According to ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the MLBPA recently proposed drastic changes to the structure of the first 18 picks of the MLB draft in the latest round of CBA negotiations. Those 18 picks are the ones awarded to teams that missed the playoffs during the previous year (in a 12-team playoff, which the MLBPA is also proposing). In addition to a proposed lottery system similar to the NBA, the MLBPA proposed penalties on teams that repetitively miss the playoffs and find themselves near the top of the draft, in an effort to discourage teams from continuously fielding non-competitive rosters. It’s a unique proposal that I cannot remember seeing in recent CBA conflicts in major professional sports, but more importantly, it indicates just how committed the MLBPA is to ensuring that all players have the opportunity to play for a competitive franchise. As I alluded to in my previous article on Stephen Ross, there are multiple MLB franchises that field non-competitive teams with low salary totals year after year in order to keep their balance sheets in the positive without feigning any interest in winning. As I noted, this situation is most prevalent for small-market teams, where low attendance totals and the difficulty of successfully tanking your way into success makes it more financially prudent for some teams to continually underperform as long as they make enough revenue to stay in the black. This, inherently, adversely effects the players of those franchises, both professionally and personally. Not only are these players now perceived as underperformers, but the lack of investment in their performance means they will naturally not reach their full potential, which may cost them millions of dollars in the long run. Further, these are professional athletes who become extremely unsatisfied when those around them (particularly the ones writing their checks) don’t share the same competitive drive that they do. Players who possess the talent and work ethic to make it to the professional level are constantly seeking an edge on their competitors and dream of not only making money but winning championships and reaching the pinnacle of their sport. They want to play in a league where every franchise is interested in doing just that, and not satisfied with mediocrity as long as the money keeps coming in. This most recent round of negotiations amplifies what we’ve seen in previous proposals by the MLBPA with regards to salary floors, arbitration, service time manipulation, and revenue sharing. The MLBPA, as a clear expression of frustration coming from their constituents that play for these teams, are fed up with trotting themselves out onto the field for owners who have no intention of ever competing for a championship. The popular understanding of this lockout, when viewed from a fan’s perspective, is that it’s a “millionaires vs. billionaires” fight over money. I think this proves it’s not that simple. Of course players want the ability to hit the open market earlier and make more money, thus the emphasis on arbitration and service time in these negotiations. I believe, however, that the drastic changes to the draft process that the MLBPA has proposed shows just how aggravated the players are by the lack of competitive incentive created by the current system and shows how determined they may be to fix it. The interesting question becomes how united are the owners when it comes to this issue? The players know, having either played for one of these franchises or played with players who have, that they don’t want to find themselves in an organization that has no competitive instinct. Moreover, they see this lockout as the opportunity to finally take a stand on the issue. The owners? Some may side with their fellow owners on the draft, and spin this as actually harming the competitive balance of the league by reducing the opportunities for bad teams to become good teams. Others, however, may already believe that their bottom-dwelling brethren are bad for the business of the league, and may at least be warm to conceding some of these ideas to the players in return for other concessions in the negotiating process. 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

This past week, NYC Mayor Eric Adams made headlines in Brooklyn when he was questioned by the press about whether he plans to phase out COVID vaccine mandates for indoor spaces. Mayor Adams responded to the press by saying, “Yes and I can’t wait to get it done.” Mayor Adams also said that he foresees a “real transformation in the next few weeks.” And now just a few hours ago, Mayor Adams has said “So long as our indicators show a low level of risk and we see no surprises this week, on Monday, March 7 we will also remove the vaccination requirements Key2NYC – meaning indoor dining, fitness, and entertainment venues.” With the number of new COVID cases consistently decreasing over the past few weeks, other cities like Boston and Philadelphia phasing out restrictions, and Mayor Adam’s, “can’t wait” attitude and new promise, phasing out the COVID vaccine mandates for indoor spaces seems to be coming to fruition sooner rather than later. Now, what does this mean exactly in the world of basketball? Well, if you are a New York Knicks fan it means absolutely nothing. You were happy to see RJ Barrett scored a career-high 46 points at home on Friday against the Miami Heat in a 15-point loss. While so-called “perennial superstar” Julius Randle shot 2-15 from the field and finished with 11 points and 4 turnovers. But even with RJ Barrett playing some of the best basketball of his career, you know the only hope for the Knicks for the foreseeable future is to acquire a star like Donovan Mitchell. However, if you’re a Brooklyn Nets fan, Mayor Eric Adams could be changing this season’s outcome. Before the season started, Kyrie Irving made it clear that he was not going to get the COVID vaccine and because of the NYC COVID vaccine mandates this means he was not going to be allowed to play in home games at both the Barclays Center and Madison Square Garden. However, Irving was allowed to travel and play road games with the team even while being unvaccinated. Nets fans and the team believed this was going to be the case for the entire season and there were no real signs of change until this past week. Today’s messages from Mayor Adams are major news if you are a Brooklyn Nets fan. This could mean getting your superstar point guard Kyrie Irving back and playing in the Barclays Center. This could mean winning the Eastern Conference for the first time since they were the New Jersey Nets back in 2002-2003. This could even mean winning the NBA finals for the first time in franchise history. https://champsorchumps.us/team/nba/brooklyn-nets Even though, Kyrie Irving has already been playing roads games this season for the Brooklyn Nets they currently stand as the 8th Seed in the East. However, with Mayor Adams declaring to phase out of the COVID vaccine mandate for indoor spaces as soon as next week this could mean Kyrie Irving is back playing in Barclay when the Knicks cross the bridge on March 13th. Or even by March 31st in a rematch of this past weekend’s shocking Nets win verse the Bucks in which Irving scored a season-high of 38 points. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the first game Irving played since Mayor Adams first mentioned a plan to phase out COVID vaccine mandates for indoor spaces Irving had his season-high in points? I’m sure Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, Ben Simmons, and Mayor Adams have that March 31st date against the Bucks circled on their calendar. Kyrie Irving was quick to thank NBA commissioner Adam Silver in his post-game presser after the 126-123 Nets win over the Bucks by saying, “My respect level for him went to a whole new level…. he took one for the team.” This was in reference to commissioner Silver saying that he does not understand the New York mandate and how away players who are unvaccinated are allowed to play in the Barclays Center or Madison Square Garden, but unvaccinated home players can’t play. But in the end, why does getting Kyrie Irving back to play in home games matter? https://firstsportz.com/nba-my-respect-level-for-adam-silver-is-at-a-whole-new-level-kyrie-irving-praises-nba-commissioners-praise-for-standing-up-to-the-new-york-covid-19-vaccine-mandate/ Well, Kyrie Irving while playing for the Brooklyn Nets has a record of 29-10 at home. This is compared to his 20-30 record with the Nets while playing on the road. Of course, NBA players and teams typically have a better record and statistics at home than while on the road. But Kyrie Irving is pretty consistent statically both at home and on the road averaging nearly identical splits with the Nets. