On opening day, April 11, 1973 former New York Yankee team owner George Steinbrenner was present to watch his recently acquired Major League Baseball franchise. As players warmed up pre-game, Steinbrenner immediately noticed some players had hair that was long enough to be visible below their collar. As a result, garnishing inspiration from his veteran status with the U.S. Air Force, as well as having a successful tenure in corporate America, Steinbrenner adopted the still standing New York Yankees Facial and Grooming Policy. The official employment policy establishes that, "All players, coaches and male executives are forbidden to display any facial hair other than mustaches (except for religious reasons), and scalp hair may not be grown below the collar. Long sideburns and 'mutton chops' are not specifically banned.”[1] For the last 47 years, Yankee players have had little to no input as it pertains to their bodily autonomy in regard to facial hair and hairstyle. It begs the question, is any of this legal? In 2019, Sheryl Ring established how the policy is likely in violation of New York state law. Last year, Dylan Harriger, approached the issue from a first amendment standpoint. Here, I seek to assess the legality of the policy as it may hypothetically pertain to facial hair, Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (PFB), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e et seq. (Title VII). Title VII prohibits discrimination in virtually every employment circumstance on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, or national origin. It applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. The purpose of Title VII's protections is to require employers to consider only objective, job-related criteria in making employment decisions. An employment practice may be in violation of Title VII as a result of the employment actions discriminatory “disparate impact” or “disparate treatment”. A claim arguing that an employment grooming and facial hair policy is discriminatory, such as the Yankees, would likely have a discriminatory disparate impact as an employer’s facially neutral policy has a disproportionate and unintended effect on a protected race. In a disparate impact claim under Title VII the plaintiff is required to prove their prima facie case by identifying a specific employer policy or practice that applies to all employees equally. The Plaintiff must prove: (a) The Policy, procedure, or practice is a barrier to employment opportunities; (b) for members of a protected class; (c) has an adverse impact on that protected class; and (d) the adverse impact is caused by the specific employment practice. Subsequently, the defendant can prevail by showing that the requirement is job related and consistent with a business necessity. An employer can sustain this defense by demonstrating that the challenged practice has a manifested relationship to the relevant job. Even if the defendant satisfies their aforementioned burden, the plaintiff can still prevail by establishing that there is an alternative employment practice available with less discriminatory impact that still satisfies the employer’s business need. As the federal case law on the matter suggests, the New York Yankees unique facial hair and grooming policy is likely in violation of Title VII. It is true that federal courts routinely dismiss race discrimination claims challenging grooming codes in the work place. However, the specific requirements of the Yankees current standing policy likely render it federally illegal, specifically due to its restrictions on facial hair as the policy pertains to a hypothetical, Black employee, diagnosed with PFB. One of the leading cases on employment facial hair policy is, University of Maryland at Baltimore v. Boyd, 612 A.2d 305 (Md. 1992). In Boyd, an employee succeeded on a claim that the University of Maryland at Baltimore’s facial hair policy was discriminatory as it related to African Americans. This specific policy was found to be discriminatory due to the fact that African American men are more likely to be affected by a skin disease known as PFB.[2] PFB can render the practice of shaving and facial grooming incredibly painful. Since this disease is specific to African American men, and is unquestionably immutable, the court found the policy to be in violation of federal law, as the policy had a disparate impact on a protected class of employees. In defense of its policy, the University argued that grooming standards of their employees are important to reflect in their view the correct public image. However, the court held that, “[t]his business necessity, however, is outweighed by the discriminatory impact of the policy. Other evidence introduced at the hearing showed that similar organizations with similar grooming policies allowed officers, diagnosed as suffering from PFB, to grow neatly trimmed beards in order to alleviate the condition.” Similarly, the plaintiff in, Richardson v. Quick Trip, 591 F.Supp.1151 (S.D. Iowa 1984), challenged an almost identical employment policy that restricted the growth of facial hair. The court in Richardson found, “[s]cientific studies indicate that between forty-five to eighty-three percent of all Black males who shave may be excluded from employment with the defendant because their PFB condition makes compliance with the no-beard policy insufferable. Less than one percent of white males are so hindered in obtaining employment with the defendant.” The defendant-employer argued that this policy was a business necessity, as any other facial hair policy would lead to an increase in customer dissatisfaction, however, the court held in favor of Richardson. Specifically, its holding established that the employer “can limit the perceived threat of customer dissatisfaction previously discussed by enforcing the no-beard policy against all employees except those who provide a medical certificate showing that they are afflicted by PFB.” As a result, the court held that the plaintiff’s discharge for violation of defendants "no-beard policy" constituted racial discrimination, as the policy had an unquestionably had a discriminatory disparate impact on African-American men, diagnosed with PFB. The employment policy in Boyd and Richardson would both likely be found to be analogous to the one in question. The Yankees have signed numerous African American males, with facial hair other than mustaches throughout the last nearly five decades, such as, former National League Most Valuable Player, Andrew McCutchen. All of those who ended up playing for the organization have had to shave their facial hair. McCutchen was outspoken against the policy. Years after he had to shave his trademark dreadlocks and facial hair, McCutchen stated, “I definitely do think it takes away from our individualism as players and as people. We express ourselves in different ways.”[3] Other MLB stars have even refused to sign with the Yankees due to this policy. In 2013, Pitching-Ace David Price stated he would never sign with the Yankees due to their facial hair and grooming standards.[4] Consequently, the Yankees facial hair and grooming policy resulted in the organization potentially missing out on signing the previous season’s American League Cy Young Award winner. Recently, in Bey v. City of New York, 999 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2021), New York City based African American male firefighters, who had been diagnosed with PFB, brought a discrimination claim against city and the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). They alleged that the department's rescission of an accommodation exempting plaintiffs from the department's “clean-shave standard” for personal grooming was in violation of Title VII. This employment standard was put in place to comply with Federal Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) regulations and New York State laws ensuring that facial hair does not inhibit a fireman’s respirator from fitting properly when worn. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of New York the FDNY on the Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim. This is due to the fact that the City raised the defense that they could not comply with the accommodation asked of by the plaintiffs due to the fact that the respiratory-protection standard is a business necessity. The court made clear however, when there are no federal safety regulations that require an employer to follow a specific employment practice, discriminatory disparate impact will be found. As the City did in Bey, if a similar case was brought against the Yankees, they would likely argue that facial hair policy was a business necessity. However, unlike firemen, there exists no OSHA standard or state law requiring baseball players to shave for their safety. As such the defense would likely be found as pretextual, and the Plaintiff-employee would prevail. Political and legal scholars have disagreed about the neutrality of dress and grooming policies. Many contend that they implicitly enforce culturally “white norms”. See Devon W. Carbado and Mitu Gulati, Acting White?: Rethinking Race in Post-Racial America (2013); Angela Onwauchi-Willig, Another Hair Piece Exploring New Strands of Analysis Under Title VII, 98 Geo. L.J. 1079 (2010). Currently, professional baseball players, such as Fernando Tatís Jr., are demonstrating employment autonomy and choice when dealing with their respective organizations. Major League Baseball is currently seeing an influx of new stars who are able to bring a new energy to the league through their expressionism and individualism. Despite this however, Steinbrenner’s policy has remained unchanged, and is continuously proving to be more antiquated with each passing season. Even the U.S. Air Force policy, which was Steinbrenner’s influence, has subsequently made several changes in the interim, allowing for men’s facial hair medical exemptions.