If you’ve been following the drama of NIL and the growing utilization of the transfer portal in collegiate athletics, you know the two phenomena are closely intertwined. Many point to the recent controversial transfer of Biletnikoff-winning wide receiver Jordan Addison from Pitt to USC after reportedly being offered an NIL deal that will pay him more than double what Pittsburgh Steelers rookie George Pickens will make this upcoming season. Others point to the recent highly-publicized comments by Nick Saban in which he claimed Jimbo Fisher and Deion Sanders bought their respective recruiting classes by exploiting the allure of NIL. Both cases highlight the unprecedented nature of the post-NCAA v. Alston (and, consequently, post-amateurism) collegiate landscape, and this unfamiliarity has bred uncertainty about the sustainability of college sports under the current NIL model. One coach, however, seems remarkably optimistic about the system’s sustainability: Ole Miss football’s Lane Kiffin. In addition to his active Twitter fingers, Kiffin has been busy on the recruiting trail this offseason. His proactive approach to transfer portal recruiting netted Ole Miss 16 transfers this spring– including former 5-star RB Zach Evans and QB Jaxson Dart – earning Kiffin the nickname of “Portal King” and the Rebels a No. 2 spot on 247 Sports’ transfer team rankings. He’s managed this without an NIL budget rivaling in-conference foes Alabama and Texas A&M, and he seems to embrace the NIL paradigm more than his contemporaries at those schools. In a recent interview with Ross Dellinger of Sports Illustrated, Kiffin stated he is on board with treating college athletes, and the NIL deals they receive, like the pros. He called for a cap on NIL deals that parallel a professional team’s salary cap while providing the hypothetical of Bryce Young at Alabama to illustrate the leverage a student-athlete can (and should) exploit: “Why did Bryce Young not go into the portal? If you are advising Bryce Young, why do you not go into the portal and walk into Nick Saban’s office and say, ‘Hey, I want to be here, but I’ve got to protect myself so I’m going to go into the portal. And I want to come back as long as it’s matched with what I get out there.’ The kid would make 10 times what he would have made. How’s that not going to happen all the time? It should. It will.” Kiffin’s advocacy opens the door for even more student-athlete leverage while still potentially limiting “big-market” schools like Alabama or USC from poaching talents. The cap might seem like a good idea, but the NCAA is hesitant to place any sort of cap on athlete compensation for fear of further Alston-Esque legal trouble. Sure, conferences may place these caps on member institutions, but which conference would willingly take that step if it meant a recruiting disadvantage against other conferences without such restrictions? Should we follow the route of SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and PAC-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff and lobby for the Federal Government to step in and impose such a cap? Perhaps, given these developments are still in their infancy (it hasn’t even been a full calendar year of NIL yet), we need to hold our horses before placing major rules or regulations in place. The “wait-and-see” approach might not seem attractive right now, but consider what might occur in the coming years. Yes, at the moment we see absurd NIL deals luring recruits to a particular school. However, what happens when those athletes don’t live up to their hype or end up as busts altogether? Rich donors don’t end up rich by accident (most of the time). They accumulate wealth via smart investments, and if they observe that luring recruits with lucrative deals does not translate to production on the field or court, they will be hesitant to offer such deals in the future. If we find after the next season or two that for every Bryce Young, there are dozens of multi-million-dollar recipients who don’t pan out, we might find our worries of buying recruits largely dissipate. We could do so without limiting the market power afforded to student-athletes. I could be wrong, and things could theoretically get worse in the years to come. In that case, explore regulation to correct the market by all means. However, we owe it to the game and all who participate in it to see how these developments play out before imposing the heavy hand of government regulation, which could cause more harm than good. We’ve waited this long for change, so what’s a couple more years? Hunter can be found on Twitter @BigHseidler

Amidst a season averaging a league-low 8,283 fans at home games, the Oakland A’s are trying to secure a new stadium at Howard Terminal on the waterfront. Currently, industries that work on the waterfront have filed multiple lawsuits to halt the project. Soon, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission will vote on whether to re-designate Howard Terminal to allow the stadium project to move forward. The Lawsuits In February, the Oakland City Council voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the stadium project at Howard Terminal. After issuing the “Notice of Determination,” affected parties had 30 days to challenge the adequacy of the EIR. In April, before the expiration of the 30-day deadline, multiple shipping groups and the Union Pacific Corp., representing the railroad industry, filed lawsuits challenging the EIR. The shipping groups allege that the EIR did not address how development will impact port operations and that the project will