Louisiana and Missouri are the latest states in SEC territory to each amend their name, image, and likeness (NIL) law to permit college athletic departments to get more involved in NIL activities. South Carolina is on the path to suspend the state’s NIL law and is awaiting a decision by the governor. Louisiana’s Amended NIL Law Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed the state’s amended NIL bill, Senate Bill 250, into law on June 15, 2022. The amended NIL law, which was unanimously approved by the Louisiana Senate in early June, became effective on June 10, 2022. The amended NIL law removes restrictions on third-parties, such as collectives and boosters, paying athletes for use of their NIL and allows coaches and school personnel in Louisiana to also facilitate NIL deals for their student-athletes. The amended law also includes an exemption to the Public Records Law for contracts disclosed by an athlete to the school. This exemption likely allows collectives and other boosters to broker NIL deals with college athletes without the risk of the contract being publicly disclosed through a public records request. Before the new law, legislators said the previous NIL law put LSU and other state schools in Louisiana at a competitive disadvantage on the recruiting trail. Missouri’s Amended NIL Law Missouri Governor Michael Parson signed Senate Bill 718 into law on June 16, 2022, which includes a provision that amends the state’s NIL law. The new NIL provision allows schools and their representatives “to identify or otherwise assist with opportunities for a student-athlete to earn compensation from a third-party for the use of the student athlete’s name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation.” The amended law also provides that schools cannot receive compensation for setting up NIL deals. Furthermore, coaches and school officials cannot serve as representation to student-athletes and cannot influence the student-athlete’s decision on the choice of representation. The school representatives also cannot attend meetings between the student-athletes and the third-parties where the student-athlete’s compensation is being negotiated or completed. Finally, the Missouri legislature added a section that requires schools to provide financial literacy and time management programs for student-athletes. The amended NIL law will not go into effect until August 28. Shortly after Governor Parson signed Senate Bill 718, the University of Missouri announced in a press release that it will, among other things, launch a school-specific marketplace with Opendorse, establish an in-house team to oversee NIL activities, and create an NIL educational curriculum that will focus on experiential learning. South Carolina on Path to Suspend NIL Law South Carolina’s General Assembly ratified the state’s 2022-2023 fiscal year budget on June 16, 2022. The budget contains a provision that would suspend South Carolina’s NIL law for the fiscal year. The budget now heads to Governor Henry McMaster’s desk. The Governor has until early next week to approve the budget and has a line-item veto to take out any part of the budget he does not like, including the NIL provision. South Carolina’s NIL law currently prohibits a school from “directly or indirectly creat[ing] or facilitat[ing] compensation opportunities for the use of” a college athlete’s NIL. Also, the NIL law prohibits a school or “an entity with a purpose that includes supporting or benefiting [a school] or its athletic programs,” such as a collective, from “directly or indirectly compensat[ing] a current or prospective” college athlete for the use of their NIL. Assuming the Governor does not veto the NIL provision, the suspension of South Carolina’s NIL law allows the state’s Power 5 schools—Clemson and the University of South Carolina—to stay competitive in recruiting. Also, colleges in South Carolina would now be able to facilitate NIL opportunities for their student-athletes. Tennessee and Mississippi each recently amended their NIL law, as did Illinois, to allow schools to arrange NIL deals with third-parties for their student-athletes. To maintain competitiveness in recruiting, other states with restrictive NIL laws may look to amend their laws. 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.