[5] Is such a potentially legally discriminatory employment practice morally, ethically and or politically responsible for the second most valuable professional sports franchise in the world to continue?[6] [1] https://www.mlb.com/news/no-beard-in-the-bronx-brian-wilson-wont-shave-for-new-york-yankees/c-63902080 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585396/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN4V4eqYOZA&t=224s [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578320741510151474 [5] https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/air-force-grooming-standards/#men-regs [6] https://www.espn.com/soccer/barcelona-espbarcelona/story/4382031/barcelona-ranked-worlds-fourth-most-valuable-sports-team-forbes

The passionately debated topic of transgender athletes and their rights to participate in athletics has intensified across media sites considering the recent success experienced by Lia Thomas, a University of Pennsylvania transgender female student-athlete swimmer. Her notoriety has brought to the forefront the balancing of the rights of transgender athletes and the idea of keeping an equal playing field. Policymakers are struggling to find a middle ground that mutually benefits both sides without compromising the protections afforded by the laws of the United States. Significant Legal Decisions Several significant legal decisions on transgender students and their rights to equal participation have been handed down. On June 15th, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) held in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer who discriminates against an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most important takeaway from this case is the Supreme Court’s conclusion that a person’s “sex” is defined by gender identity and not by their biological gender. This conclusion has led to much speculation and insight into how SCOTUS could rule in future cases involving Title IX discrimination and the right of transgender athletes to compete in sports and utilize facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms. In August of 2020, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued a response to a complaint filed by three cisgender females alleging that the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (“CIAC”) violated Title IX with their policy allowing transgender athletes to compete based on their gender identity. The three females, who competitively competed in the 55-meter dash, asserted that it was almost impossible for them to prevail against transgender girls, thus denying them the equal opportunity to win events, championships, and to possibly attract the attention of college recruiters to obtain a collegiate athletic scholarship which are all violations of Title IX. The OCR concluded that for purposes of Title IX enforcement, the term “sex” as used in the Title IX statute refers to one’s biological gender and not their gender identity, therefore finding the transgender participation policy of the CIAC to be in direct violation of Title IX. Although the cisgender females claim they have zero chance of prevailing against a transgender female in the 55-meter dash, Chelsea Mitchell, a cisgender female who was an original claimant, won the Connecticut 55-meter Dash state championship beating out one of the transgender girls. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has yet to definitively answer the question of whether the term “sex” is defined as one’s gender identity or biological gender regarding Title IX. The issue of transgender athletes and their right to participate became a very politicized topic with the Trump administration striking out the Title IX guidance provided by the Obama administration, which defines gender identity as the controlling factor and inserting the policy of the OCR that defines biological gender as the controlling factor. President Joe Biden has pledged to reinstate the Obama-era Title IX guidance. Recent Trends in Judicial Decisions In August of 2020, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm, a sophomore at a Virginia High School, who in 2014 was barred from using the boys’ restroom. The court held that “sex” in the Title IX statute refers to gender identity. This 2020 Fourth Circuit decision upheld a 2019 ruling that even in the absence of the guidelines provided by the Obama administration, gender identity is still the controlling factor governing the rights of transgender students in education and sports participation. In August of 2020, a U.S. District Court in Idaho issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of a state statute that limited the participation of transgender women in sporting events concluding that the Plaintiffs were likely to establish that the statute is unconstitutional. Since the District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs are likely to establish that the statute is unconstitutional. The recent trends in judicial decisions favoring the transgender athlete coupled with Biden administration’s pledge to reinstate the Obama-era Title IX Guidance, may indicate an environment that is more conducive for SCOTUS to define “sex” on the basis of gender identity regarding the participation of transgender athletes in sports. Lia Thomas: Penn Swimmer Recently, University of Pennsylvania student-athlete Lia Thomas has been the subject of severe backlash due to the swimmer’s recent success in the pool. Although Thomas has diligently followed the strict guidelines for transgender student-athletes provided by the NCAA, many debates the fairness and equity of having a former man compete against women in sport. Thomas is a transgender woman who was a former member of the UPenn men’s swimming program, where Thomas competed for three years. After receiving hormone suppressant therapy, which the NCAA requires, Thomas began competing as a member of Penn’s women’s program. Thomas has posted impressive times throughout the swimming season that suggests the swimmer could challenge American records of Missy Franklin and Katie Ledecky at the NCAA Championships. John Lohn, the editor-in-chief of Swimming World, has argued that even though Thomas has endured the required testosterone suppression therapy, the advantage possessed by Thomas has not been mitigated, thus resulting in an unfair advantage to biological females. Lohn compares Thomas’ presence in the water as relatable to racing against the doping athletes of East Germany and China. Lohn claims that the NCAA’s protocol requiring a full year of hormone suppressant therapy is not enough to mitigate the advantages of years of testosterone production fully. Lohn states that it is critical to find a welcoming environment for transgender athletes but not without guaranteeing a level playing field for biological women. On the other hand, ACLU Philadelphia Trans Justice Coordinator Naiymah Sanchez thinks Thomas’ participation as a transgender woman is “amazing.” Sanchez went on to explain that “Trans rights are human rights and that trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the gender with which they identify. Dr. Raymond Cattaneo, a lead pediatric faculty member of the Pride Program stated that “Thomas is absolutely following the rules set forth by the NCAA.” Many argue that the playing field is unfair for cisgender athletes because they do not possess the physical attributes that a transgender woman has even after hormone suppression therapy. Sanchez rebuts this claim with evidence of her own experiences that even cisgender women athletes can have physical advantages over cisgender women or even transgender women. Regardless of one’s thoughts about the rights and protections of transgender athletes participating in sporting events, we must caution ourselves on being overly critical of student-athlete Lia Thomas. Thomas has willfully participated in hormone suppression and followed all the guidelines provided by the NCAA to participate in women’s swimming. Barring a sudden change in legislation or if SCOTUS grants certiorari on a case involving transgender athletes and their right to compete, Thomas should and will be allowed the opportunity to compete and possibly win an NCAA National Championship. Adrian Hannah is a 3L at the University of Arkansas School of Law. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Finance from the Walton School of Business at the University of Arkansas in 2021. He can be contacted via email at aph004@uark.edu or on Twitter @AdrianHannah3. Video and picture of NCAA guidelines via the NCAA website.

