It’s March so all eyes are on college basketball. This year, the men’s and women’s tournaments present a unique opportunity for brands looking to strike while the iron is hot and capitalize off college basketball being at the center of the sports universe. NIL is still functioning as the wild west, with little guidance given to universities, athletes, and companies on how to best facilitate these transactions. The NCAA has refused to take an institutional stance to embrace NIL and instead has turned a blind eye refusing to acknowledge that athletes can now profit off their publicity. But despite his, some athletes have cashed in on the first ever March Madness in the new NIL world. Let’s look at the biggest winners: Doug Edert How could we start anywhere else? The star of the men’s tournament, Doug Edert, came off the bench for the Cinderella St. Peter’s team during their run to the Elite 8. Edert was a 3-point sniper for the Peacocks, often pulling up from well beyond the line and showing fiery emotion during upsets. But what made him a nationwide sensation went beyond just his play on the court – it was the mustache. According to teammates, the origin story behind the ‘stache dates back to midseason when St. Peter’s was forced to enter Covid-19 quarantine protocols. Like many others who were bored during the pandemic, Edert felt this was a great time to experiment with his facial hair. And much to the chagrin of his girlfriend, the mustache stuck.[1] I’m skeptical if this guy has what it takes to steal America’s heart. But March Madness Edert, with the mustache, was capable of fame and (NIL) fortune: After the first weekend of the tournament with two upsets over Kentucky and Murray St., Edert entered into an NIL deal with Buffalo Wild Wings. In the blink of an eye, Edert went from unknown hooper in New Jersey to the face of the #OvertimeWingtime campaign: Edert also offered the opportunity for fans to sport “Dougie Buckets” merchandise through Barstool Sports: Edert will forever be remembered for this NCAA tournament run. Thanks to NIL, he was able to monetize it. Edert has set the gold standard for players taking advantage of these few weeks in March. Drew Timme We’ll stick with the facial hair theme. Drew Timme has been one of the top players in college basketball since he began at Gonzaga in 2019. Gonzaga had a disappointing exit to the tournament in the Sweet 16, but not before Timme could capitalize on his fame. Timme signed an NIL deal with Dollar Shave Club, becoming a spokesperson for the brand while sporting a notable mustache of his own. Timme epitomizes the benefits NIL can provide. A star in the college ranks, Timme doesn’t project to have an NBA career. Crazier things have happened, but it’s likely Timme’s spotlight will never shine brighter than during his time at Gonzaga. So why shouldn’t he be able to profit while wearing a Gonzaga uniform? NIL critics predicted that all of the money would be funneled to men’s college basketball and football stars and create a large inequity for college athletes. These same critics downplayed the benefits of NIL: If these football and basketball stars are bound to sign professional contracts in the coming years, why is it monumental if they make money a few years earlier while in college? Drew Timme is a perfect example of how NIL has allowed someone to profit off their brand when their future earning potential is unknown. Timme very well may go on to have a prolific pro career filled with earnings and partnership deals, but in the meantime NIL provides certainty of profit today. Paolo Banchero and Chet Holmgren Unlike Timme, Paolo Banchero and Chet Holmgren are set to sign multi-million dollar NBA contracts in just a few short months. Banchero and Holmgren are both projected to be top three picks in the upcoming NBA draft this June. Banchero has led Duke to the Final Fourt while Holmgren stood alongside Timme in Gonzaga’s frontcourt all year leading them to a #1 seed. Banchero and Holmgren both signed NIL deals before the tournament with Yahoo Sports to represent their Tourney Pick’Em contest.[2] Many NIL policies and legislation prohibit athletes from entering into deals that promote gambling, but the Yahoo Tourney Pick’Em is free to enter so the athletes remain in compliance. In this promo, Banchero and Holmgren are wearing blank jerseys instead of their usual Duke and Gonzaga threads. Another common restriction on NIL deals by school policies and state legislation is the prohibition of using school branding in partnerships.[3] You can see from the above posts that Timme and Edert weren’t sporting team logos in their sponsored instagram posts either. Just another example of how current policies and laws are making this difficult for athletes every step of the way. NIL is constantly framed as a mechanism to benefit players. But NIL isn’t a form of charity, sponsorship deals work both ways. Yahoo Sports recognized the value in having two of the biggest stars in college basketball promote their contest. The players get compensated, but the companies benefit from the publicity and recognition the players provide. When the masses start viewing NIL deals like other partnership deals in which both parties benefit, restrictive policies may start to disappear. Cameron Brink Quietly, women’s college basketball players have made more money from NIL deals than men’s players.Many women college basketball players moonlight as social media stars off the court. Cameron Brink of reigning champion Stanford has partnered with Great Clips to promote the hair salon franchise: Brink has also partnered with a clothing brand that showcases her hometown of Portland, Oregon:[4] Other NIL deals on the women’s side have been even more creative. The chicken wing restaurant Wingstop partnered with 11 different women who play the “wing” position on the basketball court. Wingstop’s Chief Growth Officer, Marisa Carona, said “We're excited to support women's athletics and continue our engagement in other ways within the space”. March Madness NIL deals aren’t just reserved for stars. The bedding company, Sheets & Giggles, reached deals with five men and five women who are the “most rested” players in the tournament. Some of the benchwarmers who cashed in on their inactive status included Brock Janek of Tennessee, Russell Stong of UCLA, Becca Ripley of UCF, Conor Serven of Illinois and Justin Taphorn of Wisconsin. The first March Madness in the post-Alston NIL reality has signaled there is a market for both large-scale and smaller NIL deals in both men’s and women’s basketball. In the years to come, expect to see more deals facilitated as education surrounding NIL increases and unnecessary restrictions go by the wayside. 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] NCAA, The Story Behind Doug Edert’s Mustache (last visited Mar. 29, 2022) https://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2022-03-27/story-behind-doug-ederts-mustache. [2] Kelly Kohen, March Madness 2022: Women's and men's Sweet Sixteen players are heavily involved in NIL deals, ESPN (last visited Mar. 29, 2022) https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33589255/women-men-sweet-sixteen-players-heavily-involved-nil-deals. [3] Tamera H. Bennet, Can A Student Athlete Use The University Logo, Colors, or Trademark?, Bennett Law Office (last visited Mar. 20, 2022) https://www.tbennettlaw.com/createprotect/2021/10/28/nil-can-a-student-athlete-use-the-schools-colors-logo-mascot-jersey-endorsemen t#:~:text=Potential%20sponsors%20and%20endorsers%20have,School%20and%20team%20colors. [4] Dean Golembeski, College Basketball Players Cash In With March Madness NIL Deals, Best Colleges (last visited Mar. 29, 2022) https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2022/03/21/ncaa-march-madness-college-basketball-nil-deals/.