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-home-brooklyn-nets-record https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-away-record-with-brooklyn-nets And even more impressively, Kyrie Irving has a perfect home playoff record with the Brooklyn Nets of 5-0. This is compared to his 1-3 road playoff record with the Nets. Again, you must be thinking doesn’t every NBA player have a better playoff record at home than on the road? While that is true, Kyrie Irving’s 27-6 record or .818% home playoff winning percentage is tied for the best home playoff winning percentage among all current NBA players with at least 33 playoffs games played. That’s right Lebron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Steph Curry, and even his teammate Kevin Durant have a worse winning percentage at home in the playoffs than Kyrie Irving. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-career-away-playoff-recordhttps://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-career-home-playoff-record https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/current-nba-players-with-best-home-playoff-record-in-over-30-games Irving throughout his NBA playoff career averages 6 more points per game at home compared to when he is on the road. And during his 9 career Nets playoffs games he has averaged 3 more assists per game and shoots 10% better from the field on fewer attempts while playing at the Barclays Center. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-home-playoff-record-with-the-nets https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyrie-irving-road-record-with-brooklyn-nets-in-playoffs While all of Irving’s other home and road splits are relatively similar it just shows that Kyrie Irving is among the NBA’s best players when it comes to winning at home in the playoffs. And you can’t forget how clutch Irving is on the road as well. Knowing that the Nets will be getting Kevin Durant back from his knee injury in about a week. And you don’t need to show any stats to prove how good Durant has played these past 2 seasons with the Nets. Knowing that Ben Simmons, the runner up for 2020-21 Defensive Player of the Year and back-to-back All-NBA 1st Team Defense (2019, 2020) is returning to the 20th best defensive rated team. And now knowing that Kyrie Irving could return to playing home games as soon as a couple of weeks according to Mayor Adams. The Nets should go from looking at the playoffs as the 8th seed and facing either the Heat, Bucks, 76ers or Bulls in the first round to perennial title favorites again. https://www.inquirer.com/sixers/rudy-gobert-nba-defensive-player-of-the-year-ben-simmons-20210609.html https://www.nba.com/news/history-all-defensive-team https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/defense/?sort=DEF_RATING&dir=-1 After beating the Milwaukee Bucks on the road without Kevin Durant and Ben Simmons, the Nets stand as the 3rd favorite to win the NBA Finals at +475. The only teams according to Draftkings.com that have a better chance at winning the Finals are the Warriors at +450 and the Suns at +380. Now when news breaks that Kyrie Irving will be available for home games, the Nets may become the odds-on favorite to win the title. Before the season started when the Nets big 3 (Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and James Harden) were healthy they were the NBA title favorites at +210. Of course, the Nets team looks significantly different now than it did in the preseason, and they are 8th in the Eastern Conference. But you could only expect the Nets to go back to title favorites when it is declared Irving can play in Barclays again. Especially because this is going to be around the same time Kevin Durant and Ben Simmons make their return to the court. On fanduel.com it looks like you can still get the Nets at +600 to win the NBA Finals. Shockingly the Nets are still the favorite to win the Eastern Conference without Kyrie Irving playing home games. The Nets according to Draftkings.com stand at +245 to win the East with the Bucks at +330 and 76ers at +370 right behind them. With their current position in the standings the Nets would likely have to face the Heat in the 1st round, Bucks in the 2nd round, and finally the 76ers in the Eastern Conference Finals. Which would be an extremely difficult route to the Finals. However, with Irving, Durant, and Simmons all back and playing at Barclays within the month, the Nets could move their way up the Eastern Conference to get at least home court advantage in the 1st round. If the Nets are at +245 to win the Eastern Conference now, they might even come down to +170 when Mayor Adams changes the COVID mandate for indoor spaces. While on fanduel.com it looks like the Nets are still at +290 to win the East which is slightly better odds than on Draftkings.com. It’s tough to say those are the best bets to take advantage of because the Nets are already the favorites in the East and 3rd favorite to win the NBA Finals, but knowing what we know now the odds may only get steeper. So, if you like the Nets or want to make a smart bet based on Mayor Adams phasing out the COVID vaccine mandate restriction for indoor spaces now is the time to bet on the Nets before what now seems like the inevitable decision that Kyrie Irving can play at the Barclay Center. And now that Mayor Adams decided to break this news even sooner than we believed, the best bet available might be the Nets to win their division at +1600 according to Draftkings.com. The Nets are currently 5.5 games back of 1st place in the division with 21 games remaining and 12 of those games are at the Barclays Center. The 3 teams ahead of the Nets are the 76ers, Celtics, and Raptors. The 76ers have 22 games left and the 10th hardest strength of schedule in the NBA remaining. The Celtics have only 19 games left but they have the 6th hardest strength of schedule remaining. The Brooklyn Nets have the 19th hardest strength of schedule remaining and just came off a massive road win against the Milwaukee Bucks. And unlike the other teams who are fully healthy for the first time all year, the Nets might have a full starting lineup within the next week or two. The next 2 games for the Nets will be against the Raptors attempting to overtake them in the division just this week. Even though there might not be enough games remaining for the Brooklyn Nets to take the division from the 76ers and Celtics, if Kyrie Irving is back and playing in the Barclays Center with Kevin Durant and Ben Simmons sooner rather than later who knows? These Mayor Adams comments made on Twitter today, however, do not mean that Kyrie Irving will immediately become eligible to play in the Barclay Center after March 7th, but it’s a major step in the right direction. And as Mayor Adams just recently said on CNBC as of today, “Listen, I want Kyrie on the court. I would do anything to get that ring.” Do you think Kyrie will be back playing in Barclays soon? Maxwell Popkin was born and raised in Boca Raton, Florida. He went to the University of Florida and graduated in 2016 with a Degree in Bachelor of Science in Business Administration-Management. He's currently a 2L at New York Law School and is involved in the Sports Law Society Club and had the pleasure of taking Dan Lust's Sports Law Class last semester. He can be reached on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/maxwell-popkin/.