lead to “massive displacement and gentrification.” The groups’ displacement concerns are not unfounded, as a 2020 study from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition revealed that The Bay Area is the most gentrified region in the United States. In response, Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval has reiterated that the team will set aside $50 million for anti-displacement measures. On the other hand, Union Pacific Corp. alleges that the stadium project will lead to severe congestion due to the city’s failure to adequately consider certain traffic patterns, including adding an underpass or an overpass built over the railroad tracks to eliminate crossing the tracks. It is unclear how effective the railroad’s argument will be since the city council ultimately considered an overpass but chose alternate measures. Commission Vote Notably, the proposed stadium site is no longer used to load and unload container ships. In fact, Mayor Libby Schaaf previously stated that “[t]ime has shown [Howard Terminal] is not needed nor ideal for shipping activities.” Thus, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is considering whether to remove Howard Terminal’s current designation as a priority port. In May, the commission recommended removing the designation, which, if fully approved, is a key approval needed to move forward with the stadium project. On June 2, the commission held a public hearing, which highlighted the divide amongst residents of the city, including local workers urging the city to maintain Howard Terminal for maritime use. On June 30, the 18-member commission will issue a decision on removing Howard Terminal’s designation. Removing the designation requires two-thirds approval. Future in Oakland The Oakland A’s lease agreement with their current stadium runs through 2024. Thus, the team will continue in its current stadium for a little while longer. Unless and until the Oakland A’s are fully-approved to build the stadium at Howard Terminal, the A’s are also keeping their future options open by looking at land in Las Vegas, Nevada. For now, the A’s hope to remain in Oakland, but whether they will rests on the commission’s decision and favorable outcomes in the lawsuits. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

On Monday, players from the United States Football League (USFL) voted to form a union and partner with the United Steelworkers (USW) to protect their interests. The vote comes after the United Football Players Association (UFPA) spent months pushing for organized labor. In April, shortly after the beginning of the current USFL season, the UFPA (established in 2020) began pushing for a union. As a part of their efforts, the UFPA partnered with the USW, and the USW petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to represent the players. On June 6, the NLRB held a vote at the Sheraton Birmingham Hotel in Birmingham, Alabama, home to the USFL headquarters. The vote passed, and once the NLRB certifies the results, the newly-formed players union will work with the league to negotiate a new player contract. Notably, the league has not resisted the players’ attempts to unionize. Current Contracts Current USFL players signed a two-year contract, which limits players to only signing with an NFL team after one year rather than other leagues, including the Canadian Football League (CFL) or the XFL, which will return in 2023. Each player on an active roster is paid $4,500 per game for the 10-game season ($1,500 for players on a practice squad). Additionally, there is an $850 bonus per win and a $10,000 bonus for players on the USFL championship team. In total, a player on the active roster for the full season (including training camp) earns no less than $45,000, which can increase up to around $75,000. Also, USFL contracts include provisions for discounted hotel housing during the season. However, the league only provides meals during mini-camp and training camp. At all other times, players must provide their own meals. Other provisions include a health insurance plan and an education plan for tuition-free education through Strayer University and Capella University. Union Efforts By forming a union, the players will aim to alter the current contracts. Due to the two-year term, the USFL restricts players’ ability to test the market. Notably, the XFL has released information on their contracts. According to the XFL, player salaries will be higher than the USFL’s, and contracts will include full housing and meal costs in-season. Thus, expect the USFL players union to push the league to align their contracts closer to the XFL’s contracts. In addition, the USFL players union will likely push for expanded medical care to ensure player safety in and out of season. Overall, this is a big step for the league and may ensure that the USFL can outlast other spring football leagues. At the same time, the players get an opportunity to come to the table and negotiate a new future. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