The National Women’s Soccer League (“NWSL”) hosted an extended preseason tournament, The Challenger Cup, over the last two weeks, leading to the start of what should be an exciting season for the league. Unfortunately, instead of coming out of preseason play energized for a competitive season, many teams are finding themselves down a few key players due to preventable preseason injuries. Within the first two match days, Tiera Davidson of the Chicago Red Stars and Lynn Williams of the Kansas City Current both suffered injuries, with Davidson’s severe enough to need ACL reparation surgery. The renowned Brazilian player, Marta Vieira da Silva, will be out for “a while” after suffering a knee injury during the Challenger Cup. Many other players have had to limit their minutes due to preseason injuries, including many United States Women’s National Team (“USWNT”) players such as Becky Sauerbrunn, Sam Mewis, Alex Morgan, and Megan Rapinoe. When interviewed about the vast number of injuries experienced by many star athletes in the NWSL, the USWNT coach, Vlatko Andonovski, commented that there seemed to be a lack of connection between the injuries, stating that they trained in different environments and with different setups that led to different injuries. But perhaps Andonovski is, albeit unintentionally, pointing out the exact issue that is leading to the astounding number of injured players in women soccer today – a lack of consistency in training and playing environments within the NWSL. Players of the NWSL are expected to train on grass fields then play on turf fields, at various times of the day in various weathers, under different protections of various medical care. No wonder Ashlyn Harris tweeted at Washington Spirit, stating, “Get us a professional field and then we can talk. Until then take your amateur shit back to your high school field.” One method that the NWSL players could utilize is modifying their collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) to require a consistent style of medical treatment, a consistent field material, and a consistent time range to ensure that conditions are not what is leading to the consistent, and frankly, dangerous injuries taking place within the NWSL. For instance, within the CBA of the National Football League (“NFL”), the league is required to guarantee funding for search on training methods, equipment, field surfaces, and medical care. Further, the NFL and their respective players’ association, under the guidance of the CBA, set up committees to design safety standards for equipment and field safety. Other methods to improve player safety from injury were the extension of training camp acclamation periods, strengthened standards for team medical and training staffs, enhanced protocol for concussion responses, and additional joint research funding. All of these changes to the 2020 CBA came after the NFL already had in place procedures to ensure safety, such as a requirement for a level playing field that is checked for bad spots 72 hours before the start of the match. Many of the benefits afforded to the NFL players comes from negotiated terms within the CBA. While the NWSL’s Player Association has had much on their plate, from addressing the senseless abuse by many male coaches in the league to negotiating a livable wage to be guaranteed to each player, it may be time to focus in on an issue that is causing reckless injuries to many well-regarded athletes of the league: providing a safer and more consistent playing environment for each player. Ashlyn can be found on Twitter @Ashlyn_Stone2.

The NCAA’s infractions process has long been criticized for lengthy investigations, selective enforcement, and arbitrary and disproportionate punishments. Two U.S. Senators, Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) and Cory Booker (D., N.J.), introduced a legislative bill to significantly change the NCAA’s infractions process. The NCAA Accountability Act of 2021, proposed by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) and Cory Booker (D., N.J.), is a 10-page bill that, if passed, would streamline the NCAA’s infractions process by establishing deadlines for completing inquiries and investigations, shortening the statute of limitations for investigating infractions, and creating a new appeals procedure. Key highlights from the bipartisan bill include: Establishing a deadline for the NCAA to provide a notice of allegations within eight months after the school is notified it is under investigation. Shortening the statute of limitations to investigate NCAA infractions from four years to two years. Mandating the NCAA to hold a hearing on the infractions case not earlier than 60 days after a notice of the allegations are received or later than a year after the notice is provided. Prohibiting the submission of information from “confidential sources” as evidence for a case. Allowing a school to request a three-person panel of arbitrators to review and adjust any disputed punishments. Requiring the NCAA to submit an annual report to the U.S. attorney general and each state’s attorney general, summarizing its enforcement proceedings, investigations, and issuance of punishments. Empowering the U.S. attorney general and the Department of Justice to establish procedures for filing complaints against the NCAA and to conduct hearings and procedures for the NCAA’s violations of the Act. Authorizing the Department of Justice to remove any member of the NCAA’s Board of Governors and to order the NCAA to pay a civil penalty of up to $15 million for violations of the Act. The NCAA Accountability Act of 2021 is the most recent legislation proposed by lawmakers to address the problems with the NCAA’s infractions process. The bill is similar to the NCAA Accountability Act of 2021, which was introduced in November 2021 by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In the past two years, more than half a dozen bills to reform college sports have been proposed in Congress. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for startup and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via LinkedIn.