“NOT SO FAST, MY FRIEND.” -Lee Corso In a recent article, Brendan Bell highlighted Fordham’s recent success in the Tulane International Baseball Arbitration Competition, winning three of the past four competitions. Former Fordham Sports Law President and Conduct Detrimental’s very own Dan Lust crowned his alma mater “the first-ever dynasty in the history of sports law competitions.” It didn’t take long for this statement to attract backlash from Villanova Law students and alumni who felt slighted by Mr. Lust’s words. Ignoring the bias of the former Fordham Sports Law Society President’s statement, a simple look at our Villanova Sports Law Spotlight justifies the Villanova students’ objection to Fordham’s title as the first sports law competition dynasty: Villanova dominates Tulane’s Pro Football Negotiation Competition, winning it four of seven years and finishing 3rd in 2021. Austin Meo '22 and Ryan Murphy '22 became the first 1L-only team to ever win the event back in 2020. It would seem Villanova’s Pro Football Negotiation Team holds this distinction, with their dynasty dating back to 2017. However, allow me to elaborate on just how impressive Villanova’s Pro Football Negotiation squad has been. The team took home the championship in 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2022. Villanova finished in 2018 and 2021 as finalists and semifinalists, respectively, but what really stands out is the 2020 competition: Villanova entered two teams into the competition. “Both teams made it to the Top 8 and they pinned us against each other in the quarterfinal,” noted Villanova Sports Law alum Arun Thottakara. “They had to, though, because if they put us on opposite sides of the bracket we both would have made it to the final.” If we isolate this debate between Villanova’s Pro Football Negotiation Team and Fordham’s Pro Baseball Arbitration Team, Villanova edges out Fordham as the premiere sports law competition dynasty. However, if we expand our view to each school’s full sports law competition resumé, the gap grows substantially wider. The Pro Football Negotiation Team’s success is emblematic of Villanova’s dominance across various sports law contests. In the Tulane Pro Basketball Negotiation Competition, Villanova entered two teams in both 2020 and 2021. In 2020, one team finished as finalists and the other finished in fifth place; and in 2021, one squad took home the championship and the other finished in fourth place. In the Tulane International Baseball Arbitration Competition, Villanova made it to the semifinals in 2020 and 2021 as well as the quarterfinals in 2022. Fordham may hold bragging rights for the baseball competition, but the most dominant school for sports law contests and the home of the first sports law competition dynasty resides in Pennsylvania, not New York. You can be sure Mr. Lust will not forget that anytime soon. Special thanks to Austin Meo (Villanova '22) and Arun Thottakara (Villanova '21) for their help in gathering information for this article.

The newest craze (potentially for the next couple of decades) is the surge of non-fungible tokens or more well-known as NFTs. They have been around since 2014, but it took almost a decade for people to understand and accept these new products. In the virtual reality space called the “Metaverse,” people can purchase NFTs and interact with other users about them. With the current rise of interest of NFTs, the metaverse companies are just figuring out products that they can send out to consumers. Just like anything else when there is a boom, there are opportunistic people out there trying to take advantage to make some money. In the beginning of the new metaverse era trademark and copyright infringement has been difficult for large companies to handle. There is no concrete case law and many lawyers have called the NFT landscape the “wild west.” (Heitner, 2022). As a result, NFTs are created and sold without the permission of companies. Many companies and professional teams such as Walmart, Brooklyn Nets, Puma, and New Balance have filed or added to their already-existing trademarks regarding the Metaverse. (Heitner, 2022). Identical to many companies trying to fight against infringement, Nike is suing StockX over NFTs. The lawsuit was filed on Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and are seeking monetary damages as well as injunctive relief to stop StockX from creating NFTs with Nike’s logo. StockX is a resale marketplace that is valued at $3.8 billion. A majority of the shoes and products in their resale market are Nike, and StockX has created an insanely successful business from reselling Nike products having 76,537 of their items listed on their site. (Heitner, 2022). StockX wants to continue to expand their portfolio of products by selling NFTs of various Nike shoes, but they might have done so too soon. Relatedly, in October, Nike filed a trademark application related to the Metaverse. The application was filed, “for use in connection with downloadable virtual goods, namely computer programs featuring footwear,’ (digital sneaker NFTs) and ‘retail store services featuring virtual goods, namely footwear’ (digital sneaker NFT trading platform).” (TFL, 2022). Nike has not yet launched NFTs, but is planning to release “a number of virtual products” this month with digital art studio. Nike claims that StockX has sold 558 individual Nike-branded Vault NFTs. (TFL, 2022). They do not want any brand confusion by having consumers mixed up with the NFTs that StockX has created thinking that it is Nike’s. Nike believes that they have created other types of virtual products that could count as common law trademark rights. The claim states, “in October 2019, through its SNKRS mobile application, partnered with 2K Sports, makers of the NBA 2K basketball video game franchise, to offer ‘Gamer Exclusives,’ limited edition digital and physical Nike sneakers that NBA 2K20 players can unlock through gameplay.” Nike v StockX, 283 F. Supp. 22 (S.D.N.Y., 2022). Also, Nike created a virtual space, Nike Virtual Studios, where fans and sneakerheads can connect, create, share experiences, and compete in different games on