The NCAA football coaching carousel has begun and has already shown to shake things up a bit. News broke on Sunday that Lincoln Riley was departing Oklahoma and heading to USC.[1] Also notably, Brian Kelly left Notre Dame and is on the move to Baton Rouge to become the next head coach for LSU.[2] In addition, a variety of other programs have made announcements of new hires. However, there is one major issue looming. The 2020-2021 season is not entirely over yet. While the college football playoff hope is all but decimated for Oklahoma after losing to Oklahoma State and not qualifying for the Big 12 title game, Notre Dame is not entirely out of the playoff picture. They are currently ranked 6th with all five teams ahead of them playing this upcoming weekend in their conference championship games.[3] While only four teams will make the college football playoff, it is not outlandish to consider Notre Dame may potentially be amongst the top four teams remaining, contingent on some outcomes this coming weekend. In short, this is where the issue comes into play. Notre Dame has a chance to be a college football playoff team, yet their head coach just left the program. But this should not matter, right? Wrong. This does in fact matter. And the worst part about it for Notre Dame players is this fact clearly matters to the college football playoff selection committee. Committee Chair Gary Barta stated, that "once the championship games wrap up .... our protocol does include the ability for the committee to consider a player or coach not being available."[4] Pause right there. Do you understand the implication this statement has? To put it plain and simple, whether it ultimately impacts this decision, and whether Notre Dame even qualifies as a potential top-four team is irrelevant. The fact alone that a coach, here Brian Kelly, departing a program can impact a team’s final ranking is incredibly significant. So significant, that Athletic Directors everywhere will likely need to reconsider this implication in future coaching contract negotiations. It is simply not good for NCAA Football, programs, or its players that a coach departing can have this strong of an impact on a team’s ranking after a full regular season of play. Whether or not it is fair for the committee to consider this, is beside the point. The point is that Athletic Directors everywhere will now likely need to amply protect their programs by reconsidering this point of leverage in their coaching contracts liquidated damages provisions. If a coach harms a team like this, the coach should have to pay. Alternatively, there is another solution. A rule change. While the NCAA may not have the direct authority to limit coaches to a window of when they are permitted to seek other employment, institutions have the discretion to make hiring decisions when they are inclined. Whether a formal agreement is reached at the conference level, or this elevates to the NCAA, an initiative driven by Athletic Directions and institutions seems reasonable to restrict coaches’ mobility during the final weeks of the season. This may even be construed as a reasonable, short-term non-compete. It is undoubtedly not in the best interest of NCAA Football to have a team play an entire regular season of games just to have their coach leave, and then the team ultimately be the party punished out of the chance to compete in the postseason. If schools, conferences, or even the entire NCAA can agree to withhold from hiring new head coaches until after the National Championship, this issue would become moot. However, this is easier said than done. The reason that schools want a leg up and rush to hire a new coach as soon as possible is that coaches have an obvious impact on recruiting. This was further evidenced this week when Five-star QB Malachi Nelson flipped his commitment from Oklahoma to USC to follow Lincoln Riley.[5] The sooner (no pun intended) a coach is announced somewhere, the sooner their impact can be felt on the program’s recruitment. Realistically, what is the solution then? A solution may be to extend the recruitment dead period through November and December and perhaps even the beginning of January. The NCAA can implement such a rule change, which may serve as a partial deterrent from coaches changing schools so quickly. However, for such a rule change to be effective the NCAA may need to reevaluate the current dead period contact rules and give them more teeth. The current dead period rules permit athletes and coaches to communicate via phone, email, and other forms of digital communication during this period. The dead period limitation is mainly targeted at limiting in-person recruiting.[6] For such a rule change to be effective, the dead period restriction may need to deter all levels of communication. Surely, this change may prove difficult to enforce. Further, a counterargument may even reasonably be made asserting that this limitation may ultimately hinder student-athletes ability to be recruited. This concern may be even more detrimental than the issues caused from coaching changes. Ultimately, it seems clear that the proposed solutions may not be the perfect answer or the final recommendations to combat the coaching carousel issue. However, the fact remains that Athletic Directors, schools, conferences, and potentially the NCAA need to act. It is unjust for NCAA Football that a (likely financially motivated) coaching change can impact a postseason berth. For a sport that strives on competitive equity, this does not drive competition, and it is surely not equal. Perhaps, it is time for a change. This article is also available on LongRunSports at https://www.longrunsports.com/post/could-the-brian-kelly-coaching-change-lead-to-a-rule-change. Anthony Studnicka is a licensed attorney who also holds a Masters in Sports Law and Business from Arizona State University. He is the founder of www.LongRunSports.com and can be found on twitter at @Anthony_Stud. [1] Mark Schlabach, Lincoln Riley Leaving Oklahoma To Be USC Head Football Coach, ESPN (Nov. 28, 2021), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32737893/lincoln-riley-leaving-oklahoma-become-usc-head-football-coach-sources-say. [2] Michael Shapiro, LSU Officially Names Brian Kelly Next Head Coach, Sports Illustrated (Nov. 30, 2021), https://www.si.com/college/2021/11/30/lsu-officially-names-brian-kelly-next-head-coach. [3] College Football Playoff, College Football Playoff Rankings, (last visited: Dec. 1, 2021) https://collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx. [4] Bryan Driskell, Brian Kelly’s Departure Didn’t Impact Notre Dame’s Playoff Ranking …. Yet, Sports Illustrated (Dec. 1, 2021), https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/notre-dame-football-playoff-ranking-impacted-by-brian-kelly-leaving. [5] Tom VanHaaren, Five-Star QB Malachi Nelson First Former Oklahoma Sooners Commit To Follow Lincoln Riley To USC Trojans, ESPN (Nov. 30, 2021), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32756531/five-star-qb-malachi-nelson-first-former-oklahoma-sooners-commit-follow-lincoln-riley-usc-trojans. [6] Next College Student Athlete, What Is The NCAA Dead Period?, NCSA (last visited: Dec. 1, 2021) https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/recruiting-rules/dead-period.

On November 1st, 2008, Texas Tech fans, administrators, and student athletes probably felt like Mike Leach was the perfect coach to lead their football program for the foreseeable future. That night, his Red Raiders upset the top-ranked Texas Longhorns on a heroic last second play by Graham Harrell and Michael Crabtree. As a result, Texas Tech climbed to number 2 in the following week’s AP Poll, the highest ranking in school history. No one in Lubbock would have even considered the possibility that Leach would be let go just a season later. However, in December of 2009 allegations emerged over Leach’s mistreatment of a player suffering a concussion. There seemed to be no concrete investigation into the allegations and Mike Leach refused to apologize for his actions and claimed university officials illegally hid documents. This led the President of Texas Tech to suspend Leach, which prompted the coach to file a temporary restraining order against the school hoping to still coach the upcoming bowl game. Instead, the President and Athletic Director decided “the relationship was probably broken,” and fired Leach with cause. As we just saw in the Urban Meyer downfall in Jacksonville, the for cause element in a coach’s contract can be a tricky element to figure out. There is a fine line between upholding morality and violating a rule or breaking a law. Texas Tech obviously believed that Leach crossed the line. However, Leach has strongly maintained over the years that he was cheated out of money promised in his contract. He has insisted that he won’t go away until he gets a check for the roughly $2.5 million he feels he’s owed. Ever since, Leach has been in a legal battle with the university for nearly 12 years now. His temporary restraining order fell short when he was fired and when he sued the school for wrongful termination, the Texas Supreme Court rejected his appeal in 2012 without an opinion. More recently, Wayne Dolcefino, who runs an investigative media consulting firm, has battled Texas Tech over public information record requests. While it’s said that time heals all wounds and many in college athletics have forgotten about this case, it was brought back to the limelight in this year’s bowl season. After elevating the Washington State football program from 2013 to 2019 following his dismissal from Tech, Leach took a job in the SEC at Mississippi State. In his second season at the helm in Starkville, his Bulldogs accepted a bid to the AutoZone Liberty Bowl to play… the Texas Tech Red Raiders. In his initial press conference following the news of the bowl matchup, Mike Leach addressed that he is still not happy with the officials at Texas Tech who made the decision to fire him with cause over a decade ago. “In Lubbock, there were four bad apples that were determined to cheat me out of my salary,” Leach said. “We know about that. And the other four years on my contract. And then continued to hide the documents illegally.” “I’ve been willing to settle this thing for a long time, but they don’t seem to be willing to,” Leach added. “I think that’s unfortunate. I think all the people there are great. Some of the leadership, at least when I was there, was very sleazy and slimy and dirty. I enjoy naming names on it too, which I might as well. They all know who they are. We should get this thing settled. They should pay me. And we should all celebrate achievements together. But that doesn’t seem to be what they have in mind.” Going into Tuesday night’s Liberty Bowl, many thought that Leach would be extremely motivated to get some revenge on his former school. The Bulldogs were nearly double-digit favorites to beat the Red Raiders, but things didn't go as anticipated. Despite having an interim coaching staff, Texas Tech bludgeoned Leach’s squad to the tune of a 34-7 blowout. While Mississippi State had a few of their prominent players opt-out to prepare for the NFL Draft, it was still an embarrassing result for them as they finished the season at 7-6. Now that the opportunity to beat Texas Tech on field is now off the table, Mike Leach will continue to try to get a more favorable outcome off of it. While he receives a healthy salary from Mississippi State, anyone who has any familiarity with Leach knows it’s well within his personality to focus on things many coaches don’t have the time of day for. The Jacksonville/Urban Meyer for cause/not for cause dilemma isn’t the only one ongoing in football currently. We’ll see if Leach can finally get what he believes he deserves.