For anyone who has watched a significant amount of NCAA Men’s Basketball this year, it becomes easy to wonder, at times, how the officiating of such a high-leverage, pressure-packed sport can be so inconsistent. Further, it’s hard to believe that those officials, with the amount of money the NCAA makes off March Madness, are part-time employees and are paid on a per-game basis. The same questions have been hurled at the NFL, which also uses part-time officials. I believe that those questions could soon be asked by entities that have the vested interest, funds, and influence to pressure these leagues to do something about it. Sportsbooks (gasp!) might soon realize they stand to profit more off consistent officiating than they do off the status quo, and may begin to apply slightly more pressure to fix the problem. Questionable judgements by officials in sports are a tale as old as time. The uproar over those calls becomes amplified when a part-time official makes a call that, in the view of most observers, directly changes the outcome of the contest (i.e. The 2018 NFC Championship non-pass interference on Nickell Robey-Coleman). There are documented cases of individuals attempting to sue officials or the league (as was the case with the NFC Championship No-Call) for damages stemming from negligence of the officials in those contests (lawsuits that have never materially succeeded). But aside from any lawsuit, these incidents receive a disproportionate amount of coverage on social media, the morning talk shows, and ultimately harm the reputation of the league. More consequently, however, they increase unpredictability in the outcome of games, something that can adversely affect sportsbooks that attempt to be as accurate as possible when setting odds. There are reasonable motivations for why sportsbooks would want full-time officials and more consistent officiating. Sportsbooks trade on information. They build the infrastructure to provide the maximum amount of information possible when setting the initial line for a sporting event. They continue to use and update that information to make adjustments as the market changes the odds through wagering. Why? Because that’s how they make money. Sportsbooks count on the fact that they have vastly more information than Joe Everydayman who walks into a Vegas or Atlantic City Sportsbook and places a bet because his buddy’s dog picked Team X when asked to decide between two treats. All of that information is geared towards eliminating as many variables as possible that will affect the outcome of the game. Predictable outcomes (or a limited range of probable outcomes, as limited as possible) allow gambling operators to maximize their cut on either side of the action and allow them to adjust lines more accurately. So, if sportsbooks trade in predictability, it would seem they would also have an interest in predictable officiating. Not the kind where they are paying for a specific outcome (and thereby committing a federal crime), but the kind where they can eliminate (or at least significantly reduce) the possibility of an inconsistent call by an official in the late stretch of a game from swaying the outcome. As sponsorship deals and endorsement rights allow sportsbooks to develop close relationships with league offices, they may begin to apply pressure to these leagues (looking at you NFL and NCAA) to make their officials full-time employees and train them year-round to officiate every game in the same (somewhat) predictable manner. Certainly, neither party is wanting for money, and the increased cost to pay officials full-time and train them year-round would be paid back tenfold if a crucial call that would have been missed is assessed accurately. If that doesn’t work, there’s a remote possibility that those same gambling operators may ask (see: lobby) Congress, or possibly state legislatures, to examine the possibility of creating an oversight and certifying body for sports officials to create the kind of predictability they are looking for. And with the amount of money that sportsbooks are collecting with the increasing legalization of sports betting, government officials are likely going to be willing to listen. At worst, these changes would provide the leagues with the plausible deniability that there is no way to have a more competent and accurate body of officials to preside over contests with such high stakes. At best, for the sportsbooks at least, it allows them to more accurately set lines for wagering, and the leagues get the consistent officiating that coaches, athletes, fans and gamblers all want to see. Wouldn’t it be ironic if it was the sportsbooks, and not the leagues themselves, that ultimately enhanced the integrity of officiating in American sports and helped stop the conspiracy theories that start the second an official misses an obvious pass-interference with the game on the line. ….And no, I’m not a Saints fan. Michael DiLiello is an Army Officer transitioning to the Sports Law field and will enroll as a 1L in the Fall of 2022. His opinions are purely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the United States Army, the Department of Defense, or any other external agency. Twitter: @Mike_DiLiello LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/michael-diliello-1057b439 Image via The New York Times

Prince, Tom Petty, and Mac Miller will forever be bonded by both their fame in the music industry and the prescription drug that tragically stole their life: fentanyl.[1] Fentanyl is believed to be responsible for more than 50% of drug overdoses nationwide[2] and has killed more than 50,000 people in the year 2020 alone.[3] As a drug crisis continues to rage throughout the country,[4] a leading pitcher on the Los Angeles Angels, Tyler Skaggs, has also fallen victim to the dangers associated with the usage of fentanyl.[5] On July 1, 2019, Tyler Skaggs was found unconscious in his hotel room and was later pronounced dead.[6] A medical examiner found that Skaggs’ cause of death was oxycodone that was laced with fentanyl, which was given to him by the Angels communications manager, Eric Kay.[7] On February 17, 2022, Eric Kay was criminally convicted for providing Skaggs a controlled substance which led to his death.[8] Following the criminal conviction, a civil lawsuit was filed by Skaggs’ parents and widow against the Los Angeles Angels for acting negligently and they are seeking money damages.[9] While predicting the future has never been a hobby of mine, the Angels will likely reach a private settlement with Tyler Skaggs’ family well before this case ever has the chance to be tried in court. Firstly, Skaggs’ tragic death has already harmed the Angels tremendously. This case has brought about tons of negative publicity, has harmed the Angels standing in the league, and exposed to the world the sad reality that drug use has been rampant in their locker room. To enable any chance of success in the coming season, the Angels need this incident to become a tragic accident of their past, rather than a painful dispute of the present. Secondly, negligent supervision is when someone who has a legal obligation to supervise another fails to do so responsibly.[10] Negligent supervision primarily consists of three elements: 1) a person or individual had supervisory responsibility over an individual, 2) the supervisor failed to supervise the individual under its authority, and 3) the resulting injury was directly due to the supervisor’s failure to oversee the individual.