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

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

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

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

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

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

In October, I wrote about Ben Simmons’ decision to holdout from the 76ers. The NBA season was underway, and Simmons wasn’t suiting up for Philadelphia. Since then we’ve had media leaks, cryptic tweets, passive aggressive press conferences, and much more NBA influenced drama. After not playing a single game for the 76ers this season, in February Simmons was shipped out of Philadelphia to Brooklyn officially signaling the end of this tumultuous relationship. Ben Simmons and the 76ers are no longer together – but they’re still fighting like they are. Simmons joined the Brooklyn Nets where he has still yet to play in a game this season. He’s currently rehabbing a back injury with hopes to join the Nets sometime during the playoffs. But in addition to working on his back, Simmons is still entrenched in a financial feud with his former employer. Until the trade to Brooklyn, even though you couldn’t tell by simply watching 76ers games, according to his contract Simmons was still a member of Philadelphia. Despite being worth millions of dollars, an NBA contract works like any other employment contract where consideration is provided by both sides. Under these circumstances, Simmons plays basketball for the 76ers and in return gets paid $33 million a year. The contract broke down when Simmons refused to play citing mental health reasons. The 76ers countered by withholding paychecks which they felt was in their right because Simmons was in breach of contract for “failing to render services” under Article VI Section I of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To further complicate matters, Simmons was issued a $16 million advance on his 2021/2022 salary last August before the situation between the two sides became radioactive. So during this season, the 76ers actually claimed that Simmons owed them money to recoup the advance. They withheld $360,000 game checks for every game that Simmons missed as a member of the 76ers this season to make them whole. Fast forward to present day, now this divorce involves a third party. When Simmons was traded to the Nets, as part of the deal it was agreed upon that the Nets wouldn’t pay Simmons either. Instead, the Nets would wire the 76ers paychecks that were meant for Simmons to recoup the aforementioned losses. Simmons no longer plays for Philadelphia, but his former employer is still receiving his paychecks they feel they are owed due to breach of contract. Only in the NBA. Simmons wasn’t going to go down quietly. He filed a grievance against the 76ers under Article XXXI of the CBA to acquire $20 million in salary from his former team. According to the CBA, the grievance now moves to the arbitration process where both sides will make their case.[1] Before even getting to the substance of the grievance, the first point the 76ers legal team will likely jump on involves timing. Article XXXI Section 2(c) of the CBA lays out procedure requirements for a grievance to be filed: The 76ers have been withholding payment from Simmons all season. Also, it’s been more than 30 days since Simmons’ new employer, the Nets, began sending the 76ers their former player’s checks. The 76ers have a good case Simmons didn’t file a timely grievance under the CBA. Simmons will likely respond that the “occurrence for which the grievance is based” remains ongoing. Simmons will make the case that he should be granted 30 days from when his last paycheck enters the 76ers pockets instead of his. Therefore, hie grievance was filed well within the procedure requirements under the CBA. Shifting to the substance, the Simmons vs. 76ers battle will be precedent-setting for an NBA player’s ability to holdout and demand trades when their situation grows unfavorable. In the recent decade, it’s become a common trend for NBA players to exert power over their teams to demand trades and pick their next destination. Usually, after a minor recoil, the team complies to their superstar’s demands and trades them. Finally, a team has fought back in the form of withholding salary. This situation also gets more complicated because at the heart of Simmons’ case is his mental health. Simmons has claimed that the reason he avoided joining the 76ers this season was because he was battling mental health issues that began when the 76ers lost in the playoffs the year before. The 76ers now find themselves in the difficult spot of arguing against a player’s legitimate right to seek mental health treatment. As mental health awareness has become more significant, the 76ers will have to tread lightly. Exhibit A of what the 76ers can point to is the shift in how Simmons has acted since joining the Nets. Although Simmons hasn’t played yet for Brooklyn, he’s cited back problems, not mental health, as the reason he remains sidelined. However, he’s joined his teammates on the bench, something he didn’t do in Philadelphia this season. Simmons will likely claim that the way he was treated in Philadelphia was the main source of his mental anguish. Once that burden was lifted and he joined a new team, he became ready mentally to join his new teammates and work towards getting back on the court. The NBA arbitration process isn’t usually in the business of evaluating the validity of mental distress claims, so it’s unpredictable where all of this ends up. Make no mistake, the NBA is a player’s league. NBA commissioner Adam Silver rarely tries to ruffle feathers amongst the league’s elite talent. Simmons’ hope is that this trend continues. But the other 29 teams are monitoring this situation very closely. Ownership and team front offices have felt that the power balance has shifted too far in favor of the players. Their hope is that the Simmons situation will determine that no longer should a player be able to hold out of his contract, refuse to play, demand a trade, and still get paid. The divorce between the 76ers and Ben Simmons is official, the papers are signed, and they’ve begun seeing other people. But the fallout from this breakup will lay the foundation of player-team relationships in the NBA moving forward. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] Bobby Marks, Sources: Brooklyn Nets' Ben Simmons files grievance to challenge nearly $20 million withheld by Philadelphia 76ers, ESPN (last visited Apr. 7, 2022) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33652726/sources-brooklyn-nets-ben-simmons-files-grievance-nearly-20-million-withheld-philadelphia-76ers.