Over the past several years, cryptocurrency has taken the world by storm - from bitcoin, to dogecoin, and everything in between, cryptocurrency is becoming a part of personal finance and business transaction for millions around the world. To that end, cryptocurrency has become an intriguing element - or perhaps a complication - in the the sports business, finance, and law realms. Notably, many professional athletes across the major American sports leagues have requested, and some have successfully contracted, that their salary be paid in a particular cryptocurrency. For example, NFL tackle Russel Okung famously tweeted, “Pay me in Bitcoin” in 2019. It appears his wish has been granted by the Carolina Panthers recently. Well… Technically, Okung was not paid directly in bitcoin. Instead, he personally converted half of his salary (around $13 million) to the cryptocurrency through an outside company that owned an exchange system allowing conversion. The company announced a paycheck conversion program for athletes, allowing many to do the same. Interestingly, when Okung converted about half of his salary to bitcoin, the cryptocurrency was worth about $27,318. Bitcoin’s price has nearly doubled at times since then, and if you are to include these crypto gains in his salary, it would make him one of the highest paid offensive linemen in the sport. In November of 2021, NFL wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. announced that he would be receiving the entirety of his contract with the Los Angeles Rams in Bitcoin. Beckham teamed up with Square Inc.’s CashApp to make the arrangement happen, . He also announced at the same time that he was giving away $1 million in the cryptocurrency to his followers on Twitter. Polarizing NFL star Aaron Rodgers also partnered with Cash App in October of 2021, taking just a portion of his salary in Bitcoin. Rodgers also gave away $1 million in Bitcoin to his Twitter followers upon the announcement, a clear effort by Cash App and crypto companies to increase the access to crypto for sports fans and athletes alike. Even rookie quarterback Trevor Lawrence joined the crypto-craze. When Lawrence was drafted first overall in the NFL draft, the young talent joined forces with investment app Blockfolio, placing his signing bonus into a cryptocurrency investment account - reportedly ending up with a mixture of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Meanwhile, NBA guard Spencer Dinwiddie is the first basketball star to “tokenize” his contract through extensive planning by his legal team. In essence, Dinwiddie will tokenize his three-year, $34.36 million contract, theoretically collecting its value up front. To do this, Dinwiddie would sell 90 of these tokens for $150,000 each to investors, which will then become tradeable, as a digital security. This security would pay out interest on a monthly basis, and fully pay out in 2023 when it matures. Put another way, Dinwiddie is essentially claiming half of his three-year contract salary up front as a sort of loan, paid back to investors in the following years. This process of issuing blockchain-based tokenized security backed by his contract was a point of contention with the league, but after months of negotiations - including discussions over what the opt-out clause in his contract for a third year meant for the plan - it appears the league relented. It’s possible that Dinwiddie has opened the door for other athletes to structure and issue their own debt instruments in digital token form, the size of their contracts making it simpler to bootstrap liquidity and interest using these processes. Further, some professional teams have explicitly adopted cryptocurrency with open arms, such as the NBA’s Sacramento Kings. The team has accepted Bitcoin for merchandise and ticket purchases from fans since 2014, but in April of 2021, the Kings Chairman, CEO, and Governor - Vivek Ranadive - announced that all Kings players (in addition to coaches, stadium staff, and more) would have the option to be paid their salary, in part or in full, in Bitcoin. Seemingly, the Sacramento Kings have entered the crypto-investing sphere, holding their own shares of the cryptocurrency in their own portfolio - coming in and going out, tracking the market’s rise and fall. Similarly, in early 2018, Harunustaspor, a Turkish football club, became the world’s first football team to purchase a player using Bitcoin. The player involved in the transaction, 22-year-old Omar Faruk Kiroglu, also received 0.0524 Bitcoin (£385) as part of the deal with Harunustaspor. Some football clubs around the world are even using crypto-tokens to let fans influence their favorite club. Chiliz, a cryptocurrency and social platform, offers fan engagement tokens focused on sports. Ownership in the crypto-token gives fans the ability to vote on decisions such as whom the football club plays during “friendlies”. The voting power on the platform does not extend to institutional or corporate governance decisions which could have third-party-ownership implications that may be against international or domestic regulations, but the crypto-token nonetheless has inherent value to be bought and sold, drives fan engagement, and increases the relationship between sports club and cryptocurrency worldwide. Ultimately, it appears that there are three key avenues that a team and player may take when contracting that part (or the whole) of a player’s salary will be paid in bitcoin: a) a professional sports team owns their own shares of a cryptocurrency in reserve, paying out to players as the contractual obligations come (putting the risk, but also potential benefit on the team); b) a team purchases a particular cryptocurrency at the time a payment to a player is due and immediately transfers it to them; or c) a player is paid in normal currency, and their currency is then independently transferred and converted into a cryptocurrency of their choice. Each of these arrangements comes with their own set of risks, benefits, and complications. Naturally, there are some benefits and advantages to a professional athlete receiving part, or the entirety, of their contractual salary in cryptocurrency such as efficiency, financial liberation, flexible salary options, potential for growth, and more. First, on a very basic level, a salary paid in bitcoin may theoretically rise in the time after payment, allowing for incredible profits beyond what was promised in the contract with the team, with no loss to them. This rise also applies to a team if they were to have their own wallet of cryptocurrency in reserve - it is about allocation of risk. Take Bitcoin as an example: The value of a Bitcoin was about $900 by the end of 2016, but the value today is around $46,700. Bitcoin may be an outlier, but several different cryptocurrencies have seen substantial growth over the past few years. Next, cryptocurrency transactions are immediate. This leads to more efficient and cost-effective transfers, cutting out the bank and the administrative delays that may come with bank involvement. This is particularly helpful in international payments, as cryptocurrencies are borderless. Cutting out the bank, and an athlete being paid in cryptocurrency essentially being their own bank, allows the player to manage their own assets to their heart’s content - no restrictions, no entity waiting to freeze your account, and no waiting on checks to clear. Further, payment in cryptocurrency increases transparency and identity protection. For example, blockchain transfer generally creates an immutable, transparent record of the salary payments that have taken place - protecting both parties in the event of a dispute as long as these records are properly maintained and stored. While you may not be 100% anonymous or untraceable, worries typically associated with credit card use and identity theft are lessened dramatically. You can even go so far as to send payments while keeping your identity hidden, as long as you follow responsible security practices. Finally, as noted, if a player uses a contractual system of debt instruments in token forms like Dinwiddie, this may allow a player to collect a larger portion of their multi-year salary up front, with almost a sort of quasi-annuity for the length of the player’s contract being sold in crypto form. All that being said, there are significant negatives, and potential risks, associated with contracting a player’s salary to be paid in cryptocurrency. For starters, it is important to remember that cryptocurrencies can be incredibly volatile, and their value may rise and fall sharply from day to day. If a player, or team, has a significant holding of a cryptocurrency that depreciates, a significant portion of their net worth may be affected. Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are known to have drastic swings in price making them much more risky than regular transactional currency. So it may be a good idea to make sure you're only receiving a part of your salary in crypto or to consider selling some part of it immediately upon receiving it. On the other hand, you might choose to hold onto the currency if you know about crypto trading and are expecting your crypto assets to appreciate. Further, unfortunately, cryptocurrency crime is a danger. Things like hacking and scams aren’t uncommon, and if your account gets hacked or you fall victim to a scam or some other crypto-based crime, your money is gone for good — there is no FDIC insurance, nor is there a fraud protection number you can call, nor a bank or credit card company that can cancel a transaction. Finally, there certainly is a learning curve in the crypto-sphere when it comes to the market, the technology involved, and even the simple capability of owning crypto. Cryptocurrency isn’t regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it isn’t traded on the stock market, it can’t be bought or sold directly in ETFs, and isn’t traded on standard currency exchanges. In order to receive payment in cryptocurrency, you’ll have to open an account and a digital wallet on a special exchange. All of this may require special advising and legal help. Additionally, there are tax considerations that must be taken into account when advising a professional athlete client on contracting their salary in cryptocurrency.When it comes to taxation on crypto salary, the IRS states that you will need to determine the difference between the value of the crypto at time of receipt, and how much you sell it for; you should then report this number on your taxes when you sell the currency. Many people are unclear on how crypto taxes work and end up not declaring crypto income. However, the IRS is calling for stricter compliance with crypto reporting requirements. One of the challenges with filing these returns is that you may not always remember the fair market value of the crypto you received, so keeping diligent data tracking the market, and recording your gains and losses as they happen, is crucial. However, you’re not done there! If you think your tax returns are sorted once you declare the cryptocurrency income you received, think again. As far as the IRS is concerned, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fall into the category of “property.” This essentially means that when you sell cryptocurrencies, you have to pay capital gains on any profit that you make. If you have held the crypto for less than a year, you’ll have to pay short-term capital gains tax on the profits. This profit gets added to your total taxable income, and the amount you have to pay in taxes will depend on the tax bracket you belong to. If you hold crypto for more than a year, you’ll end up paying long-term capital gains tax, which can amount to as much as 20% of the profit. On the other hand, don’t forget that if you sell crypto at a loss, you can write off your losses to reduce your taxable income and therefore your tax burden. So don’t forget to keep an account of your losses and include them when you file your returns. Receiving a part of your income in cryptocurrency can feel extremely liberating, as well as efficient and cost-effective. However, there also comes with it a significant risk, and various tax considerations to take into account. Advising a professional athlete on whether they should request some (or the entirety) of their salary from their professional team to be paid in cryptocurrency is certainly a case-by-case question, considering the various factors as outlined above, and should not be taken lightly as crypto seems here to stay. Jason Re, The George Washington University Law School 3L Twitter: https://twitter.com/JasonReLaw Email: jre22@law.gwu.edu LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-re/

I am diehard Washington Football team fan (who as of last week are eliminated from playoff contention).I’ll move most anything around on my schedule to watch them play. Not this Sunday. I couldn’t care less about their upcoming game Sunday. Who can wrap their head around many (if any) of their starters feeling a sincere desire to win. I can’t be the only fan with this mentality and this must have an effect on a number the NFL cares deeply about: ratings. While some players on playoff ineligible teams may be willing to put their bodies on the line to achieve individual season long contract incentives (i.e. total catches, yards, tds etc.), they are few and far between. Obviously each player is a professional and compensated handsomely per their respective contracts but there’s a human element here the NFL seems to be glossing over. It is clearly, for the majority of players, in their financial best interest to prolong their careers by avoiding injury. No Kirk Herbstreit-esque blame games here: the juice is not worth the squeeze for the majority of players to jeopardize their career length and risk injury by giving it their all in week 18. Their bank account will presumably read the same regardless if the box score shows W or L. Their cost benefit analysis definitively points to erring on the side of caution and more conservative play on their part. But what if they did have a financial incentive to play to the best of their abilities in these, once thought of as meaningless, games? There’s a possibility for a win-win-win scenario for the NFL, it’s players and the fans if the league offered a bonus to players who win games in these scenarios. What?! I know it sounds crazy to reward losers but humor me for a second. For example, who wouldn’t want to watch Taylor Heinecke strap it on one last week for a chance at $20K (or 0.289 bitcoin in Trevor Lawrence’s case). As I don’t have a finance degree, I’ll let the Joe Pompliano’s of twitter hash out the appropriate compensation numbers but that’s beside the point. Motivating these players to elevate (or at least maintain) their standard of play would assuredly boost ratings.In this scenario fans are happier, the players are presumably happier (if they win) and the NFL pads their regular season ratings. Your move, Goodell. By: Rob Williams Twitter: @The_RobWilliams Instagram: @The_RobWilliams Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/robertlouiswilliams/

By now you’ve all seen the clip that set the internet on fire. Tampa Bay Bucs Wide Receiver Antonio Brown performing his best drunken fan impression storming through the field shirtless as he exited MetLife Stadium. Parading through the endzone as he waved goodbye to fans was the latest in a long line of questionable decision-making by the former All-Pro. Brown has had his fair share of missteps. Over the last several years Brown has faced allegations of sexual assault, pleaded no contest to felony burglary with battery, and was suspended by the NFL for faking a vaccination card, just to mention a few. During that stretch Brown also caught a touchdown in the Super Bowl alongside Tom Brady, the quarterback who repeatedly vouched for Brown. The Antonio Brown story is another reminder of the harsh reality that talent trumps all. Certain players who perform at a high level are given second, third, and fourth chances despite repeated behavior demonstrating they don’t deserve it. The attention was focused on Brown’s temper tantrum, but initially there was a lot unknown surrounding the cause of the blowup. Many speculated it could have been as simple not receiving targets from Tom Brady during the game. Notably, even despite missing nine games due to injury and poor construction of a faux vaccine card, Brown was rapidly approaching contract incentives worth an amount of money so large it may cause someone to be unusually upset about not receiving the ball. However, as we all know there’s two sides to every story. Story number two paints Brown in a more sympathetic light; one where he was taken advantage of by his employer. Earlier this week, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported that Brown and the Bucs coaching staff got in an argument on the sidelines over Brown’s availability. Brown felt as if he was suffering from an ankle injury that prevented him from entering the game. According to Rapoport, the coaching staff told Brown, “If you’re not going into the game when we tell you to go into the game, then you can’t be here”.