[11] In our case, the Los Angeles Angels clearly had supervisory authority over Eric Kay because he was the communications manager of the team. The Angels also failed to supervise Kay since he recently returned from rehab and still maintained consistent contacts with the players. One can certainly recognize the danger and potential influence that a known drug user can have on others. Finally, it was strongly proven at Eric Kay’s criminal trial that he was solely responsible for providing the drugs to Skaggs. Thirdly, vicarious liability establishes that an employer can be held liable for the actions of an employee that harms another party.[12] Unlike negligent supervision, an employer can be held vicariously liable solely based off their status as an employer, rather than the manner that they acted. In our case, it can be strongly argued that the Angels should be held liable since they employed Kay and his actions occurred during the scope of his employment. In conclusion, a private settlement will likely be reached in the coming months because of the tremendous negative publicity associated with this tragedy and the strong support for finding liability. This tragedy has become the biggest scandal in the MLB and has enveloped the Angels organization to focus their energy on all topics other than baseball. Moving forward, we must never forget that fentanyl can kill, drugs are dangerous, and that the lives of our loved ones must always be cherished. David Billet is a 3L at Fordham Law School and has a Bachelor of Arts in Accounting from Queens College, CUNY. He can be reached on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-billet-234b48127. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/arts/music/mac-miller-overdose-fentanyl.html [2] https://drugabusestatistics.org/fentanyl-abuse-statistics/ [3] https://nida.nih.gov/drug-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates [4] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-opioid-epidemic [5] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/former-angels-communications-director-eric-kay-convicted-tyler-skaggs-overdose-case [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/06/29/tyler-skaggs-family-sues-team-former-employees-death [10] https://www.maggianolaw.com/blog/negligent-supervision/#:~:text=Negligent%20supervision%20is%20when%20someone,and%20church%20youth%20group%20leaders. [11] Id. [12] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vicarious_liability

In the news recently, it feels like there are more and more sports franchises gaining almost complete control over the places that they reside. This is a trend that has been especially apparent throughout time, as the towns and cities they reside in become reliant on sports franchises for the revenue that they bring to the local economy. However, even more recently, this has led to the power getting to the heads of some of the richest people in the sports industry. There have been rumors that the owners of the Oakland Athletics, who have a notoriously outdated stadium, have been pressing the city of Oakland to build them an environment around their new stadium that would cost them millions. The issue with this is, if Oakland declines, then the Athletics will simply move the same way that the Raiders left town. After this occurs, a bidding war begins and wherever the Athletics can get the most public funding and tax breaks is where they will go. This can have dramatic effects on local economies that depend on the crowds that the stadiums bring into town. For example, when you bring in a sports franchise and build a stadium, it boosts the local economy by allowing more revenue to come in, and by attracting more businesses to the location. If you bring in a sports stadium, people are going to need to get gas somewhere near it if they were driving far, so it leads to a gas station being built near the stadium. Then this leads to restaurants being built, because they may want to go somewhere to eat before or after the game. It is easy to see how this chain reaction can then lead to a prosperous local economy, and a dramatic downfall once the sports team leaves and the revenue goes with it. The way that this impacts us today can be exemplified by the spending breakdown of the new stadium being built for the Buffalo Bills. In this situation, the state of New York is contributing around $600 million for the building of this stadium, which has been met with mixed reactions. Mostly because this stadium is not even in Buffalo, and additionally because the money that is being contributed to this stadium is coming from the taxpayers. [1] This has reflected just how powerful owners have become, not even just in football, but across all sports. Most of you may know about the recent MLB lockout that occurred in the offseason, and if you don’t, a short summary in a sentence or two would be that the owners and players must come to an agreement on specific rules, and this agreement expires after a certain number of years. This offseason, the last agreement expired, and a new one had to be negotiated. When it takes too long to negotiate an agreement, the league enters what is called a lockout. For context, we have not had an MLB lockout since the 1994-1995 season, which just goes to show that it is significant. The major issue that has occurred recently is that the owners were refusing to budge on paying players more, and so they had all the power during the negotiations. This forced players to give up some of their rights in order to make a deal, just showing how powerful owners of sports franchises have become. If they feel that it will be more profitable for them and their franchise, they will not hesitate to force their way out of a city and move elsewhere. This leads to both destroying the local economy they’re leaving and crippling the city they’re entering with the tax breaks they insist on receiving. All in all, the conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that owners are getting more powerful, in most cases even more powerful than the local government and economy of the city they are leaving in. The way this may impact you, is that if your local government doesn’t bend to the will of the owner of your local sports team, then you may lose your local sports team for good. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

The Evander Kane saga continues. To quickly recap, Kane filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January of 2021, stating that he owned $10,224,743 in property and $30,191,340 in liabilities. At the time Kane's bankruptcy petition was filed, the pesky power forward was in the third year of a seven-year deal with the San Jose Sharks. After Kane filed his Chapter 7 proceeding, a creditor, Zions Bancorporation, moved to convert the case to a Chapter 11. The key difference between a Chapter 7 and 11 case is that in Ch. 7, a debtor retains his post-petition income, while in Ch. 11, said income becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. At stake in Kane's case: his earnings under the remainder of his contract with the Sharks, which Zions estimated at $29 million. Also, Kane's one-year contract with the Edmonton Oilers worth approximately $1 million. Kane has been a great addition for the volatile Oilers, putting up 28 points in 32 games while staying relatively quiet. However, he somehow managed to commit four minor penalties in about eight minutes of game time recently. Almost impressive. The bankruptcy court denied Zions' motion to convert the case on April 19, 2021, which Zions appealed. In January of this year, while Zions' appeal was pending, the Sharks terminated Kane's contract. Kane filed this motion to dismiss the appeal on February 22, 2022. Kane's primary argument in his motion to dismiss is that "because the Sharks contract