Between modernizing the game, generating interest from the younger generation, and ensuring a successful future for America’s pastime, there is no shortage of issues facing the MLB. There is a strong case to be made that it is past time for improvement upon the arbitration and overall compensation practices in the MLB. Overview of MLB Compensation Once a player enters the Major League Baseball system, they have an initial contract of six years until they can arrive at free agency and test their worth in the open market. MLB contracts have been greatly debated, and the treatment of minor leaguers has even caught the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These problems are exacerbated in cases of players coming from less financially secure situations, making it easier for the MLB and team owners to get away with paying these athletes next to nothing. Though the issues are separate, but not completely disconnected, from the current system of arbitration that the MLB employs. For the seriously gifted and talented ballplayers who make it into the big leagues, arbitration begins after three years, and after two years for the cream of the crop. At free agency, the player and owner will present their respective ideas of a proper salary in front of an arbitration panel. The panel then selects one side’s offer, and that selection is the player’s salary. It is necessary to mention that it is increasingly popular for players to settle with their team. The players who have not been in the league long enough to arbitrate, but are considered in the top 100 players, can supplement their salary through the MLB central office’s pool of additional money for these players specifically. This pre-arbitration bonus pool saw an increase to $50 million in the newly agreed upon CBA, causing the MLB average salary to increase to $4.41 million, a 5.9% bump from 2021. The average salary increase is unquestionably good for the players and the sport of baseball as a whole, but it does not mean that the CBA fixed all issues with MLB’s compensation, nor does it mean that the arbitration process became less flawed. Riddled with Issues When players and teams undergo arbitration, the negotiations are inherently adversarial. These negotiations pit players and agents against their team and the team’s lineup of lawyers. Teams will use statistics to convey the player’s shortcomings, while a player will argue his worth to his team. While the MLB is a business, and business transactions are never cordial, chummy affairs, these negotiations can permanently damage relationships between players and their club. While this comes with its own set of issues, the sides usually compromise on a number that is in between each party’s request. Of the arbitration hearings that occurred this season, there were nine instances of teams winning, and only four athlete victories over their teams. This shows a clear advantage to the teams in these arbitration negotiations, and a lack of influence the player can have in their resulting contract. The newly agreed upon CBA also grew the minimum salary from $570,500 to $700,000. For those who don’t get a chance at arbitration, the pool of money is considered insufficient by the MLBPA. A major feature of the CBA negotiations was surrounding this pool of money. The MLBPA’s request to increase this pool of money to $105 million was not met, and countered by the owners at $50 million, thus furthering the pattern of compromises that strengthen the owners’ bargaining power. Similar to the pattern in arbitration settlements. Still, the players and their union want players to become eligible for salary arbitration sooner than three years, while owners are comfortable with the status quo. There remain issues of what to base the arbitration on; statistics, notoriety, and longevity all can play a role in an arbitration negotiation. For the average MLB player who isn’t statistically in the top 100, there is little to celebrate with the signing of the new CBA. The conditions that make the MLB, MLBPA, and the minor leagues the way they now show that there is great room for improvement when it comes to payment in professional baseball. As baseball fans, all we can hope for is continued cooperation between the union and the owners, and good faith between both parties that will allow America’s pastime to flourish for years to come. Jacob Ehrlich is a rising 2L at New York Law School with a great passion for all sports and sports law. Jacob is interested in all areas of Sports Law, but especially athlete representation, intellectual property rights, and collective bargaining. Jacob can be found on Twitter @SportsLawJacob