[1] This exchange then led to the outburst we all saw. After the game Brown himself didn’t provide much clarity. He posted this cryptic message on Instagram: After a quick google search, it’s unclear if “super gremlin” means he was upset because he wasn’t getting the ball enough, upset because he was being forced to play despite an ankle injury, or something in between. But after several days of reflection, Brown’s attorney Sean Burstyn released a statement outlining a version of events which follows Rapoport’s reporting that Brown was injured and asked to return to the game by the coaching staff: We can dive a little deeper into these conflicting stories. On one hand, Brown has shown a repeated pattern of erratic behavior that is consistent with his actions on Sunday. If Brown was unhappy with how the game was going, this wouldn’t cause most NFL players to combust. But Brown has shown he doesn’t act like most NFL players. You could take a guess which storyline Bucs head coach Bruce Arians is feeding the media. Arians’ comments have been vague surrounding what transpired on the sideline and when asked in a press conference for details stated, “you all saw what happened”.[2] Arians also told reporters, “I don’t know that he was [injured]”. That particular detail is difficult to believe because Brown had been dealing with an ankle injury for months. Arians may not want to comment further on the matter for fear of letting this distraction continue to affect his football team. My cynical side believes that Arians has been coached by lawyers and his PR team to not provide any details that could show the Bucs organization was culpable. If Arians was coached, he’s a fast learner. When asked, “Can you share anything about the conversation you had with AB before he left” Arians responded, “No. You’ll have to ask him.” For a moment let’s follow Arian’s side. Brown lost his mind due to selfish reasons such as not getting the ball enough and when the Bucs begged Brown to reenter the game he refused. If Brown was upset because he felt a million dollars of contract incentives slipping through his hands, wouldn’t he be on the field despite an ankle injury? If money was all he cared about, he would have been on the field attempting to obtain his payday even if his ankle injury forced him into a wheelchair. Instead, Brown was on the sidelines arguing with his coaching staff. Something doesn’t add up. If the Bucs were forcing Brown to enter the game despite an ankle injury, he has the option of filing a grievance with the league. This is where lawyers get involved arguing about how much compensation Brown is owed upon his departure from the team. Brown’s attorneys will claim the Bucs were in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement “CBA” by attempting to force an injured player onto the football field, and when he refused, they cut him. Coaches shouldn’t be involved in conversations with players diagnosing and evaluating the severity of an injury. That role is designated to the training staff and team doctor under the CBA. The training staff then notifies the coach of a player’s status for the remainder of a game. Brown will make an argument the proper injury protocol wasn’t followed. On the flip side, the Bucs will likely keep their story consistent that Brown’s injury was not discussed. They will make a case that Brown’s outburst on the sideline was “conduct detrimental” to the team, so they have the right to cut bait and move on. Brown is already starting to bolster his defense. Rick Stroud of the Tampa Bay Times reported that Brown received an MRI from a surgeon outside of the Bucs organization that revealed a “lingering ankle injury”.[3] This is consistent with the statement released by Brown’s attorney. This ankle injury prevented Brown from practicing on Thursday and Friday and caused Brown to be listed as “questionable” for Sunday’s contest. The mystery remains unsolved for now. The tapes of the Bucs sideline at MetLife may have to be analyzed like the Zapruder film by the NFL to get to the bottom of this. Antonio Brown’s time as a Tampa Bay Buc is officially over, but the drama between the two sides is set to continue. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] NFL, https://www.nfl.com/videos/ian-rapoport-explains-what-transpired-on-sideline-with-antonio-brown, (last visisted Jan. 5, 2021). [2] Jenna Laine, Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Bruce Arians has 'no regrets' about adding Antonio Brown, says he cares about WR, ESPN https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32986335/tampa-bay-buccaneers-coach-bruce-arians-no-regrets-adding-antonio-brown-says-cares-wr (last visited Jan. 5, 2021). [3] Alek Arend, New Details Emerge From Developing Antonio Brown Situation, The Spun https://thespun.com/nfl/nfc-south/tampa-bay-buccaneers/new-details-emerge-from-developing-antonio-brown-situation (last visited Jan. 5, 2021).

In the 2020–'21 season, Evander Kane played 56 games, scored 22 goals, and had 27 assists. These were impressive numbers for a shortened season due to Covid–19. Kane has not played a single NHL game in the 2021–'22 season. Following various allegation from his ex-wife Anna, Kane did not report to training camp or participate in the opening weeks of the season. In October the NHL announced that Kane would be suspended 21 games for violating the NHL COVID Protocols.[1] Days before he was to return to the Sharks, the team assigned him to the AHL. San Jose assistant general manager Joe Will said the team explored all options and decided "the best thing at this time is for him to continue to play hockey and the best option for that right now is the [AHL].”[2] Kane was sent to the San Jose Barracuda where he only played 5 games with the team. He has not played in an AHL game since December 22, 2021, after he entered AHL Covid Protocol. On January 8, 2022, the Sharks placed Kane on unconditional waivers with the intention of terminating his contract. Kane is considered an unrestricted free agent and can sign with any team. The Sharks stated that they informed Kane they were terminating his contract "for breach of his NHL standard player contract and for violation of the AHL COVID-19 protocols."[3] Since the allegation against Kane surfaced in August 2021, the Sharks have been trying to trade Kane and some of his teammates did not want him to return to the team. Kane is in the fourth season of a seven-year contract which he signed on May 24, 2018. In response to Kane being placed on unconditional waivers the NHLPA stated that they would file grievances. On Monday January 10, 2022, the NHLPA filed a grievance on behalf of Kane following the termination of his contract.[4] The contract that Kane signed in 2018 was worth $49 million and paid him $7 million annually. Kane will forfeit the remaining $22.8 million of the deal.[5] The CBA lays out procedures for grievances and what can and cannot be done. Section 17.2-17.5 Initiation, Filing, Grievance Committee, Arbitration states: Only the NHL or the NHLPA may file grievances, as they're the only two groups who actually signed the CBA. Grievances have to be filed as timely as possible and absolutely have to be filed within 60 days of the event which caused the grievance or within 60 days of facts coming to light which create the grievance.[6] Since the Kane grievence is within 60 days of the event, the process will now be sorted about by the NHL and the NHLPA. The biggest issue now is that while Kane is in the grievance process he can sign with any team and then he would be under contract with two NHL team which is not allowed. Kane and his agent have been silent on the recent developments of the veteran forward’s career. On Saturday Dan Milstein, Kane’s agent Tweeted: "The Sharks do not have sufficient grounds for taking this action."[7] Kane’s future with the NHL is shaky and the next few days will play a crucial role in the future of his hockey career. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Ellis, Steven. “Evander Kane given 21-Game Suspension for Violating NHL's Covid-19 Protocol.” The Hockey News on Sports Illustrated, 18 Oct. 2021, https://www.si.com/hockey/news/evander-kane-given-21-game-suspension-for-violating-nhls-covid-19-protocol. [2] Gulitti, Tom. “Kane Placed on Waivers by Sharks with Intent to Terminate Contract.” NHL.com, 9 Jan. 2022, https://www.nhl.com/news/san-jose-sharks-place-evander-kane-on-unconditional-waivers-with-intent-to-terminate-contract/c-329595132. [3] Id. [4] Kaplan, Emily. “NHLPA Files Grievance after San Jose Sharks Terminate Evander Kane's Contract.” ESPN, 10 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33034735/nhlpa-file-grievance-san-jose-sharks-terminate-evander-kane-contract. [5] Id. [6]Collective Bargaining Agreement, The PA | NHLPA.com, www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba. [7] Kaplan, Emily. “NHLPA Files Grievance after San Jose Sharks Terminate Evander Kane's Contract.” ESPN, 10 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33034735/nhlpa-file-grievance-san-jose-sharks-terminate-evander-kane-contract.