was terminated, and because Zions relied on that contract to fund a Chapter 11 plan, the court cannot grant effective relief, and Zions' appeal is thus moot." Zions argues that Kane failed to address whether he would continue to earn income from other sources, including by playing hockey for other teams. Zions contends that "whether Kane's income from the Sharks has been reduced or lost altogether . . . does not necessarily support the assertion that Kane could not fund a Chapter 11 plan, as all of his post-petition compensation would constitute property of the bankruptcy estate." According to Zions, it therefore is not impossible for the court to grant it effective relief. The California Northern District Court decided to deny Kane's motion to dismiss yesterday, April 5, 2022. The court reasoned with the following: "just because that stream of income [San Jose Sharks' contract] is no longer available does not mean there is no stream of income available, as evidenced by his new contract with the Oilers. He also misses two key points: he earned some money from the Sharks before his contract was terminated, and there is a still-pending grievance that could impact the money available to him post-termination. Taken together, this shows that there is some effective relief that would be available to Zions in a Chapter 11 plan." With that, Zions' appeal to convert Kane's bankruptcy case from a Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 case will be heard moving forward. 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.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division has dismissed an interesting lawsuit filed by an individual named Bahram Shakeri. Shakeri, the plaintiff, claimed that the MGM National Harbor Casino in Maryland was negligent for letting former NBA player Delonte West fight him on their premises. In January of 2020, plaintiff was at the high limit gaming area of the MGM National Harbor when he claims he was attacked by Delonte West, who is a non-party to this suit. Plaintiff alleged that West is "known for battling issues of mental health and violence, including being convicted of weapons charges." Shakeri also claimed that he tried to get away from West, but West followed him throughout the casino and harassed him. As for his legal claim, Shakeri said MGM committed gross negligence when none of its representatives ever intervened or asked West to leave the premises, even after West repeatedly attacked him. Plaintiff and West later fought off of the premises after West followed Shakeri's car. Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 3, 2021, alleging that defendant MGM was negligent because it had a responsibility to provide a safe environment for its customers. Plaintiff said he suffered severe emotional distress and should be entitled to damages. Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2021. Last week, the court granted defendant's motion, dismissing the lawsuit. Gross negligence is defined by the court as "[a]n intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another, and also implies a thoughtless disregard of the consequences without the exertion of any effort to avoid them." "Stated conversely, a wrongdoer is guilty of gross negligence or acts wantonly and willfully only when he inflicts injury intentionally or is so utterly indifferent to the rights of others that he acts as if such rights did not exist." MGM argued it was entitled to a dismissal and did not commit negligence because it had no duty to prevent the criminal acts of a third party. Generally, a "business [MGM] owes an invitee [Shakeri] a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe and to protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for his own safety, will not discover." Here, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had any knowledge of West's threats to him. "A business is not required to take precautions against a sudden attack from a third person which he has no reason to anticipate." Thus, plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief. Hopefully, Delonte West can put this incident behind him and continue to improve in his road to recovery. West recently participated in BIG 3 tryouts ahead of their 2022 season. It's so refreshing to see him back on the court after years of anguish. 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.

On Tuesday, April 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. that jockeys can refuse to race for higher wages and better working conditions, opening the door for jockeys to collectively bargain. Background Puerto Rico has one horse-racing track operated by Camarero Racetrack Corp. Jockeys are hired on a race-by-race basis and paid a minor $20 mount fee for each race, which is one-fifth of what jockeys receive in the mainland United States, and, if they finish within the top five, the possibility of sharing in the winnings. After negotiations between Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Hípica”), which represents the owners, and Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. (“Jinetes”), which represents the jockeys, over working conditions ultimately failed, the jockeys refused to race for three days between June 30-July 2, 2016. Due to the cancellation of races between June 30 and July 2, Hípica and racetrack owner Camarero sued the jockeys and Jinetes, alleging that they engaged in a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court’s Opinion In finding that a statutory exemption applied, Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote, “[m]ost of the time, antitrust law forbids would-be competitors from colluding to increase prices. When the price is a laborer’s wage, however, a different set of rules apply.” Here, the statutory labor-dispute exemption under the Clayton Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied. Specifically, the exemption applies to “conduct arising (1) out of the actions of a labor organization and undertaken (2) during a labor dispute, (3) unilaterally, and (4) out of the self-interest of the labor organization.” Applying the conditions to the case at hand, Judge Lynch noted that conditions (3) and (4) were not in dispute and found that Jinetes is a labor organization that advocates for jockeys’ terms of employment, and the jockeys and Jinetes were seeking higher wages and safer working conditions. Therefore, the conditions were satisfied, and the labor-dispute exemption applied. Importantly, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that it does not matter whether the jockeys were independent contractors because the exemption still applies under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. “The key question is not whether the jockeys are independent contractors or laborers but whether what is at issue is compensation for their labor,” Judge Lynch wrote, “disputes about wages for labor fall within the exemption but those over prices for goods do not.” Since the exemption applied, the plaintiffs could not prevail on their claims. Thus, the Court remanded the case to the district court for dismissal. Pending any appeals, the ruling will allow jockeys to collectively bargain. Why This Matters Currently, professional leagues like the PGA Tour consider athletes independent contractors. With many touting a Saudi Arabia-backed professional golf league as an opportunity for professional golfers, we could see organizations representing professional golfers utilizing the labor-dispute exemption to negotiate higher wages. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via Twitter @LandisBarber, LinkedIn, or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com.