In the week leading up to the inaugural round of the controversial LIV tournament at the Centurion Golf Club outside London, Phil Mickelson became the largest name to date to join the ranks of the tournament, with rumors swirling around Bryson DeChambeau, Patrick Reed, and Rickie Fowler joining later this week. While a number of PGA members have resigned from the Association to join the ranks of the Saudi financed LIV tour, Mickelson’s announcement is notable because he became the first golfer to announce his plans to participate in LIV play while still remaining a member of the PGA—mounting a public challenge to the defensive rhetoric the Association has promulgated to players and the public regarding their newfound competition. The PGA has enjoyed a “monopoly” on professional golf for decades, so understandably the thought of a well-financed, ready-to-compete startup tournament turns their business model on its head and threatens both their bottom line and their prestigious reputation. The PGA was unprepared for the possibility of competition and was caught off guard when the LIV tour began poaching talent. As a result, the PGA is attempting to bar its members from participating in the LIV tournament by warning of “consequences” for joining their newfound rivals. This poses a multitude of anti-trust and employment law questions that the PGA seems to be ignoring as they try to find a way to stop the LIV before it gets out of the tee box. Professional sports in the United States are, let’s face it, businesses. They are all enterprises that are ultimately designed to make the most money possible, despite what we as fans like to think, or however leagues attempt to convince us otherwise. As businesses, all professional sports leagues in the U.S. are subject to anti-trust laws (excluding the MLB, which was, wildly, given an exemption in 1922) and are not permitted to act as monopolies by smothering competition to “protect” themselves. This is the reason the NBA had the ABA, the NFL had the AFL, etc.—they couldn’t “stop” these leagues, and had to eventually merge to survive. By openly opposing the LIV tour and stating publicly that there will be “consequences” for members that try to either leave the PGA or try to participate in both, the PGA is running the real risk of ending up in the foul ground of federal anti-trust regulation. The PGA may be able to say that golfers who participate in the LIV tournament are ineligible to play in the PGA without implicating anti-trust regulation—they could argue that it is only logical that players in one league preclude themselves from participating in the other based on precedent from the above-mentioned examples—but threatening “consequences” is almost inviting a player like Mickelson to bring an anti-trust action against the Association, where they stand a high probability of being left in the rough. The other issue with the PGA threatening “consequences” to players for joining the LIV is the fact that golfers are not employees of the PGA—instead, they are independent contractors. By labeling their athletes as independent contractors, the PGA saves millions in taxes and benefits, but in their fight against players participating in the LIV, this is likely going to handicap them. Generally, independent contractors are just that—independent individuals that are contractors. This means that while they service or work for one organization, there is no legal limitation that would keep them from having the ability to choose to contract with another company or business whenever they see fit, and one business cannot prohibit them from exercising this right. If a business wants the right to prohibit working for the competition or to limit an employee’s ability to leave and go to a competing company, you’re going to have to label them as an employee. Why does this matter for the PGA? Well, as independent contractors, golfers have this freedom of contract, and the PGA can’t “punish” the athletes for choosing to exercise this freedom. The fact that they have threatened to punish the members that do leave or attempt to participate in both tournaments, when taken to court, will likely weigh heavily towards a finding that the PGA is actually treating their “independent contractors” as employees. This mislabeling has massive consequences beyond just leaving PGA members able to play golf with the LIV tournament—if it’s found that the PGA is treating golfers as employees instead of independent contractors, they are going to be in some hot water with the federal government for wage law violations, tax fraud, unemployment and overtime violations, failure to provide benefits, and many other violations of law. Without considering the damage lawsuits like this would have on the impeccable and “shiny” reputation the PGA has spent years curating, these violations are going to lead to major forced changes to the way the PGA operates that would be undesirable, not to mention probable jail time for those individuals involved. With all that is at risk here, why is the PGA still making these public declarations, and risking coming under this level of legal scrutiny? Well, they are terrified of what this means for their bottom line. As I mentioned before, the PGA has enjoyed an unprecedented period of non-competition. The fact that the LIV Tour has essentially unlimited resources and is able to immediately poach talent and interest from the PGA in its first year of existence has the Association on the back foot, trying to land any punches it can to slow down the LIV’s growth. You can’t blame them for being reluctant to let go of their monopoly on professional golf and the profits that come with that, but if they aren’t careful, they could easily find themselves in a bunker they won’t be able to chip themselves out of. How the PGA handles itself moving forward in the next few months could be pivotal for the future of the PGA and professional golf in general, and I for one am interested to see exactly what becomes of this tense and controversial rivalry. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is now a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023.