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

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

When you hear the phrase “toxic workplace” in relation to a Washington D.C. sports team, your brain may immediately go to the Washington Commanders. While maybe rightfully so, that overshadows another D.C. team fighting to remove that label. The 2021 NWSL season was tumultuous, to say the least. Partly because in 2021, allegations of abuse were made against the Washington Spirit head coach. The league had an outside firm conduct an investigation into the allegations, which eventually expanded to investigate the entire organization’s workplace culture under the CEO. When the investigation concluded that the Washington Spirit had a “toxic workplace.” The league stated, “The NWSL’s board of governors has determined that the Spirit and its ownership have failed to act in the best interests of the League.” Ultimately the head coach was fired, and the league suspended the organization from involvement in league business and its board of governors. In the aftermath of the investigation, players made a statement requesting the CEO Steve Baldwin to step down. At the same time, Michelle Kang was working to try and buy Baldwin’s shares from him. The players would then express their support for Michelle Kang, requesting Steve Baldwin sell the team to her. And on March 30, 2022, the players got what they wanted, and the sale was made official. Yet, initial calls for Baldwin to sell the team occurred on October 5, 2021. So why did the sale take so long? Once the allegations arose, Michelle Kang began working with other Spirit investors to try and buy the team from Baldwin. In September 2021, he had agreed to sell the team to Kang but then rescinded. Refusing to sell to her, he publicly Baldwin went so far as to pen an email to Spirit investors accusing Kang of organizing a “coup” against him and spreading misinformation in an attempt to wrestle control of the club away. After turning down Kang’s offer of $35 million, Baldwin entered “exclusive negotiations” with Todd Boehly for an offer of $25 million. This obviously led to the ire of the other investors, including former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Tom and other investors threatened legal action if Baldwin. A letter from seventeen investors to Steve Baldwin said, “It is our collective position that the $35 million bid is so far superior that there is but one option worth pursuing.” The letter also said the investors “reserve all of their rights and remedies under the governing documentation and applicable state and federal law. Please consider this a collective notice and reservation of rights.” But now, the players and investors have gotten what they wanted, and the sale has been approved and finalized by the league. The league is looking to improve and make forward progress in the shadow of the 2021 season. This is the third major move that shows the league’s hopes and intentions moving forward. The first was the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the second was the appointment of Jessica Berman as the new Commissioner. Both of which are moves that have been met with hopeful positivity. Hopefully, with the sale of the Washington Spirit, the league had an opportunity to look at their approval processes for areas of improvement to provide a safer and abuse-free environment for the players. Emlyn Goodman is a 3L at University of Baltimore School of Law where she is a current student attorney in the Community Development Clinic. She can be found on Twitter @emlyngoodman and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/emlyn-goodman-b46113113/

Previously, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) released its decisions on the Football Union of Russia’s (FUR) requests to stay the execution of UEFA and FIFA’s suspensions of all Russian teams and clubs from the respective leagues’ competitions. Now, the CAS has released its full order, which provides the reasoning behind the CAS’ decision. Citing R37 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Ms. Corinne Schmidhauser, President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, identified the following factors when deciding whether a stay of execution should be granted: Whether the stay requested is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm; Whether the applicant has reasonable chances to succeed on the merits; and Whether the interests of the applicant outweigh those of the opposite parties and of third parties. Irreparable Harm In a lengthy discussion of the arguments, the Division President found that the Football Union of Russia would suffer irreparable harm if the stay of execution was not granted. The Division President turned to previous CAS opinions in finding that a suspension “can cause irreparable harm . . . if the athlete is unable to compete in qualifying events necessary to compete in [a] major event[].” Reasoning that the World Cup and Women’s World Cup are the biggest football tournaments that take place only every four years, the Division President found that the respective tournaments constitute major events. Thus, the FUR would suffer irreparable harm. However, the Division President left it open because the Division President gave more weight to the balance of interests factor. Likelihood of Success The Division President punted on this factor refusing to take a position on the likelihood of success. “the [Football Union of Russia’s] likelihood of success on the merits cannot be definitely discounted.” Therefore, the decision turned on the balance of interests. Balance of Interests The Division President found that the FUR’s teams have an interest in participating in competitions. However, FIFA has a legitimate interest in maintaining and ensuring smooth competitions and the integrity of its competitions. If the FUR was allowed to continue in the competition, opponents would forfeit the game, which would damage the integrity of FIFA competitions. Similar damage would occur if the FUR were allowed to play, then be removed later in the competition. The Division President also noted that additional security measures would be necessary for a safe competition. With those interests in mind, the Division President found that the balance of interests weighed “decisively” in favor of FIFA, UEFA, and the other Respondents. Therefore, the Division President denied the FUR’s requests. Takeaway For future organizations lodging requests for provisional measures to the CAS, note that even when irreparable harm is apparent, safety and integrity weigh heavily in the decision on whether to grant a stay of execution. Therefore, when an organizations actions lead to multiple opponents refusing to play, it is unlikely that a stay of execution will be granted.