FC Barcelona has enjoyed much success on the domestic and European levels in the 21st century. Since the turn of the century, they’ve won 10 La Liga titles, seven Copa Del Rey titles and are four-time UEFA Champions League winners. With players like Andres Iniesta, Ronaldinho, Xavi, Carles Puyol, and Lionel Messi who have donned the world-renowned Blaugrana colors, Barcelona has become one of the biggest teams in the world. Being one of the biggest and most successful teams in the world means that the expectations are high every season and in turn need to spend a lot on wages and transfers to bring in top players. A club like Barcelona has no problem attracting top-tier talent, but being able to pay that top talent has been a bit of an issue for the club since the pandemic. If we go back to last summer, Barcelona lost out on arguably the best player to ever play for the club, Lionel Messi, due to financial problems. Barcelona was unable to register Messi due to La Liga’s financial fair play system, which is similar to a salary cap in American sports. Even with a 50% pay cut, which is the most allowed by Spanish law, Barcelona would have been unable to keep Messi. After 21 years at the club, Messi was forced to leave Barcelona due to the poor financial management by the club. Of course, Barcelona had a hard time finding someone to fill the boots of Messi. They had trouble registering the few players they were able to bring in last summer like Sergio Aguero, Memphis Depay, and Eric Garcia. It is reported that the club is in debt of over €1 billion, with it being reported that their salary limit is €-144 million. What does it mean when it’s negative? Well, this means Barcelona cannot spend any more money on a player until they get that number to 0. To help get that number to 0, Barcelona recently leveraged their future for the present. They sold 10% of their TV rights to US investment firm Sixth Street Partners for €207.5 million for 25 years. This was done after Barcelona members voted to sell up to 25% of their La Liga rights along with voting to sell 49.9% of Barca Licensing and Merchandising (BLM). No deal has been struck for the BLM arm of the club, but I’m sure Barcelona is looking for deals to help their debt problem. Along with that, Barca recently signed a partnership deal with Spotify. This deal has been pegged by various sources at 4 years, €280 million for Spotify to be the main sponsor of the club, with Barcelona also handing over the naming rights to their stadium. The world-famous Camp Nou will now be Spotify Camp Nou. With these two deals alongside long-time Barcelona players like Gerard Pique, Jordi Alba, and Sergio Busquets taking pay cuts, it’s helped Barcelona try to get out of debt. With this newfound money, Barca has spent over €100 million this summer on Robert Lewandowski and Raphinha, while also being linked to Jules Kounde and Bernardo Silva. They are looking to offload their star midfielder, Frenkie De Jong, to try to offset the amount they’ve spent this summer. Fabrizio Romano has said that the deal between Barcelona and Manchester United is agreed upon at €75 million with €10 million in add-ons. The most intriguing part about this potential deal is that Frenkie De Jong is supposedly owed €17 million by Barca due to pay cuts he took during the pandemic to help the club’s dire financial situation. Barcelona still owe one of their best players €17 million but are able to sign two players for over €100 million in transfers? It looks like others in the footballing world are not understanding this either as Bayern Munich coach, Julian Nagelsmann, told Bild reporter Tobi Altschäffl, “Barcelona, the only club that has no money but then… buys every player they want.” This could stem from Nagelsmann being upset that their talisman striker, Lewandowski, was sold to Barcelona from Bayern Munich, but makes a fair comment in questioning how Barcelona is able to afford these players. Barcelona has been in financial trouble since the pandemic started, yet here they are spending a lot of money on two players so far, with others being linked to the club. Whether they will be able to register all of these players is key, as they haven’t been able to register their free signings this summer in Franck Kessie and Andreas Christensen. Of course, Barcelona is spending to try to get them back to competing for multiple trophies. If their money problems persist, they will have trouble keeping up with the state-owned clubs and clubs like Chelsea and Real Madrid. These are clubs that constantly spend to try to improve their squad and give the club squad depth with the multiple competitions they play in every season. If Barcelona is able to register all of their new signings, they will have a strong team filled with depth to compete on all fronts. It’ll be interesting to see if they go after more players this summer and if they’re able to continue to spend like this in the next few summers. Greg Termolle is a 3L at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. You can follow him on Twitter at @GregTerm.

The Chip Ganassi Racing (CGR) Alex Palou situation has taken another turn. The Indystar has reported that CGR has filed a suit against Alex Palou for breach of contract in Marion County Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, Chip Ganassi Racing reported that they had resigned the 2021 IndyCar Champion to a new contract. Within a couple of hours of this being reported by Chip Ganassi Racing via social media, Palou announced on Twitter, "I did not approve that press release, and I did not author or approve that quote. As I have recently informed CGR, for personal reasons, I do not intend to continue with the team after 2022." ( Palou) Palou later stated that he was leaving Chip Ganassi Racing for Arrows McLaren at the end of the season. Palou along with new team Arrows McLaren have maintained that they have not done anything wrong and that there has been no breach of contract. In the past two-week stretch, the animosity between the team and driver has been high. It has been previously reported by NBC sports that Palou no longer has access to crucial data at and away from the track. Even more worrisome, it was rumored that after seeing Palou's tweet, CGR may have contacted other drivers to take over for Palou at the Toronto Grand Prix just a few days after the dispute. Court records show that Palou and ALPA Racing (Palou's racing entity) are listed as defendants. Palou was served summons at his residences in Spain and Indianapolis. Ganassi's lawyers have filed to seal the official complaint and four exhibits in the case. Lawyers for Chip Ganassi Racing have also filed an emergency motion for expedited discovery. Palou has announced that he plans to move to Arrows McLaren for the Sept. 11th race at Laguna Seca. This is believed to be why Ganassi has filed a prompt hearing motion on the preliminary injunction requesting that it is heard prior to the end of August. Chip Ganassi Racing when reached for comment by Racer.com stated “Alex Palou is under contract with Chip Ganassi Racing through the end of the 2023 season. He is a valued member of our team, and we will continue to support him in chasing wins, podiums, and IndyCar championships. As the result of a competing racing team improperly attempting to contract with him notwithstanding the clear terms of our contract, we are proceeding to legal process pursuant to the contract.” It is clear that both sides are not close to ending this dispute any time soon, all eyes will be on Palou as he competes for Ganassi this weekend in Indianapolis. Jack Bradley is currently a Law school student at Duquesne Univesity School of Law and alum of Georgetown University (MPS) and Penn State University (BA). Jack is also the Co-founder and President of Poppy Packs a 501c3 charity and former Head of Marketing and Communications for Norm Benning Racing. Sources Palou, Alex (@AlexPalou) Twitter 12th July 2022 https://twitter.com/AlexPalou/status/1546996392912109568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1546996392912109568%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmotorsports.nbcsports.com%2F2022%2F07%2F12%2Falex-palou-mclaren-racing-chip-ganassi-f1-indycar-2023%2F Brown, N. (2022, July 27). Chip Ganassi racing sues Alex Palou in Marion County Superior Court amid contract dispute. The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2022/07/27/indycar-chip-ganassi-racing-sues-alex-palou-amid-contract-dispute/65383813007/ Ryan, N. (2022, July 13). Alex Palou says he'll leave Ganassi for McLaren in 2023 - NBC Sports. MotorSportsTalk | NBC Sports. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2022/07/12/alex-palou-mclaren-racing-chip-ganassi-f1-indycar-2023/ Pruett, M. (2022, July 27). Ganassi team sues Palou. RACER. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://racer.com/2022/07/27/ganassi-team-sues-palou/