As first reported by Eamon Lynch, the PGA Tour has suspended all players participating in the LIV Golf Invitational Series, which kicked off this morning. The suspension comes after multiple notable players, including Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson, have left to join the PGA Tour to participate in the LIV Golf Invitational Series. The suspensions are what PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan was hinting at when the commissioner stated during a meeting with the players that there would be ramifications if players participated in the LIV Golf Invitational Series. In the letter, commissioner Monahan makes it clear that the LIV Golf Invitational series players did not receive conflicting event and media rights releases. Thus, the players have violated the PGA Tour’s tournament regulations, and as a result, the players are suspended or ineligible to participate in PGA Tour events. Of note, multiple players have informed the PGA Tour that they resigned their membership, including Sergio Garcia, Dustin Johnson, Kevin Na, and Louis Oosthuizen, among others. For those players, the PGA Tour will remove their memberships from the FedExCup Points List. For LIV Golf players that have not resigned from the PGA Tour, including Phil Mickelson, commissioner Monahan ensured remaining PGA Tour players that their lack of resignation will not impact remaining PGA Tour players’ eligibility for tournaments. Future Impact Commissioner Monahan’s letter is carefully worded. While highlighting that LIV Golf participants did not receive proper releases, which is against PGA Tour tournament regulations, Commissioner Monahan stated, “they are suspended or otherwise no longer eligible to participate . . . .” Per PGA Tour rules: “[T]he Commissioner may deny any particular release request if he determines that such a release would cause PGA TOUR to be in violation of a contractual commitment to a tournament sponsor, or would otherwise significantly and unreasonably harm PGA TOUR and such sponsors.” “Each PGA TOUR member, by participating in cosponsored, coordinated or approved golf tournaments, acknowledges the right and authority of the PGA TOUR Policy Board, the Commissioner and the Appeals Committee to (i) fine and suspend the member from tournament play, and/or (ii) fine and permanently bar the member from play in PGA TOUR cosponsored, approved or coordinated tournaments for violation of the Tournament Regulations.” Thus, due to the LIV golf players’ failure to apply for a release or obtain a release, it appears that the PGA Tour is complying with its own rules, the PGA Tour’s actions are reasonable, and the PGA Tour is not applying its rules in a discriminatory manner, which would likely comply with the Sherman Antitrust Act. On the other hand, Commissioner Monahan did not give a timeline for the players’ suspension. Depending on the length of the suspension and the PGA Tour’s actions if/when players reapply in the future, the PGA Tour could run into antitrust issues in the future. A year-long suspension could be a violation of antitrust laws (See Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association, 359 F. Supp. 1260 (N.D. Ga. 1973)). Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Lorain Journal Co. v. United States: “It seems clear that if all the newspapers in a City, in order to monopolize the dissemination of news and advertising by eliminating a competing radio station, conspired to accept no advertisements from anyone who advertised over that station, they would violate §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.” Therefore, until the duration and application of the suspensions are clear, antitrust issues may still come into play. Until then, the PGA Tour has acted, and LIV Golf players will not be able to return. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Merely days after GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“GTRE”) filed for bankruptcy, York County has filed a lawsuit in South Carolina state court against multiple entities owned by David Tepper and the City of Rock Hill, alleging that the entities misused $21 million in Penny Tax Funds. Specifically, York County named as defendants Appaloosa Management, LP, DT Sports Holding, LLC, and Tepper Sports Holding, Inc. Of note, Appaloosa Management, LP is David Tepper’s fund management company worth an estimated $13 billion. Alleged Facts The lawsuit revolves around the county-designated $21 million of Penny Tax Funds to expand Mt. Gallant Road. York County alleges that Tepper’s entities—through GTRE—would perform the work to expand Mt. Gallant Road if the county provided the funds, which was memorialized in the Land Development Agreement between GTRE and the city. According to York County, after York County wired the funds, the funds were not used for the Mt. Gallant Road project. Additionally, the lawsuit notes the various issues on the Carolina Panthers’ headquarters project, including the city’s failure to issue the bonds and the GTRE’s subsequent termination of the project on April 19, 2022. Causes of Action Against the Tepper entities, York County included claims for civil conspiracy, negligence and negligence per se, interference with contractual relations, and negligent misrepresentation. In short, the basis for each claim is that the county provided the funds, and the entities did not perform the work. York County included a breach of contract claim against the city due to the city’s failure to issue the required bonds on the project. Analysis Putting this lawsuit into context, this comes after GTRE filed for bankruptcy, which could lead to a minor payout for York County. Looking at the project, York County alleges that many of the individuals acting on behalf of GTRE are employees of Tepper’s other entities. Therefore, despite York County admitting that GTRE owned the property and admitting that the individuals were acting through GTRE, York County is seeking to recoup the funds through the Tepper entities. York County is unlikely to succeed in its claims against the Tepper entities. Although, the complaint could survive a motion to dismiss due to the low standard to overcome a motion to dismiss. The issue is that many of the actions were performed by and through GTRE, alleging that because the individuals are employees of Tepper’s other entities is likely too attenuated to hold the entities liable. On the other hand, York County could succeed in its claim against the city. According to the county, the parties did have a contract requiring the city to issue bonds on the project, and the city failed to issue the bonds on the project, which led to the termination of the project. Thus, if the county can prove its allegations and the city does not have any defenses, the county may succeed in its claim. Overall, the county is attempting to recoup its funds outside of GTRE’s bankruptcy action. The Carolina Panthers have a long way to go before this chapter is over. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Last month, the Monaco Grand Prix began like all other races—with Crofty saying his infamous line, “And It's lights out and away we go!” Despite the delay for rain, the race went as smoothly as any other, capping off another race weekend for the Formula One season. But, off track and behind closed doors, the future of the infamous race was and still is, hanging in the balance. Monaco has enjoyed the status of the most prestigious race on the F1 calendar since the first ever world championship in 1950. In the past several decades, the street race, essentially fully encompassing the eight-tenths-of-a-mile city-state of Monaco, has gained an opulent and unique standing in the world of F1 and beyond, with worldwide celebrities in attendance, a marina full of mega-yachts, and one of the most technically challenging and visually thrilling qualifying sessions of the entire F1 calendar. With a pedigree as strong as Monaco’s, it comes as a surprise to most that Monaco has no contract to hold a race beyond this year. While this seems almost unconscionable on paper, the issues underlying the continued existence of the Monaco Grand Prix are complex and multifaceted, casting a genuine shadow of a doubt as to whether F1 will return in the future, or what that return might look like. As a fan of Formula One, it’s no secret that the racing in Monaco has become, to put it nicely, boring. Modern F1 cars are meters longer and wider than the cars that first raced on the narrow, winding street circuit which has remained largely unchanged since 1950. Overtaking and on-track action has become extremely rare in the race. Today, the only real chance to gain a position is through the cycling of pit stops, with on-track passes essentially extinct. Despite the lack of excitement during the race itself, qualifying at Monaco is one of the most exciting sessions of the season and works to somewhat redeem the poor quality of the race itself—the precision required at Monaco is unparalleled, and to top, the time sheets in Q3 drives have to place their cars perfectly, literal millimeters from brushing the barriers. However, F1, its fans, and the drivers all understand that something needs to change if Monaco is going to remain on the calendar. The largest obstacles to the continued existence of a Monaco Grand Prix essentially come from the same source—the Automobile Club de Monaco [ACM] butting heads with Formula One and its parent organization, Liberty Media. The ACM is the promotor of the Monaco Grand Prix and is responsible for negotiating contracts with Formula One as an organization for hosting fees, scheduling of the race, potential changes to the track, etc. Before Formula One was purchased by Liberty Media, a U.S. sports and entertainment company, Monaco and the ACM were given broad discretion and enjoyed strong bargaining power to get what they wanted. The ACM wasn’t having to pay a fee to host or was paying one substantially lower than that of other races, and was afforded control of the weekend that was unparalleled by other promoters. Since acquiring Formula One in late 2016, Liberty Media and the ACM haven’t seen eye-to-eye over a number of issues that threaten the future of the race. First, the ACM has control of advertisements around the track, as well as the rights to have their own TV directors for the race. These long-held benefits have been sore points of contention at the negotiating table. F1 wants control of the TV direction—which, after years of missing out on key action when it (rarely) does occur, is welcomed in my opinion. As for the advertisements around the track, this shouldn’t be as big of a deal—that is, until the ACM signed a contract with Tag Hoyer to be the “Official Watch of the Monaco Grand Prix” while knowing the worldwide partner with F1 is Rolex. This creates a noticeable and uncomfortable clash between advertisements for the two brands all weekend and is proof that the ACM is stressing their relationship with F1 already. The ACM isn’t just hard to deal with for sponsorship and TV direction rights, they also don’t feel like they need to negotiate and deserve to have special treatment. F1 as an organization has made it clear special treatment won’t exist going forward, and as a result, the ACM has again made things difficult. The ACM claims that F1 is asking for “too much money” as their licensing fee, maintains the stance that no changes are needed to the track, that Monaco must maintain its traditional calendar spot in May, and that Monaco will maintain tv directing and advertising rights. When looking at F1’s requests to change the track layout, move the weekend of the race to accommodate a growing schedule, their desire to improve the tv viewing experience, and remove an uncomfortable sponsorship clash, they don’t really seem that unreasonable—but Monaco and the ACM think their pedigree demands special treatment and think that F1 “needs” Monaco and will be forced to bargain. However, as F1 expands the calendar to new destination tracks such as Las Vegas, Miami, Singapore, etc., their “need” for Monaco is waning, and its “special” status is quickly fading. Current rumors suggest that F1 might not “fully” remove Monaco from the calendar, but that it might fall to a race held every other year to make room for a more cooperative promoter or commercially successful race, but unless the ACM changes its tune on at least some of the contentious issues present, we could very well have just witnessed the last of Formula One in Monaco. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn.