Daniel Kaplan, writer for The Athletic, wrote about the NFL creating an ad hoc ownership group to determine who must pay the $790 million settlement tab to St. Louis. Owners, at their annual meetings in March, tried to determine whether the $790 million bill should fall solely on Rams owner Stan Kroenke or be spread across the other clubs. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, several months ago, appointed a five-owner ad hoc committee to try to resolve the issue. Advocates for Kroenke to fully pay the tab and advocates for all owners to pay the tab are on the ad hoc committee. These owners were not disclosed, but one thing is for sure, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is not on the ad hoc committee. Jerry Jones could be seen as Kroenke’s right hand man, or even the leader that pushed the owners to vote for Kroenke’s plan when the owners voted in Houston to approve the Rams’ relocation to Los Angeles on January 12, 2016. He is seen as the owner that pushed for the blind vote, even threatening revenue losses from the TV contracts and they would lose their ability to host a Super Bowl, according to Ben Frederickson from the St. Louis Post Dispatch. For those owners saying Kroenke should pay the entire $790 million settlement fee, they argue that Kroenke signed an indemnification agreement when he won the right to relocate the Rams in 2016, meaning he would cover all costs associated with the move. Seth Wickersham, senior writer for ESPN, wrote about an owners meeting earlier this year where New York Giants owner John Mara Jr. stated he would not have voted for Kroenke’s plan if Kroenke did not cover the entire payment, and he would not stick to the indemnification agreement. Kroenke has several arguments for why he should not cover the full settlement, which the NFL paid in December. The competing project at the 2016 owners’ vote for the L.A. market was led by the Chargers and Raiders. Those two clubs sent material to then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s office that laid out how, arguably, the Rams did not follow the relocation bylaws. Kroenke argues if not for this information, St. Louis would not have had a case against the NFL. Kroenke argues this insight from the Raiders and Chargers formed the backbone of the St. Louis legal case and made it more difficult to get the case dismissed. The Chargers and Raiders gave St. Louis the blueprint to successfully sue the Rams and the NFL over the relocation process, and how the Rams had plans to relocate well before they filed for it in late 2015. Kroenke also argues that his billions of dollars reclaimed L.A. for the NFL, topped off by the well-received SoFi Stadium, and he should get some credit for that. This argument is invalid. His stadium may be making money for the NFL, capped off by Super Bowl LVI. However, this is not a valid argument. He relocated the team, and he did not follow the relocation guidelines. He had no plans to keep the Rams in St. Louis, he was on the Los Angeles committee as a minority owner. Kroenke looked out for himself, and himself only. These reasons are why his argument is invalid, and he should pay the $790 million settlement by himself. The other side argues Kroenke agreed to indemnify the other owners, without which they would have never agreed to the Rams relocation. His franchise value has soared by billions of dollars, and he has a tremendous real estate opportunity in Hollywood Park. When the NFL in December agreed to settle the St. Louis case, the resolution called for the issue of who pays to go to the finance committee. That has changed. A source familiar with the NFL’s working stated the actual resolution and to settle a financial issue is the commissioner, with consultation with the finance committee determines who pays what. The finance committee did not want to take part in this issue, so they set up a special committee to determine who pays the $790 million settlement. The 31 club owners (the Green Bay Packers are owned by shareholders) are a highly exclusive and powerful group, so typically they take great pains not to air their dirty laundry, but Kroenke clearly hit a sensitive spot for many owners. They believe he has exhibited bad faith by appearing to backtrack on his indemnification commitment. Kroenke exercised his right to first refusal when he purchased the Rams from previous owner, Georgia Frontierre’s, heirs, her children. He is willing to spend cash to flex their muscle in a league run on a sharing philosophy (roughly 80 percent of revenues are shared). Kaplan states the owners’ beliefs are being tested on the ad hoc committee on the St. Louis settlement money. The NFL team owner source on the committee appeared to concede the commissioner in the end would have to make a decision. Kaplan concludes that the decision is unclear. From a money angle, there is no real pressure to decide: the league tapped a low-interest rate line of credit to pay St. Louis. But given the contentious voices behind closed doors at the annual meeting, the issue is far more than a minor accounting issue, but is one that speaks to how owners navigate their commitments to one another. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.