Roblox. Nike and other companies having existing rights to any virtual goods and services would be huge for all sides. Companies would not have to rush to file new applications, a precedent could potentially be set for courts to easily follow, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office would not have as many applications during a time where they are already backed up for months. However, StockX filed a trademark for its digital goods on January 5th, 2022, then launched their first NFT project later that month. StockX’s NFTs give consumers a traceable digital receipt where they have the exact number that the NFT is as well as specific StockX releases, promotions, and events. StockX’s intermediary business model of authenticating physical sneakers, apparel, and other accessories, may make an exception to the clear view of trademark infringement by selling goods with another company’s logo. This distinctive aspect of their services could possibly give StockX the weight that they need to have their trademark application pass. Since they already resell Nike products it may be possible that courts can see them doing the same with NFTs in the future. StockX’s brand is based on sneakerheads having a chance to collect a certain type of sneaker after they are released. These kinds of NFTs could be viewed as a great way for fans to collect their favorite shoes in a different way. StockX selling their NFTs for a higher price is on brand for them because of their normal business practice of reselling most of their shoes for a lot more than retail value. In a way, they are truly trying to continue their business practices in the metaverse that have made them successful thus far. If Nike wins the lawsuit, they can use this act to make StockX take down their NFTs. The problem of companies using copyrighted material will only increase in the future and could be a way to monitor the metaverse. This case is of the upmost importance for future metaverse trademark and copyright infringement. The case could establish precedent or create first come first serve trademark reign in the Metaverse. Citations Heitner, D. (2022, February 4). Nike Attacks StockX In An NFT Lawsuit For Trademark Infringement And Dilution. Retrieved from Above the Law: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/02/nike-attacks-stockx-in-an-nft-lawsuit-for-trademark-infringement-and-dilution/ TFL. (2022, February 3). Nike Names StockX in New Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Sneaker NFTs. Retrieved from The Fashion Law: https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nike-names-stockx-in-lawsuit-over-sale-of-unauthorized-sneaker-centric-nfts/

Amidst Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian athletes are urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to sanction the Olympic committees for Russia and Belarus. Would the IOC sanction the respective country committees for breach of the Olympic Truce? What is the Olympic Truce? The Olympic Truce dates back to the ninth century when the kings of the Greek city-states Elis, Pisa, and Sparta agreed to allow safe participation in the Olympic Games for individuals from their respective city-states. Now, the Olympic Truce continues to provide for safe passage for individuals and aims “to harness the power of sport to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation more broadly.” Since 1993, one year before each Olympic Games, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has adopted a resolution supporting the Olympic Truce. Each resolution is entitled “[b]uilding a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal.” UN Member States show their support by co-sponsoring the bill. 173 of the 193 member states co-sponsored the resolution for the 2022 Beijing Olympics, including Russia. The Olympic Truce is in effect beginning seven days before the start of the Olympic Games and ends seven days after the conclusion of the Paralympic Games, which concludes on March 13. What Will the IOC Do? Because Russia, with support from Belarus, has invaded Ukraine, the countries have broken the Olympic Truce. Notably, this is not the first time Russia has broken the Olympic Truce. Russia also broke the truce in 2008 and 2014, when Russia invaded South Ossetia and Crimea, respectively. However, Russia maintains that they did not break the truce because they were domestic disputes, which is the same position Russia will likely maintain again. Due to the IOC’s insistence on political neutrality, the IOC likely will not sanction the committees from Russia and Belarus. Despite strongly condemning their actions, even going so far as urging sports bodies to cancel or move events planned for Russia and Belarus and to stop using their flags and anthems, the IOC has not sanctioned other countries, including Russia, for prior breaches of the Olympic Truce during prior Olympic and Paralympic Games and likely will not begin now. However, the IOC could continue the sanctions against Russia for figure skater Kamila Valieva’s positive test for a banned substance. What Are Others Doing? Even without sanctions from the IOC, the sports world is speaking out against Russia’s actions: Formula One announced it is canceling the September Russian Grand Prix UEFA announced that the upcoming Champions League Final will not be held in St. Petersburg The International Ski Federation announced that the Federation will not hold any upcoming events in Russia FIFA announced that Russia cannot use their flag and anthem for World Cup qualifying events FIFA declined to go as far as expelling Russia from the World Cup, even though it would not be the first time a country was banned from international competition, as Yugoslavia was banned in 1992 due to the Balkan Wars. In addition, teams throughout the world are refusing to participate in competitions against Russia. More withdrawals from teams and sanctions from sports bodies are likely to continue well into the future. Meanwhile, the world will wait and see if the IOC will sanction the Olympic Committees from Russia and Belarus for violating the Olympic Truce. 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.