Apple and Major League Soccer (MLS) have agreed on a 10-year deal to air all MLS content, including games, exclusively on Apple TV for a reported worth of at least $250 million annually. It is the first time a big-five sports league will air all its content with a digital media company rather than a traditional TV network. As a part of the deal, MLS will shift its schedule to Saturday games (with some on Wednesday games), and Apple will air all games on a separate app on Apple TV, which will require a subscription unless you are a season ticket holder. Apple Invests in Live Sports While it is the first time Apple has inked a deal with a big-five league for all content, it is not Apple’s first investment in live sports. In March, Apple reached a deal with Major League Baseball (MLB) to stream Friday baseball games and create a new live show, which will feature highlights and analysis. Additionally, Apple is expected to acquire NFL Sunday Ticket after DirecTV’s deal expires at the end of the 2022 season. The deal could include the new NFL Plus streaming service, which the league announced at the NFL owners’ meetings in May. Apple’s major investments in live sports come after Apple announced in January that it was ready to spend billions on live sports to boost subscription numbers. Apple’s subscription numbers pale in comparison to other services at 20 million subscribers in the United States and Canada, compared to Disney+ at 42.9 million and Netflix at 74.5. Thus, in an effort to make up the gap in subscription numbers, Apple will continue its shift toward live sports. The Future of Sports Apple is not the only digital-media giant to invest in live sports. In 2021, Amazon inked a $1 billion deal with the NFL to carry Thursday night football games on Amazon Prime. Moreover, Amazon reached a separate $1 billion agreement to carry Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 soccer games. Live sports is the last frontier for streaming services. Before, traditional cable and satellite television was the only way to view live sports, including through regional sports networks (RSNs). Since 2015, customers have been abandoning live television in favor of streaming services, which has led to cable and television abandoning RSNs rather than paying the rising costs for RSNs. Now, streaming services are claiming the market by being able to offer top dollar for live sports content, which could drive RSNs out of the market. While streaming services will continue to enlist live sports content, fans should focus on 2024, when the NBA will negotiate its media rights. ESPN currently holds the NBA’s media rights. However, if ESPN were to lose the NBA’s media rights to Apple or another digital media company, there could be a major shakeup in the industry, including Apple potentially acquiring ESPN. Overall, this is an area for digital media companies to continue expanding. Therefore, fans and media alike will continue to discuss this topic in the future. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

North Carolina’s bill legalizing mobile sports wagering, Senate Bill 688, has been stuck in the House Committee on Judiciary since November 2021. Finally, lawmakers, led by Representative Jason Saine, have reached a new agreement on a mobile sports wagering proposal that will increase the tax rate on adjusted gross revenues and licensing fees for vendors. Senate Bill 688 On August 19, 2021, Senate Bill 688 passed the North Carolina Senate and moved to the House. After bouncing in and out of multiple committees, the bill finally stalled in the House Committee on Judiciary in November. It is now apparent that a key issue for lawmakers was the 8% tax rate on adjusted gross revenues and the $500,000 licensing fee, which would be subject to a $100,000 renewal fee. Compared to other states, North Carolina’s tax rate and licensing fee are noticeably lower. Looking at North Carolina’s border states, Tennessee’s tax rate is 20%, with a $750,000 annual licensing fee. Virginia’s licensing fee is 15%, with a $250,000 3-year license fee and a $200,000 renewal fee. South Carolina has not legalized mobile sports wagering. However, South Carolina House Bill 5277 proposed a 10% tax rate on adjusted gross income (slightly different than adjusted gross revenue) and a $500,000 initial licensing fee (on par with North Carolina). North Carolina did publish a legislative fiscal analysis with Senate Bill 688, which showed that, after a full year of operation, sports wagering could produce “total annual revenues between $8 million and $24 million.” New Proposal As a part of a yet-to-be-introduced new bill, lawmakers will propose a 14% tax rate and a $1 million licensing fee for 10-12 mobile sportsbooks. Thus, North Carolina could see a significant boost in revenue after a full year of operation, which the state could use a portion of to attract major events to the state, with other funds distributed for gambling addiction education and treatment programs or deposited into a general fund. Advocates for legalizing mobile sports wagering cite new job creation and a new stream of revenue as big boosts to North Carolina. On the other hand, others are hesitant due to the potential increase in problem gambling. Either way, until North Carolina legalizes mobile sports wagering, North Carolinians wanting to legally bet on sports will have to travel to the mountains to one of the two retail sportsbooks. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