As the 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup in Qatar grows closer, one might be inclined to believe that the period of preparation for the quadrennial spectacle in which all participating nations currently find themselves is one marked only by excitement for the tournament’s newest competitor. After finishing in first place in the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) Final Qualifying Round, the Canadian Men’s Soccer Team booked their ticket to the World Cup for the first time since 1986. Supporters of Les Rouges share an unprecedented sense of encouragement for the future of the men’s program - primarily due to the dynamic tactical identity of manager John Herdman and the burgeoning rise of Canadian talent. Such talent is headlined by the likes of Stephen Eustaquio, Jonathan David, and Alphonso Davies, the recently crowned CONCACAF Player of the Year. Nevertheless, recent events arising out of an ongoing dispute between the men’s national program and the Canadian soccer federation have demonstrated that this period of preparation has, in actuality, been anything but exciting. On June 5, the friendly match between Canada and Panama was canceled two hours before kick-off as a result of the Canadian players’ refusal to take the field amidst a dispute in contract negotiations with Canada Soccer. In light of the historic collective bargaining agreements agreed upon by the United States Soccer Federation, the Canadian men have lambasted the efforts of Canada Soccer throughout the negotiation process. The primary complaint held by the players toward Canada Soccer was the lack of financial opportunities and respect for the men’s and women’s programs proportional to the level of success attained by both teams over the last year. Additionally, the players held reservations about the lack of transparency displayed by the federation in failing to disclose the terms of the 10-year agreement they signed in 2019 with Canadian Soccer Business (CSB). CSB is an independent entity that was established to oversee Canada Soccer’s commercial rights and corporate partnerships, and, as a consequence of the partnership deal, is only entitled to allocate to Canada Soccer an annual revenue of $3 million. Anything else that may follow is kept by CSB rather than being allocated to the players. In response to this unproductive series of negotiations, the men’s national team released a letter publicizing their displeasure with the federation and outlining their expectations moving forward. These expectations demonstrated a desire from the players for multiple structural changes within the federation, including but not limited to: Transparency across the federation and the opportunity for players to review the agreement between Canada Soccer and CSB. An equitable pay structure with the women’s national team which shares player match fees and the percentage of prize money earned by both teams at their respective World Cups. World Cup compensation includes 40% of the prize money earned and an additional friends and family package for the 2022 World Cup. Ironically, Panama was only asked to play the game by the Canadian federation after they were compelled to cancel the previously scheduled match against fellow World Cup participants Iran in light of tense relations between the two nations in recent weeks. Nevertheless, the Canadian players’ refusal to take the field served as a public demonstration of their intent to demand financial return from Canada Soccer proportional to their recent success. Ultimately, the abandonment of on-field action was short-lived, as the players defeated Curacao 4-0 in their opening match of the CONCACAF Nations League after committing to work toward a future resolution with the federation. Nevertheless, the lack of training time and matches played took its toll, as the Canadians suffered a 2-1 Nations League defeat to Honduras – the last place finisher in the CONCACAF Final Qualifying Round, four days later. Feeling aggrieved at the manner of their defeat, the Canadian players exhibited their displeasure toward the match officials – a move that could be described as the culmination of a frustrating international window. Over the last year, the performances of the Canadian men’s national team have indicated that they are ready to represent their nation proudly at the World Cup. However, the events of the past few weeks - stemming from the players’ desire for compensation equal to the service they’ve provided – have put a halt on Canada’s otherwise linear trajectory toward Qatar. If a resolution between the involved parties is not found, it may hold an adverse effect on the team’s greater desire to prove they belong on the world’s biggest stage. Bryce is a former men's soccer player for Anderson University. He currently attends Regent University School of Law. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn.

Earlier today, The PGA called a mandatory meeting for players at the Travelers Championship in Connecticut. While it is still not certain what this meeting will entail, it will certainly address the competing LIV Golf tournament in some way, with insiders suggesting that the PGA is prepared to propose three new tour events, each with a purse of $25 million. While this band-aid solution might prevent some players to leave with the prospect of an additional $75 million, it also highlights other golfers’ criticism of the PGA as an organization. Golfers such as Phil Mickelson and others have criticized the PGA for their “obnoxious greed” in the past few years, implying that there is a huge disparity between the revenue the PGA Tour makes by putting on events and selling their sponsorships and what they actually pass on to golfers through the purses for events. This is