Chelsea FC’s multi-billionaire Russian owner Roman Abramovich has come under fire over the last week due to his ties to President Vladimir Putin, with calls to sell and even seize assets of the team coming from members of UK Parliament[1]. Abramovich issued a statement on Saturday, saying that he intends to hand over the “stewardship and care” of the club to its charitable foundation, The Chelsea Foundation[2]. However, his announcement came under immense scrutiny from the sports world, citing the ambiguity of the terms “stewardship and care” as a point of concern. Sky Sports pundits and soccer legends Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville were quick to call out whether handing over “stewardship” was equivalent to ownership and oversight of the club’s day-to-day activities[3]. On Tuesday morning, the charity’s board of trustees were reportedly uncertain of the legality of running the club, as well as expressing an unwillingness to accept the responsibility. The UK’s governing body on charity law, The Charity Commission, requested “information” on the transferring of care of the team on Tuesday morning[4]. The commission is set to investigate whether such a transfer of power is legal, as well as analyze the board’s liabilities if permitted to take control. Other than perhaps the Donald Sterling saga of 2014 that saw the forced-sale of the Los Angeles Clippers to Steve Ballmer, the compulsory sale of a sports franchise is not something that has occurred in recent memory. The situation will be an interesting one to watch, as if the UK government is to get involved in legally forcing Abramovich to sell or relinquish ownership, that could set a precedent for potentially ousting other owners with questionable political ties, such as Newcastle United’s ownership group funded by the Saudi government’s sovereign wealth fund[5]. The status of Chelsea’s future has become even more muddied, as Sports Illustrated reported Tuesday night that Abramovich was preparing to listen to offers to sell the team this week for the first time nearly 20 years[6]. It certainly appears that Abramovich is trying to get ahead of any potential sanctions that could be imposed on him or the club, as handing over care of the club also seems to be a way to deflect from his shady ties with the Russian president. All of this comes at a less than ideal time for the players and manager, as Chelsea currently sits third place in the Premier League, and are seeking to repeat as winners of the UEFA Champions League with their Round of 16 second-leg match set for March 16th. Manager Thomas Tuchel lashed out at reporters Tuesday after repeatedly being asked about his bosses’ ties to Putin, saying that he “is not a politician” and pleaded to journalists to “stop asking me these questions”[7]. Clearly, Abramovich’s political connections are now impacting his players and club, and with the sanctions against Russian oligarchs by the UK looming, the future of Chelsea is uncertain. A government action to seize club assets would be disastrous for the team, as clubs like Chelsea spend millions of dollars each summer on some of the world’s top talent, and being restricted from doing that could massively set the club back on the field, not just on the profit margins. [1] https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/roman-abramovich-london-property-mp-26359451 [2] https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/02/26/statement-from-club-owner-roman-abramovich [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/01/chelsea-foundation-report-serious-incident-to-charity-commission.html [4] https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/60571382 [5] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58930311 [6] https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/chelsea-fc-for-sale-roman-abramovich-set-to-receive-offers. [7] https://www.espn.com/soccer/chelsea-engchelsea/story/4606292/chelseas-tuchel-bristles-over-russia-ukraine-war-questions-you-have-to-stop

For all of the intrigue of (alleged) six-figure tanking bonuses, and clumsily-arranged meet-cutes on James Bond villain mega-yachts, Flores et al. v. The National Football League, et al., (S.D.N.Y.) is, at heart, an employment discrimination suit. The Complaint sets forth the kind of employment discrimination claims that the Southern District of New York sees every day – granted, few complaints that SDNY feature screenshots of a 69 year old man with nine Super Bowl rings panic-texting like a teenager who sent a message about the girl he likes to his crush instead of his friend. In essence, the Complaint alleges that the NFL discriminates against African Americans by denying them head coaching (and other senior coaching) positions, that the Miami Dolphins illegally fired Flores because of his race, and that the New York Giants and Denver Broncos illegally failed to hire him on account of his race. The claims are made under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act (which outlaws intentional discrimination based upon an employee’s race, as well as retaliation in connection with same) along with similar New York and New Jersey statutory employment discrimination claims. Once Flores has filed similar complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York City Commission on Human Rights (if he has not already) he will likely amend his Complaint to include claims arising from Title VII of Civil Rights Act claims. Title VII cases rise or fall on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis (so-named for McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). Under that analysis, Flores will have to make a prima facie showing that: (i) he is a member of a protected class; (ii) he was qualified for the position; (iii) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (iv) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. If Flores is able to meet all four prongs, the burden shifts to the defendants to set forth legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to support the employment decision. Should they do so, the burden shifts back to Flores to show that the reasons given by the defendants were merely pretexts for discrimination. There should be little doubt that Flores meets the first three prongs. As an African American he is a member of a protected class; he is remarkably well qualified, as even his harshest critic would be hard-pressed to deny his exceptional over-achievements as head coach of a moribund Dolphins team; and he was unquestionably fired by the Dolphins/passed over by the Giants and Broncos. The case against the teams, therefore, will likely turn on the fourth question – which ultimately comes down to: was Flores fired/passed over because of race, or for some other, legitimate reason? Ironically, Flores’ complaint appears to dare the Dolphins, at least, to move for pre-discovery dismissal. He (with much publicity) provides them with at least two non-discriminatory reasons for his termination: (i) his refusal to breach tampering rules by meeting with Tom Brady an unnamed quarterback for a strawberry and tomato-free lunch; and (ii) his refusal to participate in the Dolphins’ taking scheme. In other circumstances “the employee refused to comport with our business model, undermined our efforts to secure a highly-coveted recruit, and destroyed our long-term business strategy” would seem like a solid non-discriminatory reason for termination. But Flores appears to be gambling – not unreasonably - that the Dolphins are unlikely to have an interest in giving credence to the allegations, it being the first rule of tanking that you don’t ever admit you’re tanking. Sensational as they may be, this is not to minimize the allegations made against the NFL. The claims regarding the failings of the Rooney Rule, the insider-trading and king-making that (allegedly) allows a small handful of (old, white) men to control who gets to head coach in the NFL, and the astonishing (if well known) contrast between the use that the NFL has for the bodies of young black men (70% of players) versus the interest it has in awarding them positions of power and authority (0 owners, 1 head coach at the time of filing) are not mere window-dressing. The scope of Title VII includes a prohibition on disparate impact discrimination: even if Flores is unable to show intentional discrimination, he may have a case if the defendants’ practices have a discriminatory outcome – such as disproportionately excluding African Americans from head coaching positions. A pre-trial conference is currently scheduled for March 18, 2022, though that may be adjourned as the defendants have until April 11, 2022 to respond to the Complaint. Charles “Ben” Bergin is an associate at Kaufman Dolowich Voluck. His practice focuses on labor and employment law, business litigation, immigration law and general liability defense. He has a background in entertainment law, sports law, insurance litigation and coverage. He was named a 2020 and 2021 New York Metro “Rising Star” in the field of “Business Litigation”.