In October, I wrote about Ben Simmons’ decision to holdout from the 76ers. The NBA season was underway, and Simmons wasn’t suiting up for Philadelphia. Since then we’ve had media leaks, cryptic tweets, passive aggressive press conferences, and much more NBA influenced drama. After not playing a single game for the 76ers this season, in February Simmons was shipped out of Philadelphia to Brooklyn officially signaling the end of this tumultuous relationship. Ben Simmons and the 76ers are no longer together – but they’re still fighting like they are. Simmons joined the Brooklyn Nets where he has still yet to play in a game this season. He’s currently rehabbing a back injury with hopes to join the Nets sometime during the playoffs. But in addition to working on his back, Simmons is still entrenched in a financial feud with his former employer. Until the trade to Brooklyn, even though you couldn’t tell by simply watching 76ers games, according to his contract Simmons was still a member of Philadelphia. Despite being worth millions of dollars, an NBA contract works like any other employment contract where consideration is provided by both sides. Under these circumstances, Simmons plays basketball for the 76ers and in return gets paid $33 million a year. The contract broke down when Simmons refused to play citing mental health reasons. The 76ers countered by withholding paychecks which they felt was in their right because Simmons was in breach of contract for “failing to render services” under Article VI Section I of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To further complicate matters, Simmons was issued a $16 million advance on his 2021/2022 salary last August before the situation between the two sides became radioactive. So during this season, the 76ers actually claimed that Simmons owed them money to recoup the advance. They withheld $360,000 game checks for every game that Simmons missed as a member of the 76ers this season to make them whole. Fast forward to present day, now this divorce involves a third party. When Simmons was traded to the Nets, as part of the deal it was agreed upon that the Nets wouldn’t pay Simmons either. Instead, the Nets would wire the 76ers paychecks that were meant for Simmons to recoup the aforementioned losses. Simmons no longer plays for Philadelphia, but his former employer is still receiving his paychecks they feel they are owed due to breach of contract. Only in the NBA. Simmons wasn’t going to go down quietly. He filed a grievance against the 76ers under Article XXXI of the CBA to acquire $20 million in salary from his former team. According to the CBA, the grievance now moves to the arbitration process where both sides will make their case.[1] Before even getting to the substance of the grievance, the first point the 76ers legal team will likely jump on involves timing. Article XXXI Section 2(c) of the CBA lays out procedure requirements for a grievance to be filed: The 76ers have been withholding payment from Simmons all season. Also, it’s been more than 30 days since Simmons’ new employer, the Nets, began sending the 76ers their former player’s checks. The 76ers have a good case Simmons didn’t file a timely grievance under the CBA. Simmons will likely respond that the “occurrence for which the grievance is based” remains ongoing. Simmons will make the case that he should be granted 30 days from when his last paycheck enters the 76ers pockets instead of his. Therefore, hie grievance was filed well within the procedure requirements under the CBA. Shifting to the substance, the Simmons vs. 76ers battle will be precedent-setting for an NBA player’s ability to holdout and demand trades when their situation grows unfavorable. In the recent decade, it’s become a common trend for NBA players to exert power over their teams to demand trades and pick their next destination. Usually, after a minor recoil, the team complies to their superstar’s demands and trades them. Finally, a team has fought back in the form of withholding salary. This situation also gets more complicated because at the heart of Simmons’ case is his mental health. Simmons has claimed that the reason he avoided joining the 76ers this season was because he was battling mental health issues that began when the 76ers lost in the playoffs the year before. The 76ers now find themselves in the difficult spot of arguing against a player’s legitimate right to seek mental health treatment. As mental health awareness has become more significant, the 76ers will have to tread lightly. Exhibit A of what the 76ers can point to is the shift in how Simmons has acted since joining the Nets. Although Simmons hasn’t played yet for Brooklyn, he’s cited back problems, not mental health, as the reason he remains sidelined. However, he’s joined his teammates on the bench, something he didn’t do in Philadelphia this season. Simmons will likely claim that the way he was treated in Philadelphia was the main source of his mental anguish. Once that burden was lifted and he joined a new team, he became ready mentally to join his new teammates and work towards getting back on the court. The NBA arbitration process isn’t usually in the business of evaluating the validity of mental distress claims, so it’s unpredictable where all of this ends up. Make no mistake, the NBA is a player’s league. NBA commissioner Adam Silver rarely tries to ruffle feathers amongst the league’s elite talent. Simmons’ hope is that this trend continues. But the other 29 teams are monitoring this situation very closely. Ownership and team front offices have felt that the power balance has shifted too far in favor of the players. Their hope is that the Simmons situation will determine that no longer should a player be able to hold out of his contract, refuse to play, demand a trade, and still get paid. The divorce between the 76ers and Ben Simmons is official, the papers are signed, and they’ve begun seeing other people. But the fallout from this breakup will lay the foundation of player-team relationships in the NBA moving forward. 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] Bobby Marks, Sources: Brooklyn Nets' Ben Simmons files grievance to challenge nearly $20 million withheld by Philadelphia 76ers, ESPN (last visited Apr. 7, 2022) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33652726/sources-brooklyn-nets-ben-simmons-files-grievance-nearly-20-million-withheld-philadelphia-76ers.