With news of a possible filing of the 25th and 26th civil suits against the Cleveland Browns’ quarterback Deshaun Watson spreading on social media, rumors of a potential trade for the Browns’ former star quarterback, Baker Mayfield, cast a dark cloud on Cleveland’s upcoming season. However, amidst the doubt and despair felt by Browns fans, there is always a chance the Browns’ risky contract with Deshaun Watson will pay off in future seasons. The Carolina Panthers have been at the forefront of the recent trade rumors for Baker Mayfield. Minicamps began for both teams this week, but the Panthers will have to decide whether the importance of practice time at minicamp outweighs paying Mayfield’s $18.86 million salary. So far, neither the Panthers nor the Browns seem eager to fork out the majority of Mayfield’s salary, leading many to believe that a trade may not come to fruition this summer. If trades fall through for Baker Mayfield, he may not be too excited about playing back-up to Watson. Mayfield has openly stated that he feels disrespected by the franchise and that their relationship has suffered so much that it is “too far gone to mend.” On the other hand, the NFL’s investigation into Watson’s ever-increasing civil suits is ongoing despite NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s statement that the investigation was “nearing the end.” Although the first lawsuit against Watson was filed before the Texans traded him to the Browns, Watson’s contract with the Browns guarantees Watson $230 million over five years, making Watson’s contract the highest guarantee ever given to an NFL player. Now, all is not lost for the Browns. Let’s say the Panthers do trade for Mayfield. This means the Browns will likely have had to pay out a substantial amount of Mayfield’s near-$19 million salary but received some substantial draft picks in return. On top of this, Watson faces potential suspension from the league before any of his civil suits even see their day in court. Even so, the Browns have reportedly been sticking with their most expensive and controversial quarterback, likely due to a special clause in Watson’s contract. As Ian Rapoport reported, if Watson were to face suspension during the upcoming season, only his base salary of about $1 million for 2022 would be affected. Although there is no telling how long Watson’s suspension would last (if even given a suspension), many expect it to last multiple games, some even questioning a full year. Whatever the case may be, if Watson is back on the field and plays to the same caliber that brought him a $230 million fully-guaranteed contract, the Browns may start to see some return on their riskiest investment yet in addition to any draft picks from a Baker Mayfield trade. Only time will tell how much payoff the Browns-Watson contract will bring, but much is up in the air for the 2022 season. Kate Rosenberg is a J.D. candidate for the Class of 2023 at Texas A&M University School of Law. She can be reached at @Katerosey1 on Twitter.

Even before the arrival of the NCAA Transfer Portal and the one-time transfer rule that allows all college athletes to change schools while maintaining their eligibility, there has always been disagreement about the “right” way to structure the recruiting calendar in many sports. With the wide disparity of resources, expectations, recruiting bases, and athletic department goals across the nation, it’s hard to generate universal agreement on when and how programs can recruit prospective athletes. Inevitably, an athletic department in the SEC will have a different perspective on issues than one in the West Coast Conference. However, as the transfer portal has evolved over the past year plus with the addition of NIL, many in college sports agree that some form of a change in the recruiting calendar is necessary. After the conclusion of the football and basketball regular seasons, we saw numerous high-level players from power conference schools and mid-majors alike hop in the portal with aspirations to land an opportunity at a school with more NIL opportunities. Whether or not you think it’s good for college athletics that players are transferring from one school to another for NIL reasons is up to you. There are good arguments for both sides of that coin. However, one thing is a little less debatable when it comes to recruiting from the transfer portal: the current timeline is not ideal. As it currently stands, an athlete can decide to enter the transfer portal at any moment throughout the year. Whether it be the first day of preseason practices or the night before the last game of the season, the portal is open 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. While this isn’t by itself a bad thing, as there can certainly be special cases where it's best for a particular athlete’s mental health or family situation to leave a program, it has caused many problems for coaches and athletic departments across the country. Especially when NIL offers come into play In 2021, Jordan Addison won the Biletnikoff Award given to the best wide receiver in college football for the Pitt Panthers. Immediately following the season, there was some worry that he’d be wooed away by one of the blue-blood programs in college football via the portal, but he stayed put into the spring semester and into spring practices. Despite losing first pick Kenny Pickett to the NFL Draft, Pitt coaches and fans were looking forward to having Addison back for another year in Pittsburgh. By this May, spring practice had come and gone, and it looked like Addison was a sure bet to be wearing the blue and gold this upcoming fall. Until he suddenly entered the transfer portal and ended up at USC in what appeared to be a NIL-oriented move. To be clear, I’m by no means saying that Addison shouldn’t be able to capitalize financially off of his name, image, and likeness and improve his situation. However, the timing of the move highlights a problem that needs to be fixed moving forward. Just as a college student cannot simply withdraw from one school and begin classes the next day at another school, there needs to be certain guidelines and dates on when college athletes can enter the transfer portal and when they can be recruited out of the transfer portal. While Addison’s transfer was surprising because of how late it was following the season, too often, we see players transfer during the season when they aren’t receiving much playing time or are frustrated with their situation. While every circumstance is different and there are certainly exceptions to every rule, in-season transfers are not beneficial to the athlete. Over and over again, we hear stories of successful people discussing the value of sticking it out in tough situations, and simply quitting during a season is not good for anyone involved. Additionally, the lack of a specified