Yesterday kicked off Women’s History Month and the first story I read was Sports Illustrated’s cover article, How Airplanes Became the WNBA’s Biggest Scandal. As I began to further research the WNBA’s travel guidelines outlined in their collective bargaining agreement, I couldn’t help but be surprised that female professional athletes were traveling via premium economy to games across the country whereas their male counterparts in the NBA often take to social media to display their team’s private planes. There is a rising mantra coined by Kelsey Trainor to “Invest in Women. Pay women. Hire Women.” There is no better time than the present to invest in women’s sports; however, there is a rising tension between WNBA team owners attempting to invest in women, and what the players association and the league have already determined to be the rules of the game. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a labor contract between a union representing employees and the employer. It sets the terms and conditions of employment such as wages and employee benefits. The history of collective bargaining negotiations in professional sports mirrors American employment law in that it revolves around both parties battling for leverage at the bargaining table. Amidst the current battle between Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association arguing over their new collective bargaining agreement, New York Liberty team owners are facing a $500,000 fine for violating the terms of the WNBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. Formal negotiations for the 2020 WNBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement began in March 2019 and culminated in January 2020. Among the noteworthy elements of the new CBA, that will run until 2027, alongside increases to the maximum player salary and better treatment overall, were the updated provisions for the quality of travel for the League and its players. The WNBPA CBA states that “all air travel provided by the Team (including but not limited to, travel between games) will be, if available on the Team-chosen flights at the time of booking, premium economy (or similar enhanced coach fare).” In clear violation of this provision, New York Liberty owners Joe and Clara Wu Tsai, provided charter flights for their team during the second half of the WNBA season and during a Labor Day weekend trip to Napa. The use of chartered flights clearly provided Liberty with a competitive advantage among the other eleven WNBA teams who are not afforded the same luxury travel. The use of these chartered flights by New York Liberty led to a league-record fine of $500,000 to the team. As reported by Sports Illustrated, in September 2021, the WNBA Board of Governors considered an unofficial proposal from Liberty to make charter flights the default travel option throughout the League, but this proposal lacked majority support. The New York Liberty chartered flights for every road game during the second half of their season. WNBA front office members, upon learning about Liberty’s travel history, reported Liberty’s use of charted flights to the League. Liberty then received inquiries and demands to cease and desist the unauthorized charter flights from the league’s general counsel, Alan Dershowitz. In response to Dershowitz, Liberty alternate governor Oliver Weisberg wrote a letter defending Liberty’s travel decisions stating “We cannot begin to talk about gender equity until we solve some pressing issues that have put extra burdens on the health and well-being of WNBA players. In the spirit of improving working conditions for our female athletes, we are of the strong belief that WNBA teams should be permitted to arrange travel that is consistent with the fact that they are professional athletes.” The WNBA is only in its 25th season, a very young professional league compared to the National Basketball Association celebrating its 75th season, and the National Football League which has survived 101 years. In order to understand how decisions are made within the WNBA, it is important to understand the ownership structure, 50% of the WNBA is owned by the NBA’s 30 teams, while the other 50% ownership is divided among the 12 WNBA teams. Early last month, it was reported that the WNBA had secured $75 million in funding, valuing the league and its 12 teams at $1 Billion. Viewership of the WNBA has never been higher. The 2021 WNBA Finals on ESPN, between the Chicago Sky and the Phoenix Mercury averaged 548,000 viewers across the four games, which was a 23% increase from the 2020 Finals. WNBA regular season viewership is also up 49% compared to 2020. The WNBA is currently facing an incredible surge in viewership and interest. According to its own evaluation, the league has plenty of funding to provide better accommodations for their players. Hannah Valente is a 2L at Elon University School of Law and host of Podcast “Bars to the Bar” from Hoboken, New Jersey. Hannah graduated from Providence College where she was a four-year manager for the Men’s Basketball Team. She can be found on Twitter @hannahjane503. She is a newly registered NBA Agent.

Joe Tsai is the co-founder of the e-commerce juggernaut Alibaba and has a reported net worth approaching $9 billion. As sports-obsessed billionaires often do, Tsai decided to claim ownership over a professional sports franchise. In 2019 he purchased the Brooklyn Nets and their home stadium, the Barclays Center, for reportedly $3.3 billion. The move sent shockwaves throughout the NBA. In what was considered an afterthought, Tsai also purchased the WNBA franchise New York Liberty, who also play their home games at Barclays. Tsai’s purchase of the Liberty was overshadowed because it came in conjunction with spending big on Brooklyn’s NBA team. As a league, the WNBA is often ridiculed for its moderate growth and questionable profitability. Occasionally, that criticism comes from within league circles. After Tsai purchased the Liberty from New York Knicks owner James Dolan, Dolan himself may have been behind media leaks that the Liberty hadn’t turned a profit in years.[1] Purchasing a WNBA team in 2019 was considered by many to be a billionaire’s passion project. But Tsai refused to see it that way. According to Sports Illustrated, Tsai saw growth potential in the league. As women’s sports in the country continues to rise, Tsai viewed the WNBA as no different. He was eager to bring his innovation, and more importantly his deep pockets, to women’s basketball. Conventional wisdom says that the WNBA would be on the edge of their seat waiting for someone like Tsai to take them to the next level. However, ownership around the league was hesitant and didn’t necessarily share his optimism.[2] The WNBA has been around for 25 years. Originally starting in 1997 with 8 teams, the league has grown to 12 franchises in the nation’s largest markets such as Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and Dallas. The league has featured digital growth through social media and broadcasting games through the subscription platform Tidal. But throughout the quarter-century of its existence, profit ceiling for a women’s basketball league has been questioned. Historically, ticket sales have remained stagnant, and the COVID-19 pandemic didn’t help the cause. Many of the league’s 12 owners are satisfied with their initial investment and conservative growth of the league. When someone like Tsai enters the ring and seeks to kick things into high gear, he begins to turn some heads. You don’t have to have a degree in Economics to realize that spending more money on the league requires the league to make more, a risk that several owners are unwilling to take. One of the first issues Tsai noticed with the league involved travel. WNBA teams fly commercial to games and experience airline-induced headaches just like you and me. In 2018, numerous flight delays actually caused a game to be forfeited when the Las Vegas Aces couldn’t get to Washington to play the Mystics.