essentially the result of the PGA having a monopoly on Professional Golf tournaments because no matter the size of the purse, players in the past were forced to stay because the PGA was the only option for professional golf. Beyond just this speculation, the PGA has already announced that the fall portion of the calendar will consist of eight no-cut, big-money events as another form of Hail Mary attempt to keep golfers from jumping ship to LIV Golf. By announcing these big money events in the fall, the PGA is almost making that criticism more valid. By “magically” coming up with these schemes to keep golfers happy with no-cut big money events, on top of what it already pays in purses, the PGA's implying that they have hordes of cash sitting around that they could use to distribute to golfers but instead have greedily kept for the PGA themselves in the past. If these speculative comments are true and the PGA has decided to have three new events with purses totaling $75 Million, this would further reinforce this idea and sentiment among golfers. While in the short term and at face value both the announced decision about the remaining fall schedule and this highly speculative decision would be a good one to keep golfers from going to LIV Golf, it also makes the PGA look bad and tarnishes their image as an organization. They are essentially confirming the criticisms they've received in recent months—not to mention they are demonstrating through another avenue that they're acting as a monopoly(violating federal anti-trust law). While the only confirmed aspect so far is the fall schedule for this year, and despite the highly speculative nature of the other rumors, it’s a bad look for the PGA as a business and an organization regardless of if it gets more golfers to stay or not. 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 or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

There was a time in the United States when televised motorsports and NASCAR were synonymous. Today, NASCAR is lucky if an average non-motorsports fan can recall their name at all. I can only imagine John Middlebrook, National Commissioner of NASCAR is scrambling to find answers to this decline in popularity, especially in light of the reinvigorated challenge brought by INDYCAR and unprecedented growth in interest for Formula One in the U.S. So—Why is NASCAR withering, while other motorsports seem to be thriving in the same market, and what does Middlebrook do to combat this? Growing popularity of competing series: In the past few years, INDYCAR and F1 have experienced a huge resurgence. Rodger Penske and Liberty Media, which own INDYCAR and F1 respectively, have capitalized on high-stakes drama and successful mass-media campaigns to grow their respective sports to new heights. For INDYCAR, average TV viewership is up 13 percent over last year, drawing both F1 and NASCAR fans with drivers Roman Grosjean and Jimmy Johnson joining the series for the 2021 season. F1 boasted an astronomical 54 percent year-over-year growth in U.S. TV viewership for 2021, assisted both by the continued popularity of the Netflix Docuseries Drive to Survive and the announced addition of a destination race in Miami which took place this past May. Both INDYCAR and F1 as organizations are executing well-planned, targeted campaigns for growth, and unless something major changes will both continue to maintain a trajectory of growth. NASCAR’s decline: While INDYCAR and F1 have been building and executing multi-year plans to promote growth, NASCAR has continued to fade into the background. In 2021, NASCAR’s TV viewership set a record for its lowest ratings ever, averaging 2.9 million viewers per event. This was astounding, considering that it was the first year of a full calendar of events since the COVID-19 pandemic. So far for the 2022 season, FOX Sports averaged 4.5 million viewers per race for the 10 races it contracted to cover, a 10% increase over last year—but FOX won’t broadcast any of the 10 remaining races, which will likely temper these numbers, which are still well below peak viewership in 2005 of 9.6 million per race. What can be done? NASCAR’s biggest stumbling block is, as of now, built into their very DNA as an organization. When I say Formula One, you picture Monaco— a refined event with celebrities and billionaires milling about, upscale dining experiences, and champaign flowing freely in the paddock. When I say NASCAR, you see none of these things—you picture “rednecks,” country music, Busch Light beer, and fast food. NASCAR loves to tout its southern roots and heritage, and there is nothing wrong with that—but in recent years this image has become less popular nationally, and alienates entire categories of potential fans that, since there are other options, are gravitating elsewhere. As a casual fan of NASCAR, this saddens me, because going to a NASCAR race is a blast and the sport deserves to grow, but its current national persona prevents it from doing so. Right now, there is an unprecedented interest in vintage NASCAR memorabilia, with celebrities being seen walking the streets of Hollywood sporting a Jeff Gordon or Dale Earnhardt Jr. jacket—which represents a huge opportunity for NASCAR to