Last week, stories emerged revealing that on July 14, Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association (CFBPA), met with Penn State football players. News of the meeting between the CFBPA and Penn State football players, which included a list of demands and information regarding unionizing, led to a call between Stahl and Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren. While the CFBPA is not a union, if the Big Ten does not entertain the CFBPA’s demands, the CFBPA may explore forming a union, which would allow the union to collectively bargain for reforms. About the CFBPA The CFBPA is an organization “founded to represent past, present and future college football players nationwide.” By organizing college football players, the CFBPA is a member-led organization pushing for changes in college football. The CFBPA currently has three demands to the Big Ten, including sharing media revenue and enhanced medical care. Notably, the demands come at a time when the Big Ten is in the midst of negotiating a new media rights deal, and Division I is being transformed after the NCAA adopted a new constitution in January. Previous Attempts to Unionize The CFBPA’s talk of unionizing should remind fans of Northwestern University (NU) football players’ attempt to unionize through the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) and supported by United Steelworkers. Beginning in 2014, NU football players formed CAPA and began pushing for reforms, including enhanced medical care. Initially, the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the football players were employees with a right to unionize. Specifically, Chicago regional director Peter Sung Ohr found that the athlete-university relationship resembles an employee-employer relationship. Northwestern University appealed the regional director’s decision. Instead of overturning the decision, the NLRB declined to rule on the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities. Thus, ending the football players’ union efforts. Changing Landscape As stated previously, Division I is currently transforming, including navigating allowing athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness, and the United States Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Alston that NCAA rules limited education-related compensation violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, recognizing that the NCAA is a profit-making enterprise. Most importantly, On September 15, 2021, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum taking the position that student-athletes are employees under the National Labor Relations Act and thus, afforded all statutory protections. While a memorandum is merely advisory, it does yield support for the CFBPA’s position. Other cases regarding college athletes’ status are ongoing, including Johnson v. NCAA, which is waiting on a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the following question: “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.” Therefore, a lot has changed since Northwestern University football players attempted to unionize in 2014. With the changing landscape, any attempt to unionize may succeed. Path Forward On Tuesday, July 26, at Big Ten media day, Commissioner Warren made it clear that the Big Ten has formed a student-athlete advisory group that will discuss revenue sharing and the college athletic environment. Thus, the efforts of Penn State football players are already paying off. Will conversations between the conference and players lead to changes? Hopefully, it will. If not, the CFBPA may take a chance at forming a union. 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. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber

As a fan of a sports team, a championship win is a pinnacle of happiness, guaranteeing a lifetime of memories, countless stories to pass along to friends and family, and a healthy amount of money spent at cash registers to commemorate the occasion. In June 2019, the St. Louis Blues defeated the Boston Bruins to win the 2019 Stanley Cup on Boston’s TD Garden home ice, while at the same time, Aaron Stock–a Wentzville native, Richmond Heights firefighter, and Blues fan–was celebrating at a watch party at the Blues’ Enterprise Center.[1] As easy as it is to imagine wanting to preserve memories of the greatest year your team has ever had, try to then imagine how you would feel if your favorite team was seemingly gaslighting you while selling you a bill of goods. This appears to be the origin story of a lawsuit that is now on the Conduct Detrimental radar. Stock appears to have initially filed suit in St. Louis County on October 14, 2021,[2] but the case was transferred to the City of St. Louis on July 8, 2022.[3] As of this writing, a jury trial is scheduled for January 30, 2023, but this assumes that there are no delays in deposing witnesses and that the parties do not otherwise settle the matter. Aaron Stock has purchased thousands of dollars of St. Louis Blues memorabilia. Now, he's suing the team saying some of it was mislabeled.[4] According to Katie Kull’s reporting on this lawsuit, Stock was the winner of a Blues-sponsored auction in October 2019, bidding almost $1700 for leg pads attributed to Stanley Cup-winning starting goaltender Jordan Binnington–and also attributed to the 2018-19 Cup-winning season.[5] Stock appears to have subsequently attempted to “photo match” his memorabilia, only to come to a disappointing conclusion that his Binnington pads were from the year after the Stanley Cup win (the 2019-20 season)--instead of the 2018-19 season as seemingly advertised. “Photo matching” refers to noticing unique identifying marks or characteristics on game-used artifacts, and locating that memorabilia with the exact markings in-game photographs. This disappointing Binnington discovery appears to have uncovered similar stories about memorabilia from other key Blues players, such as Cup-winning backup goaltender Jake Allen and star winger Vladimir Tarasenko: the items were apparently stated to have been worn in the 2018-19 Cup year, but no photos existed to corroborate the Blues’ statements about their use in that season. When the product description hinges upon game use in the championship year, a team’s alleged mistake should be a key fact for a jury to decide! As a collector of game-used memorabilia myself, I can confirm that mistakes can happen. Some teams offer a certificate of authenticity (COA) accompanying the memorabilia that they sell, some teams do not offer any COA but will still include an item description as to when and by whom the equipment was used, and some teams will only hold an occasional garage sale where everything is sold “as-is.” When a COA accompanies a piece of game-used memorabilia, collectors will conclude whether the COA is corroborated by photo matches, or whether there is more to the story than that. I have items in my collection that photo match to more games than the COA and/or the auction item descriptions offer, to fewer games, or sometimes to simply an incorrect game. Then, if the COA proves to have wrong information, the collector as buyer probably has to choose between living with an expensive “buyer beware” lesson or else seeking recourse in other ways. For the sake of some personal examples, I own a game-used helmet that I won from a Montreal Canadiens auction.[6] This white helmet was sold as “Ben Chiarot’s 2020 playoffs used helmet.” The helmet photo matches quite obviously to the 2020 playoffs, and it also photo matches just as obvious to many regular season games before the 2020 playoffs–at least one of them, I attended in person. Here, as a collector, I am happy because the photo matches are better than advertised, so I will never complain! Meanwhile, I also own a Corey Schueneman stick that is authenticated by the Habs as used in LGBTQIA+ Pride Night warmups on April 16, 2022, prior to the game against the Washington Capitals.[7] In this auction, there were no photos of the exact stick for bidding, but I knew Schueneman was pictured with a Pride-taped stick at this warmup on the Canadiens’ Instagram page, so I bid on it hoping it would photo match. Interestingly, it clearly does not photo match Pride warmups, but it does conclusively photo match to the previous night’s game instead, on April 15, 2022, against the New York Islanders. My best guess is that this stick was used on the 15th, retaped so it was ready for warmups on the 16th, and whether or not it was actually used in warmups on the 16th, it was given a COA and sold to me. This is a slightly odd fact pattern, but with a photo match to regular season game action, this is better than a warmup stick, so once again, I will not complain about this piece of memorabilia either! Back to the St. Louis litigant. Stock’s allegations appear to be more than just one accident at auction, because he offered his concerns and objections to the Blues to General Counselor Michael Lowenbaum in May 2020, and Lowenbaum admitted deficiencies in the authentication system at a July meeting.[8] Since then, instead of overhauling their authentication processes, refunding Stock, or even arranging for autograph sessions to keep Stock out of the courthouse, the Blues allegedly continued selling “fake goods” such as a Carl Gunnarsson “game used” helmet with no stickers or any other signs of use, and ultimately instructed Stock to stop bidding on Blues items.[9] Now, Aaron Stock has thousands of dollars worth of St. Louis Blues game-used memorabilia–some accompanied by incorrect or intentionally misleading COA’s, and a lawsuit against his favorite team. Whether his collection can still remind him of the 2019 Stanley Cup championship, or whether it is now his personal tort museum, will be shaped by the future fate of these legal proceedings. Mike Engle is an associate attorney for the United States federal government. During his time at Hofstra Law School in New York, his articles were published in the Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal and the DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems. He was also an invited guest on the now defunct vlog Law & Batting Order. Mike resides in Upstate New York with his wife, Gillian, and their daughter, Esther. Interact with him on Twitter @EngleLaw29, but only during off-duty hours and preferably not during Montreal Canadiens games! [1] Kull, Katie, Diehard Blues fan sues team, claims they sold thousands in mislabeled merchandise, LONGVIEW NEWS-JOURNAL (July 25, 2022), https://www.news-journal.com/diehard-blues-fan-sues-team-claims-they-sold-thousands-in-mislabeled-merchandise/article_36e01e8e-db37-5abd-9edd-f76bf8956ca7.html [2] Docket No. 21SL-CC04831 (accessed July 25, 2022), https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/header.do?inputVO.caseNumber=21SL-CC04831&inputVO.courtId=CT21 [3] Docket No. 2222-CC06810 (accessed July 25, 2022), https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/header.do?inputVO.caseNumber=2222-CC06810&inputVO.courtId=CT22 [4] Kull, supra note 1. [5] Kull, supra note 1. [6] Engle, Michael, Ben Chiarot 2020 Helmet, GAME USED AUTHORITY (accessed July 25, 2022), https://gameusedauthority.com/guauth.com/ci/p0zk. [7] Engle, Michael, Corey Schueneman 2022 Hockey Stick, GAME USED AUTHORITY (accessed July 25, 2022), https://gameusedauthority.com/guauth.com/ci/p0jh6g==. [8] Kull, supra note 1. [9] Id.