[3] Tsai felt the WNBA was above forcing players to hang out in airport terminals and dodge people waiting in line at an Auntie Anne’s to board their flights for games. In September 2021, Tsai reportedly made a proposal to the league (which the league has denied took place) that would allow all WNBA teams to fly private to games. And for the owners worried about penny-pinching, the proposal included the first three years of flights comped. A no brainer decision for a league looking to take the next step and treat their players like professionals. But the WNBA Board of Governors shot down the proposal for fear the players would get used to private planes and it wouldn’t be sustainable – too risky. The WNBA’s conservative decision on travel didn’t stop Tsai from treating his own players like their NBA equivalent. Tsai charted flights for the New York Liberty for the second half of the season, and even included a Labor Day weekend trip to Napa Valley for the team to bond over expensive bottles of wine. These decisions by Tsai expressed his loyalty and appreciation to the Liberty players and didn’t go unnoticed. His gracious gestures even got his wife, Wu Tsai, featured on viral Tik Toks posted by members of the Liberty on their Napa Valley trip. “Can your owners do this?” The league eventually caught wind of the Liberty’s private flights and expensive escapades and put their foot down. In what was originally floated as a $1 million fine, Tsai and the Liberty were eventually docked $500,000 for violating the league’s collective bargaining agreement and providing unfair advantages to players.[4] The WNBA feared that with the lifestyle Tsai was providing, every player would want to play for the Liberty. To combat their popularity, the league sent the Liberty back through airport security. The WNBA’s collective bargaining agreement can be found here: https://wnbpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WNBA-CBA-2014-2021Final.pdf Deep within the 300-page pdf documenting how the league functions, you will stumble across Article IX Section 4 Player Related Expenses – Air Travel: Under the current CBA, players aren’t even afforded the luxury of extra leg room in first class. The decision by the league to fine Tsai symbolizes the current clash in the WNBA. Tsai believes the league is ready to explode, capitalizing off digital engagement and their partnership with the NBA. He’s willing to make that bet in the form of private planes and trips to Napa Valley. While others would like to remain in the traditional conservative pattern the league has operated in for years, not spending too much but not making too much either. The New York Liberty seem to be operating in a different league all-together than the 11 other franchises. Will the rest of the WNBA catch up, or keep pulling them back? 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] Associated Press, Nets minority owner Joe Tsai buys WNBA’s Liberty (last visited Mar. 3, 2022) https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/25832607/brooklyn-nets-minority-owner-joseph-tsai-buys-wnba-new-york-liberty?device=featurephone. [2] Howard Megdal, How Airplanes Became the WNBA’s Biggest Scandal, Sports Illustrated (last visited Mar. 3, 2022) https://www.si.com/wnba/2022/03/01/charter-flights-violation-new-york-liberty-joe-tsai-daily-cover. [3] Salt Lake Tribune, Travel woes force cancellation of WNBA game between Aces and Mystics, (last visited Mar. 3, 2022) https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2018/08/04/travel-woes-force/comments/. [4] Alexa Philippou, Source: New York Liberty fined $500,000 for chartering flights, other violations, ESPN (last visited Mar. 3, 2022) https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/33401872/new-york-liberty-fined-500000-chartering-flights-other-violations.

Yesterday, legendary New Orleans Saints' coach Sean Payton and his wife, Skylene Montgomery, were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs, Hanford Farrell III and Brett Finkelstein, allege Payton and Montgomery agreed to sell them their Alys Beach, FL property for $7,200,000 in June of 2021. Payton had received the property, on which he built a three-story, 3200 square foot vacation home, earlier in 2013 as part of a divorce settlement. The closing date for the sale of the property was set to be August 13, 2021. According to the complaint, however, Payton changed his mind and refused to proceed with the closing. On August 4, 2021, Payton sent plaintiffs a notice purporting to terminate the contract. Plaintiffs say Payton reasoned that he was unable to complete a 1031 exchange with a property he planned to buy in Idaho, and thus was no longer looking to sell his Florida home. The plaintiffs are not satisfied with that reasoning. They say the parties' purchase and sale agreement contained no contingency on completing the Idaho deal. Plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration against Payton, as required by the purchase and sale agreement. A final hearing was scheduled for February 28, 2022; however, on January 12, 2022, Defendant Payton’s counsel moved to continue the Final Hearing on the grounds that he was having an elective medical procedure that would require physical therapy. Thus, on January 15, 2022, the arbitrator stayed the case until at least March 31, 2022. Shortly thereafter, on January 25, 2022, Sean Payton announced his retirement as the head coach of the Saints. Plaintiffs claim that this was all orchestrated to change the status quo of the Florida property to a homestead. To qualify for homestead exemption, homeowners must occupy their property as their permanent residence. Plaintiffs claim such change in the status of the property from non-homestead to homestead would impact and create a significant obstacle to their ability to obtain specific performance of the sale agreement with Payton. Did Sean Payton retire as head coach of the New Orleans Saints in order to keep his property?? In the complaint, plaintiffs say, "upon information and belief, Defendants Payton and Montgomery have actively taken steps to establish the Property as their new homestead by, inter alia, moving in, directing their mail to, and other setting up a permanent residence at the Property, with the intent to hinder, delay and avoid Plaintiffs’ legal rights and interests therein." Payton's primary residence was previously located in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he coached the Saints. In order the achieve the homestead status, Payton would need to show occupation of the Florida property as his permanent residence. Thus, coaching the Saints wouldn't be feasible. Would Payton really step away from a city and team that he inspired and loved for 15 years just for a house? Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief for specific performance of the sale of the property and injunctive relief to thwart defendants from changing the status quo of the property or re-deeding the property into their names. 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 March 3, Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer announced on Twitter that he filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court against the sports news website Deadspin. In his legal complaint, Bauer alleges that Deadspin published an article covering his sexual assault allegation and that the article included false statements that were defamatory in nature. In May of 2021, a woman accused Bauer of sexually assaulting her after the two met up several times a month before. In response to these accusations, the Dodgers Pitcher was placed on administrative leave in July of 2021. Bauer later agreed to extend his administrative leave through the remainder of the season. Around this time, Major League Baseball initiated an investigation into this matter, which is currently ongoing. Later last summer, his accuser filed a temporary ex parte restraining order, which she requested to be made permanent. This order was denied by a Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge and the ex parte restraining order was dissolved. As for the criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful conduct, prosecutors last month decided not to bring