expand into other markets and change its long-held “good old boy” persona. despite this, NASCAR does not seem to be addressing or doing anything with this tool of newfound vintage/celebrity popularity. Yes, in the past few years NASCAR has made changes to the series to make it more exciting and accessible to fans with the introduction of the playoffs, competition cautions, a dirt race at Bristol, etc., but despite these efforts, viewership is still declined and they have ignored what is, to me, an obvious avenue of increasing national awareness and popularity through these celebrities. The “Future” of NASCAR? In my opinion, NASCAR still has a place in American motorsports. It still provides excitement, racing that you can't find anywhere else, and its own brand of drama. But, unless NASCAR is willing and planning to change itself in ways that make it more marketable on a widespread national scale, they're destined to become a faded memory of the past instead of a bright spotlight on a uniquely American sport. Middlebrook has a tough job ahead of him if he wants to see NASCAR survive another 10 years. 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 or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

In response to Roger Goodell’s answers to her questions as part of the House Oversight Committee Hearing on Tackling Toxic Workplaces, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney announced today that she will be issuing a subpoena for Washington Commanders’ Owner Dan Snyder to testify before the committee. The subpoena comes after Dan Snyder politely refused to voluntarily testify at today’s hearing and instead flew to France for the Cannes Lions Awards. The subpoena announcement was surely one of the biggest stories coming out of the hearing, generating a large amount of traction on social media. While the announcement is significant, Dan Snyder will more than likely not acquiesce to this demand, and we’re probably headed for a long legal battle where Dan Snyder has a path towards avoiding testifying altogether. As Dan Wallach argued at the end of the simultaneous ConductCast of the hearings (like, rate, and subscribe to the Conduct Detrimental YouTube!), Dan Snyder will almost certainly not submit to this subpoena voluntarily. As Dan pointed out, Dan Snyder will probably file a lawsuit to challenge the subpoena and the scope of Congress’ investigation (or insert whatever legal justification he uses here) prior to being held in Contempt of Congress. Through that lawsuit, and the inevitable motions and appeals process, Dan Snyder and his attorneys will have one primary goal in mind: push this subpoena, and the related hearing, until after the mid-term elections this fall. I’m aware this is not a political website, but the mid-term elections are important in the context of both today’s hearing and the legal proceedings regarding the Commanders’ workplace going forward. If the House of Representatives “flips,” that being where the Republican Party would control the majority of the seats and, therefore, assume responsibility to chair the various House Committees, these proceedings will probably cease. Based on the testimony of the Republican members of the committee today, there is very little appetite from the Republican members for continuing hearings on the topic. And based on Dan Snyder’s history as a Republican Donor, it’s very possible that he’ll be making some calls if the House does flip to help make these proceedings a thing of the past. Combining the expected lawsuit from Dan Snyder with the possibility of a Republican-controlled committee, there is a scenario where Dan Snyder never has to sit and answer the tough questions he should be forced to answer about the workplace of the Commanders under his tenure. Further, the NFL may possibly tag along on this delay in order to avoid having Roger Goodell answer more questions under oath. Without the prospect of another visit to Congress, and more importantly the threatening of the NFL’s Anti-Trust Exemption, as Congressman Hank Johnson alluded to during the hearing, the NFL may conveniently wait until after the mid-term elections to publish any findings from the Mary Jo White Investigation into Tiffani Johnston’s allegations. By waiting, the NFL would take the pressure off themselves to publish a detailed-enough report, and possibly an adequately severe punishment, to satisfy Congress as well as the general public. After the mid-terms, the NFL could reasonably assume to be free from further Congressional scrutiny, and may then be able to report and administer the findings of the White Investigation on their own terms. To be clear: I cannot say that either a Republican victory in the mid-term elections or the subsequent cessation of Congressional attention on the Commanders are foregone conclusions, but assuming they are, those who are interested in justice for the victims of the horrific workplace allegedly overseen by Mr. Snyder should turn towards the Gruden litigation for greater hope, as that would then present the more significant concern for Dan Snyder and the NFL at that point. Assuming events unfold as I have laid out, the best method for achieving any sort of transparency from the Commanders or the NFL would be through the discovery process of the Gruden lawsuit. If discovery proceeds, and is not blocked by the inevitably exhaustive appeals of the NFL, then the public may finally get a full glimpse (through the probable discovery of the rest of the unreleased emails from the Wilkinson Investigation) into how much of the Commanders’ workplace the NFL knew about, and how much (or, more likely, how little) the NFL did to fix the problem. And through that process, the renewed public attention on the heinousness of Dan Snyder’s actions combined with the lack of action by the NFL may cause enough outcry, or provide the proverbial “smoking gun,” to force the other NFL Owners to more seriously consider voting Dan Snyder out of their very exclusive club. 