structure causes issues for successful teams competing deep into postseasons. According to Matt Norlander on the CBS Eye on College Basketball Podcast, Eric Musselman, head coach of Arkansas’ men’s basketball team, said he spent more time recruiting players who had just entered the transfer portal than preparing for his team’s game against Gonzaga when the Razorbacks were competing in the NCAA Tournament this March. Inevitably, when the majority of the team’s seasons end after the regular season or conference tournaments, some players on eliminated teams immediately enter the transfer portal to find a new team. However, in some cases, the teams they’d like to end up on are still competing for championships. This leaves coaches in a tough situation: spend more time game planning for the present or recruiting a potential contributor for the future. While coaches face this dilemma all the time when recruiting high schoolers, the accelerated timeline in the current recruiting calendar forces the issue even more. With that being said, there needs to be some specified guidelines and dates surrounding the transfer portal. Instead of having the portal open 12 months of the year, there should be windows throughout the year where athletes are allowed to enter the portal and windows where coaches can recruit them. While this will obviously benefit coaches, who currently have to recruit their own players to stay put year-round and monitor the comings and goings in the portal, it also benefits the athletes as well. An athlete should be able to know where he or she stands within a program and having more of a structured recruiting calendar will enable them to recognize that more clearly, not worrying if a coach will bring in multiple transfers at their position at any moment. The transfer portal is a very controversial topic right now in college athletics, especially in conjunction with NIL. I am a proponent of it and think athletes should be able to move to another school while maintaining their eligibility. However, a better-structured timeline and transfer windows are necessary for the health of athletes and coaches alike. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

Minnesota and North Dakota high school athletic associations have each passed name, image, and likeness (NIL) policies to permit high school athletes to profit off their NIL. The Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) Board of Directors and the North Dakota High School Activities Association (NDHSAA) both passed their NIL policies on June 7, 2022. Minnesota High School NIL Policy The MSHSL NIL policy lists several key guidelines: The compensation is not contingent on specific athletic performance or achievement (e.g., financial incentives based on points scored). The compensation is not provided as an inducement to attend a particular school (“recruiting”) or to remain enrolled at a particular school. The compensation is commensurate with market value. The compensation is not provided by the school or an agent of the school (e.g., booster club, foundation, etc.). NIL activities must not interfere with a student-athlete’s academic obligations. A student-athlete must not miss athletic practice, competition, travel, or other team obligations in order to participate in NIL opportunities. The policy also lists several permissible NIL activities, such as teaching/instructing/coaching, advertisements, and autographs, provided that there is no school involvement and no MSHSL or school logos, marks, mascots, or apparel are used in the NIL activities. In addition, the policy prohibits several NIL activities, such as the following: A student-athlete is not permitted to sell items provided by the school until that student‑athlete has exhausted their high school eligibility for that sport. Use of MSHSL or school marks and logos is prohibited for any NIL activity. A student may not reference their involvement in high school activities at their school when promoting a NIL activity. Students are not permitted to promote certain activities in vice industries, including but not limited to: alcohol; tobacco, cannabis, or related products; gambling; and weapons. The policy puts the responsibility on the student-athlete to comply with MSHSL bylaws and policies, school policies, and NCAA rules and regulations. “It is the student’s responsibility to know and understand any NCAA requirements before engaging in covered activities,” the policy states. “In order to protect eligibility, students are encouraged to closely review [MSHSL] rules and policies prior to engaging [in any NIL activities].” Bayliss Flynn, a soccer player at Edina High School in Minnesota, recently became the first high school student-athlete to sign a NIL deal in Minnesota. North Dakota High School NIL Policy The NDHSAA NIL policy is reported to be similar to the policy adopted by the MSHSL. “An athlete can’t use school uniforms, logos or high school league logos in marketing or promotion. Booster clubs also can’t be involved with NIL or compensation can’t be used for recruiting an athlete to a certain school. Athletes also can’t be compensated for performance,” said the NDHSAA spokesperson. “I think the two biggest pieces are not having an affiliation with the school and not being influenced, or having an effect, where you attend school,” said NDHSAA Executive Director Matthew Fetsch, per The Forum. Fetsch said the NDHSAA had been working on drafts for its policy since last September and inquired with North Dakota State and the University of North Dakota about their NIL policies. Fetsch also said the NDHSAA has yet to deal with a NIL inquiry from schools, students, or families of students, but the Board of Directors wanted to have the policy in place if that time comes. Minnesota and North Dakota join several other state high school athletic associations—Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Utah—that permit high school athletes to monetize off their NIL while maintaining their amateur status. 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 start-up 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 Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.