This past week in Luxembourg, Europe's highest judicial body, the European Union Court of Justice, heard legal arguments surrounding the legality of the formation of the European "Super League." In April of 2021, many prominent first-division European soccer clubs across Europe's top leagues banded together to form a loose coalition to tentatively form a Super League that would feature renewed yearly competition among league members without fear of relegation. Initially, the newly-founded concept of a European Super League boasted behind-the-scenes support from twelve noteworthy clubs, including AC Milan (Italy), Arsenal (England), and Atletico Madrid (Spain). However, in the months since the Super League concept became public knowledge, widespread disapproval from smaller clubs, fans, and other vital stakeholders played a significant role in causing most of the original founding clubs to distance themselves from the concept altogether. Across the globe, the ideas surrounding the creation of the European Super League remain unpopular. Despite the near collapse of the European Super League idea, three holdout clubs, including Juventus (Italy), Real Madrid (Spain), and FC Barcelona (Spain), remain keen on having their day in court against FIFA and UEFA. Both FIFA and UEFA are set on stopping the European Super League from forming altogether. On one hand, the breakaway clubs argued before the EU Court of Justice that due to UEFA's endorsement of their own European championship, known as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA would never approve of a similar tournament that would effectively act as a competitor league to the Champions League. In addition, Super League attorney Miguel Odriozola Alen argued that UEFA has governed such matters with an "iron fist and beaten away any alternative project that could threaten its monopoly." On the other hand, UEFA's attorney, Donald Slater, countered by asserting that if the Super League is permitted to take form, the league's existence would fracture the European soccer sporting model and consequently cause a "systemic collapse." Moreover, Slater argues, "Competition should be open to all, and merit, not money, must determine the outcome." During the proceedings, representatives from 21 countries issued their respective opinions to the court. For instance, Denmark's representative relayed that the creation of the European Super League should be restricted because of "sporting integrity" concerns. Now that the proceedings have concluded, the global soccer community must wait for the EU Court of Justice to issue a final opinion on the matter. A decision from Europe's highest court could be released at the end of 2022 or the beginning of 2023. The Argument for the European Super League From the perspective of the breakaway clubs, Juventus, Real Madrid, and FC Barcelona, I can understand why these clubs are set on establishing a European Super League under the proposed model. With the current UEFA Champions League model, member clubs are required to qualify for a Champions League bid regularly based on domestic league performance that year. In essence, qualifying for the UEFA Champions League in one given year ensures no guarantee that the same club will remain in the Champions League the following year. For example, in the English Premier League (England), four spots are up for grabs each year for a chance to win Champions League glory the following year. However, due to the vast competitiveness of the EPL from the top of the table to the bottom of the table, England's Champions League members often rotate from one club to the next. As a result, not qualifying for the UCL could mean the difference between millions and the invaluable television exposure that the tournament offers from a broadcast perspective. If the European Super League is formed, the already strong clubs that become members of such a league will secure a long-term position of European Super League television/broadcast rights payouts without fear of losing such payouts due to not qualifying on a yearly basis, as is a hallmark of the current UEFA Champions League model. The Argument Against the Super League In contrast, I could see how implementing a European Super League may disproportionately benefit large clubs at the expense of smaller clubs and players. Moreover, the implementation of a super league may even go as far as creating even more of a financial gap between the blue chip clubs, and smaller clubs who could greatly benefit from the valuable television exposure and earnings that are accrued as a result of participating in the UEFA Champions League in a given year. Although the Champions League routinely features several repeat names, such as Paris St. Germain (France), the qualifying and subsequent group stage rounds provide up-and-coming players with a unique opportunity to be noticed by more prominent clubs and allows scouts to evaluate how such players would match up against the best of the best. Additionally, under the current UEFA Champions League model, participation in this tournament allows member teams from more minor European first-division leagues to earn a proportionally large amount of money from television/broadcast rights. If a European Super League is formed, many of the top clubs that attract high levels of viewership would no longer be featured in the Champions League, which would exponentially lower the amount of money that UEFA Champions League teams earn on a yearly basis. Final Remarks In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the legal proceedings surrounding the European Super League concept affect the future of European soccer as we know it. Soccer is one of, if not, the most popular sport in the world. Consequently, any significant changes to its underlying structure would surely garner worldwide attention. References "UEFA Battles Super League at EU's Top Court" by Ali Walker https://www.politico.eu/article/super-league-uefa-begin-battle-at-eus-top-court/#:~:text=Judgment%20expected%20by%20early%202023%20in%20key%20case%20for%20future%20of%20football.&text=LUXEMBOURG%20%E2%80%94%20European%20football's%20governing%20body,upend%20football%20governance%20for%20decades. "How Super League Teams Have Performed in European Competition" by Luke Bosher https://theathletic.com/news/european-super-league-clubs-teams/qqMVCmtsh3b7/ Mel is a rising 2L sports law school student at the University of Miami School of Law. Mel is a member of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society at Miami Law and is the founding "Miami Law" Chair of the newly-created National Sports Legal & Business Society. Mel can be reached at [email protected]. Connect with Mel on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/melvinstack/