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

In the world of international soccer – or football as they implore it be called overseas – the process of player transfers can be considered quite hectic. The hectic nature of the transfer process is exacerbated when the impetus placed upon improving the overall squad strength by club executives must be fixed within biannual periods. Analogous to what the NCAA’s Transformation Committee has recommended for athletes entering the transfer portal, clubs are only permitted to sign players within two transfer windows – one designated for the summer period and one for the winter. As such, club managers and executives are working around the clock to find agreements for the players they believe will improve the quality of their overall squads for the forthcoming season. Unfortunately for these clubs, their ability to sign players is oftentimes at the mercy of the party at the other end of the table. Because player transfers are affected by multiple factors, including weekly wage propositions, the quality of teams interested, and the desires of the players themselves, they can materialize and dissolve in the blink of an eye. Such drastic changes are typically met with little more than public criticism of the player. Nevertheless, a recent transfer to kick off the summer window could potentially become one of the most notorious in modern history due to the legal ramifications that could potentially follow in the coming months. On June 10th, Arsenal of the English Premier League announced the signing of 19-year-old Brazilian forward Marquinhos from his previous club, Sao Paulo. Marquinhos, while an exciting prospect, is a player considered by manager Mikel Arteta and the Arsenal hierarchy as a player to be developed for the future. Though the North London club is certainly excited to close the first deal of what, according to reports, is proving to be a busy transfer window, they were not the only suitors of Marquinhos in the Premier League. In fact, they are not the only Premier League side to say they hold an agreement for the Brazilian forward. After Arsenal had begun the process of negotiating for Marquinhos’ transfer, Wolverhampton Wanderers FC (Wolves) made public their disapproval of the negotiations. According to Wolves, Marquinhos had signed a pre-contract with them that would take effect once his contract with Sao Paulo expired in the summer. They had even reportedly arranged an agreement with Grasshopper Club Zürich, a club in Switzerland, to bring Marquinhos on a temporary loan deal to aid his development. Nevertheless, Arsenal swiftly entered negotiations for the player and, with the help of his agency, secured his transfer for a fee rising to 3 million pounds, or approximately $3.67 million. Upon Marquinhos’ decision to join Arsenal, Wolves were left furious at what they believed to be a breach of contract between themselves and the Brazilian. Consequently, the club decided to consider legal action against Marquinhos in the near future. Allegedly, a Brazilian law firm has been called to file a complaint and open a formal litigation process in response to the player’s contract with Arsenal. And as if this transfer saga could not be any more complicated, it seems that Sao Paulo have attempted to justify reneging their agreement with Wolves by disputing the length of Marquinhos’ contract. In 2019, Marquinhos, then 16 years old, signed a 5-year deal with Sao Paulo, leaving him under their control under 2024. However, FIFA rules state that underage players are only allowed to sign contracts up to three years. Therefore, in accordance with FIFA’s rules, Wolves feel they were entitled to sign a player for free who, as of this year, was out of contract. However, because Sao Paulo believed their player was contracted until 2024, they felt it within their legal rights to earn a fee for his transfer to Arsenal. Though it was later revealed that Wolves are unlikely to pursue legal action against Arsenal for the transfer, it remains to be seen whether their complaints against Marquinhos and Sao Paulo will evolve into formal litigation. Such a decision would certainly cost the club valuable time and resources that they arguably should be allocating toward strengthening the team. Regardless, the supposed vitriol held by Wolves toward the events of this transfer saga does not seem to be fading, and it will be fascinating to follow any legal developments that arise out of a contract dispute that spans three clubs and two continents. Bryce Goodwyn is an incoming 1L at Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, he will be a member of the Honors Program and will work as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the Regent University Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