charges against Bauer for this incident. Bauer claims that Deadspin published an article on July 6, 2021, titled “Trevor Bauer should never pitch again” and in this article claimed that his accuser suffered a fractured skull by the pitcher. He alleges that this article is part of a malicious campaign against him by Deadspin. For a plaintiff to prove defamation, they must show the defendant made a false statement, that the statement was published to a third party, the defendant exhibits fault, and the plaintiff suffered some harm. Bauer and his attorney are likely to succeed on proving that Deadspin made a false statement, that the statement was published to a third party, and that he suffered some harm from the publication. If his legal complaint is accurate, the complainant’s medical records do not show that she suffered a skull fracture and that there was no initial CT scan that showed a skull fracture. Thus, Deadspin’s statement that she suffered a skull fracture was a false statement. This statement was published in an article on Deadspin’s website and links to the article were shared on Twitter and Facebook. Bauer claims that the publication of these statements has caused harm to his reputation, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and financial loss. As for the fault element of defamation, a public official, such as Bauer, must prove the defendant had actual malice in publishing a defamatory statement. Actual malice may be proven by showing the defendant published the statement when they knew it was false or the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity. Courts generally examine defamatory statements in light of the entire publication and not just the alleged defamatory statement. Bauer’s attorney might have a difficult time proving that Deadspin published the July 6 article knowing the statement about the skull fracture was false. At that time, it might not have been readily apparent that his accuser did not suffer from a skull fracture because of Bauer’s conduct. His complaint argues that since other sports news sites, such as ESPN and The Athletic, issued corrections explaining they mistakenly reported there was a skull fracture before July 6, that Deadspin must have known that the statements were false. Bauer also alleges that there was actual malice because this article was one of numerous articles that constitute a malicious campaign against him. However, proving actual malice does not require the defendant to have acted intentionally, they must have acted with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth. Deadspin might raise the defense of retraction, which shields a defendant who made a defamatory statement from being liable so long as they issue a retraction of the allegedly defamatory statement. According to a USA Today article, Deadspin issued a statement explaining that a CT scan found no skull fracture. If Bauer can somehow overcome this defense and prove Deadspin initially knew the statement about a skull fracture was false, he is likely to win in court. Andrew Wise is a third-year law student at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. He is passionate about baseball, especially minor league baseball, and college football. You can follow Andrew on Twitter and/or on LinkedIn. Image via The New York Times (Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images)

As the weeks turn and we head towards another self-imposed deadline by the MLB to strike a deal prior to cancelling more of the MLB season, I think many are hopeful (at least some headlines are) that, in some sort of short term, the MLB lockout will end. It’s natural to feel this way, human beings for the most part are optimists. It’s easy to hope that the two sides will eventually feel the pressure to start the season, check their egos at the door, and slap the table on a common-sense deal that pays both sides and allows us to get back to our hot dogs, apple pie, Budweiser and Saturday matinees that we love as Americans. I think the more we read the tea leaves, however, the more we see that may be misguided. Based on how determined both sides appear to get what they want, this labor negotiation may have us headed towards a large portion of the season, or longer, without baseball being played. By all accounts, both sides of this negotiation have seen this stalemate coming for the past couple years. The MLB owners admitted (according to media reports) that they are fully prepared to miss at least the first month of games. Assuming they aren’t showing all their cards, it probably means that they are fully prepared to miss significantly more of the season, possibly the entire season. From a business perspective, that’s certainly understandable. The owners would have been smart enough to insulate themselves, to some extent, from a protracted labor battle completely crippling their businesses and killing their negotiating power. Licensing deals, gambling promotions, restaurant investments: all of these would have likely been structured to provide some soft padding in the even the players decided to hold out for a larger portion of the pie. Further, I think part of the reason we haven’t seen the owners move substantially off their current negotiating positions, despite public pressure, is that they don’t feel they have to. The MLB owners surely know by now that they have been vilified by the national media for their reluctance to negotiate. But the dirty little secret here may be that they don’t really have to care. They know that the second they strike a deal, fans will begrudgingly return, sportsbooks will line up at their doors for partnership deals, and TV broadcast rights will continue to exponentially grow. So, while most of the public believes that they are under extreme pressure to play baseball, I don’t think they actually feel that. This may be partially because they pay Rob Manfred to be their meat shield and field the tough questions they don’t want to answer, but it’s also part of the reason that we have gotten to this point. There’s at least a significant portion of the ownership that does not have the romantic attachment to the sport that fans do. They see dollars and cents, and they are determined to squeeze every last cent out of the players in this negotiation. Simultaneously, I think the players are more determined, united, and prepared than ever before to turn this into a protracted legal battle. I think that the overwhelming public support for their positions will embolden them to continue the fight to get what they want, even if it takes most of the season, or beyond, to do it. Rob Dibble indicated, and based on the solidarity of the players I would say his instincts are accurate (along with the fact that they have the excess funds to pay for stadium workers’ salaries), that the MLBPA has a sizeable amount of money prepared to float the salaries of the less financially secure members for an extended period of time. They know the owners have carefully crafted their businesses to shield a significant portion of the revenue generated by their play from ever being part of these negotiations, and are determined to change the slice of the pie they receive and the way that teams operate with regards to competitiveness. I think for the players, however, the rift with the owners cuts a little deeper to them as people, as Rob Dibble articulated. Players want to be viewed as partners in this business, being that they are the product, not just the people that make the product. I personally don’t believe that the owners will ever accept that, and that mistrust is the real issue at the heart of this negotiation, beyond all the dollars and cents. That’s not exactly revolutionary to say, as it’s the case with every sports labor negotiation, but here it seems that divide is as great as it’s ever been. Unfortunately, I think that will ultimately make each side more determined to get what they want, and that will drag this battle out well beyond the dog days of summer when we should be lining up who’s contending for a World Series title. 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