Since the NCAA adopted its interim name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) policy last July, college athletes had the opportunity in 2021 to profit from their NIL rights for the first time. As the 2022 tax season is quickly coming to end, college athletes who have earned income from NIL activities in 2021 should be aware of the tax consequences. This article highlights several frequently asked tax questions to help college athletes who have earned income from NIL activities prepare for their tax filings. What forms of NIL compensation are taxable income? College athletes can earn various forms of compensation through NIL activities, such as: Cash payments for services (e.g., endorsements, social medial posts, autographs, appearances, teaching camps or lessons) Car lease or use of car Merchandise (e.g., clothing, equipment, electronics) Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) Gift cards Any net income from NIL activities—including non-cash compensation—is considered taxable income. For example, if a business pays a college athlete in the form of products endorsed for the business (e.g., clothes, shoes), the athlete should include the fair market value of those products in their taxable income. Are college athletes paid as independent contractors for NIL activities? A college athlete who earned income from NIL activities was likely paid as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. While there is no exact definition, an independent contractor is generally defined as an individual or entity contracted to perform services for another person or entity. The key difference between an independent contractor and an employee is that the employer has the ability to control the result of the work performed by an independent contractor, but the independent contractor generally has right to direct and control when and how the work will be performed. A company that hires a college athlete as an independent contractor for NIL activities does not withhold income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. As independent contractors, college athletes are responsible for making their own estimated federal and state tax payments, which includes both the employer and employee portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes. How is NIL income reported? Form 1099-NEC: If a college athlete was hired as an independent contractor for NIL activities and received $600 or more, their income will be reported on Form 1099-NEC. If the college athlete did NIL deals with more than one company, they should receive a Form 1099-NEC from each company. Form 1099-K: If a college athlete was paid for NIL activities through a third-party payment service, like Venmo, PayPal, Cash App, or credit cards, their income will be reported on a Form 1099-K by that third-party payment service, so long as that service paid them more than $20,000 in payments and processed at least 200 transactions for them in 2021. Beginning in 2022, the payment threshold for Form 1099-K will be reduced from $20,000 to $600 or more and the transaction requirement of 200 transactions will be eliminated entirely. 1099 Deadlines: Form 1099-NEC or Form 1099-K must be filed with the IRS, and the deadline to send a copy of either 1099 form to the college athlete is by January 31 of each tax year. Even if the college athlete does not receive a Form 1099-NEC or Form 1099-K, the IRS still requires them to report all self-employed income, even if it is less than $600. What taxes are required for NIL income? Any net income (gross income minus expenses) from NIL activities is considered taxable income. The following are potential taxes a college athlete will have to pay for net income earned from NIL activities: Self-Employment Tax: The income generated from NIL activities is considered self-employed income, meaning the college athlete must pay “self-employment tax.” Self-employment tax is a tax consisting of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The self-employment tax rate is 15.3% (the sum of a 12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare). State Tax: Generally, in any state a college athlete earns income from NIL activities, the athlete will owe state income taxes (unless that state does not have individual income taxes). The college athlete could also owe income taxes on NIL earnings in their state of residency, regardless of the income being earned in that state. The income tax rates and deductions vary substantially from state to state, so college athletes should consult a tax professional to help them navigate various state income tax rules. Federal Tax: The standard deduction for 2021 is $12,550 for single filers (or $25,100 if married and filing taxes jointly), meaning that if the college athlete’s income is below that amount they will generally not owe federal income taxes or be required to file a federal income tax return (note: the college athlete will still have to file an income tax return if their net earnings from self-employment were $400 or more). The standard deduction for 2022 increases to $12,950 for single filers (or $25,900 if married and filing taxes jointly). Should a college athlete pay quarterly estimated taxes for NIL earnings? If the college athlete expects to owe more than $1,000 in federal taxes for any NIL income for that tax year, they may need to make estimated quarterly tax payments using Form 1040-ES, or else face a penalty for underpayment. This “pay-as-you-go” approach can help college athletes, who earn big NIL pay days, avoid a large tax bill at the end of the year. Is a tax return required for NIL income? If a college athlete’s net earnings from NIL activities are $400 or more, they need to file a Schedule C (Form 1040) and pay self-employment taxes. Even if the college athlete’s net earnings from NIL activities are less than $400, they still have to file an income tax return if they meet any of the other requirements listed in Form 1040. What is the deadline to file a tax return for NIL activities? The filing deadline to submit 2021 tax returns or an extension to file and pay tax owed is April 18, 2022 (typically, the tax deadline is April 15 each year). What tax deductions are available for NIL activities? A tax deduction is an item that can be subtracted from taxable income to lower the amount of taxes owed. If a qualifying expense is related to NIL activities, the college athlete can use that expense to lower their taxable NIL income. A few examples of possible tax deductions related to NIL activities include: Travel expenses (e.g., hotel, baggage fees) Meal expenses Mileage Internet and phone expenses Advertising expenses If the college athlete elects to deduct any NIL related expenses for taxes, they should keep receipts of all deductions in the event they are audited by the IRS. In addition, college athletes should track all tax deductions for record keeping purposes, which can be done through a monthly spreadsheet or an expense tracker app. Can parents claim a college athlete that earns NIL income as a dependent? If the college athlete is a full-time college student under the age of 24, their parents may be able to claim them as a dependent and be eligible for education tax credits like the American Opportunity Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit. However, if the college athlete’s NIL income (and any other income they earn) provides at least half of their own financial support, their parents generally cannot claim them as a tax dependent. Does NIL income affect financial aid? Because income from NIL activities is taxable, it will be reportable on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which could affect a college athlete’s “need-based” aid. If a college athlete receives financial aid or a grant, such as a Pell Grant, they should contact their college’s financial aid office or athletics department before engaging in any NIL activities to determine whether any potential NIL income would affect their financial aid. Conclusion While the ability to earn compensation from NIL activities is a win for college athletes, NIL earnings for college athletes come with tax consequences. Given the many complexities and nuances in filing and paying taxes, this article does not cover all the potential tax implications associated with NIL earnings. Therefore, college athletes should consult with tax, legal, or accounting advisors to help them navigate taxes applicable to NIL earnings. THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE, AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED ON FOR, TAX, LEGAL, OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE. YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR OWN TAX, LEGAL, AND ACCOUNTING ADVISORS FOR TAX, LEGAL, OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for startup and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via LinkedIn.