonetheless. Then a few days ago an article appeared on the nfl.com website with an accompanying tweet about a potential witness to corroborate the claim by Former Miami Dolphins Head Coach, Brian Flores that owner Stephen Ross offered him $100,000 for every loss during the 2019 season. The obvious thinking regarding losing on purpose commonly known as “tanking” is that you ensure that you get a very, very high pick preferably the number #1 overall pick to put yourself in position to acquire a franchise QB. The star QB of the 2020 NFL draft was in fact Cincinnati Bengals QB, Joe Burrow who was a prime target for a trade in the draft. The Miami Dolphins held several First Round Picks including the #5 overall in the 2020 draft but were unable to convince the Bengals to part with the rights to draft Joe Burrow (a very wise decision indeed). Flash forward to today and Joe Burrow aka “Joey Brrrr” is facing off against fellow SEC QB, Matthew Stafford in Super Bowl XLVI next Sunday at Sofi Stadium in Los Angeles while Dolphins starting QB, Tua Tagovailoa is probably off not learning his playbook somewhere. The article then disappeared. However, that begs the question, why would an article with a potential witness simply “disappear”? Well, that article could have been the smoking gun in a potential criminal case against Stephen Ross for Bribery in Athletic Contests. When prosecutors are deciding whether to file charges against a defendant, they always look to see what corroborating evidence they have because the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an incredibly high bar to achieve. The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office would need more than Brian Flores saying Stephen Ross offered me $100,000 per loss during the 2019 season. That is because a prosecutor is not going to want to go to trial on just those facts because Mr. Ross would be facing a dream team of lawyers in a potential criminal trial. It would be a 5-10 minute Not Guilty. However, a potential corroborating witness is a horse of a different color. In any criminal case, if you have an independent witness who doesn’t have a dog in the fight, their testimony is exceptionally compelling to a jury. A jury listens to that witness with their full attention because what motive do they have to lie? A great prosecutor then digs deeper and finds out that this potential witness is one of several potential witnesses or even that physical evidence exists. I personally do not think Mr. Ross would be careless enough to make that offer via email or in writing. As seen above, this charge is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. However, the offense is a level one offense (Florida follows sentencing guidelines and as such any potential conviction would not result in prison). A conviction could absolutely lead to an adjudication or even jail time. However, how likely would that be? Without the corroborating witness, the likelihood of a conviction is close to zero. Under the statute, an individual need only to promise payment to somebody in a position to control the outcome of the game. A coach can absolutely control the outcome of the game. Additionally, Brian Flores allegedly rejected the offer and did nothing to intentionally lose games. However, with an independent corroborating witness, the potential for conviction jumps to roughly 60%+ because the prosecutor will explain why Stephen Ross wanted Brian Flores to tank; he wanted Joe Burrow. If Joe Burrow wins the Super Bowl, everybody in the country will know his name and those who watched the Super Bowl will understand EXACTLY why Stephen Ross allegedly offered Brian Flores what he did. If he lost, all 16 games, Flores would have collected $1.6 million. That is peanuts compared to money Ross would make on Joe Burrow jerseys, season tickets, marketing opportunities etc. Stephen Ross would make it back 1000x if Flores accepted. There was another report that Stephen Ross tried to facilitate an impromptu meeting between Flores and pending Free Agent Quarterback, Tom Brady when their yachts just happened to be near each other. The corroborating witness article got taken down because my educated guess is that attorneys for Stephen Ross’ made NFL.com take it down. If a prospective prosecutor saw that article, you better bet some prosecutor would have asked law enforcement to investigate. Motive is not required to be proven in a Florida criminal case. However, the jury can connect the dots that Mr. Ross wanted to acquire a true franchise Quarterback by any means necessary. Hopefully, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office opens an investigation; because after seeing what happened with Washington, we know the NFL doesn’t truly conduct independent investigations. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

As reported by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, New Orleans Saints star Alvin Kamara was arrested for Battery with Serious Bodily Injury after allegedly beating someone up in a nightclub on Saturday night. That charge is a Class B felony and as such punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. However, what did Mr. Kamara allegedly do to the victim to be arrested for such a crime? As reported by Metro Police, they were called to the hospital to interview the alleged victim in this case. Based on the victim interview, they appear to have concluded that they had enough evidence to arrest Mr. Kamara of the crime of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury. Battery is normally a misdemeanor; however, the serious bodily injury component makes it a Class B felony. The most likely scenario is that the alleged victim sustained either broken bone(s) or was forced to get stitches because of the alleged altercation with Mr. Kamara. Under the statute, either is enough to sustain the Class B felony charge. Additionally, since this is a Las Vegas nightclub there had to have been video surveillance of the entire club and very likely caught this whole incident on video. I await the inevitable video leak of this incident via TMZ. I reviewed the Clark County Court Website to get more facts about the alleged incident, but details were very scarce. This case will develop and I want to know the following: How did this alleged altercation begin? Did Mr. Kamara throw the first punch or did the victim, or someone associated with the victim do it? That matters because Mr. Kamara could argue self-defense and I do not think any jury is going to sympathize with a victim who starts the fight and cries foul when somebody else finishes it. Who are the potential witnesses? Is Mr. Kamara there with his crew or are other NFL players potential witnesses in this case? Independent witnesses are liquid gold in battery cases. If they exist, it allows a jury to better understand what led to the fight from somebody who has no motive to fabricate the truth. I hardly think that Mr. Kamara just walked up to a random person and punched him for no reason. There had to be some lead up to the altercation. Battery cases are very difficult to prove because usually the victim does not want to press charges. However, that is usually only the case in domestic violence battery cases (where the victim and defendant are in a romantic relationship). That is unlikely the case here because my feeling is that it was an altercation with somebody Mr. Kamara had just met on Saturday night. Victims who have no relationship with the Defendant almost always want to move forward with the charges. The reason is that the victim’s don’t have a voice in their head saying this was a one-time thing he/she will be better in the future. He/she just needs help. The alleged victim in Mr. Kamara’s case doesn’t have that voice. The victim in Mr. Kamara’s case is likely thinking, “|He needs to be punished for what he did and he needs to pay up.” I fully expect the victim to sue Mr. Kamara and the nightclub in civil court before this case is over but that is a discussion for another day. For now, this incident is the third incident of NFL players in Las Vegas in as many months (Henry Ruggs III and Damon Arnette being the others) and is challenging the mantra that what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

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].