Today marks the 50th Anniversary of Title IX, a landmark United States law that changed the course of education and athletics for women and girls. However, two-thirds of Americans say that they know “not much” or “nothing at all” about the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the passage of Title IX, women only comprised 10% of both medical and law school classrooms, and most applicants were rejected simply because they were women. Title IX was enacted to provide equal access to education for men and women. Title IX, although most known for its effect on education, has also had a profound effect on women’s athletics. Thanks to Title IX, 1 girl for every 3 boys (6-12) participates in sports but boys today still get 1.13 million more sports opportunities than girls do. Title IX contains only 37 words, however, these words are often referred to as “37 words that changed America.” “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” These 37 words were signed by President Richard M. Nixon on June 23, 1972, that were intended to equalize college admissions, and historically made way for the inclusion of women in youth and college sports. Because of Title IX, today more than 3 million high school girls have opportunities to participate in sports. Women, currently make up 44% of all college athletics, prior to the passage of Title IX, women only comprised 15%. Before Title IX was enacted, the NCAA did not offer scholarships to female athletes and did not host championships for women’s sports. Although “sports” is not one of the 37 words, under this law, high school and college programs, under this law must provide equal treatment and opportunities to women’s and men’s athletic programs. The foundations of Title IX are attributed to Representative Patsy T. Mink who was the first woman of color elected to the United States House of Representatives and the primary sponsor of Title IX. Alongside Mink, other politicians and activists included Representative Edith Green, Dr. Bernice Sandler, and living legend Billie Jean King. Billie Jean King has previously stated: “Title IX remains the only law that grants women any kind of equality in America.” Title IX impacted access to education, employment, math, science, testing, technology and so much more. The profound impact of Title IX is something that women and girls, myself included, may take for granted today. Sports, in recent history, have been seen as a catalyst for gender equity. There are countless life lessons to be learned from sports that include leadership skills and working as a part of a team. Perhaps some of these skills obtained from sports are evidenced by 94% percent of female C-Suite Executives played sports growing up and nearly half of these women also competed in college sports. This involvement in sports would not be possible without Title IX. Tremendous progress has been made for women and girls over the past 50 years. However, a tremendous amount of work needs to be done to continue to level the playing field. One of the greatest issues in sports today is the discriminatory policies that trans athletes face, as states have continued to pass legislation prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating in women’s athletics. The era of viewing women and women’s sports as lesser than men and men’s sports is put simply–outdated. The future of women’s equity in education and athletics remains in the hands of continual efforts of both women and men. Hannah Valente, News Coordinator at Conduct Detrimental, is a 3L at Elon University School of Law and host of Podcast “Bars to the Bar” from Hoboken, New Jersey. Hannah graduated from Providence College where she was a four-year manager for the Men’s Basketball Team. She can be found on Twitter @hannahvalente13. She is a newly licensed NBA, WNBA, and Fiba Player Agent.

The mess that is the Washington Commanders’ front office got even messier on Wednesday, as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testified before the House Oversight Committee on the “toxic workplace culture” that has characterized the Dan Snyder era of Washington football[1]. The hearing was part of a larger investigation into the NFL’s refusal to publicize the findings of their own internal investigation into the Washington Commanders’ workplace, and their “failure to take meaningful steps to address and prevent” the misconduct[2]. Wednesday’s hearings came after a February roundtable, in which former employees of Snyder’s discussed the “sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and other misconduct” they had to endure during their employment[3]. The House Oversight Committee’s involvement in the workplace practices and misconduct of an NFL owner may seem bizarre to the average football fan, but it is not without just cause. Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), emphasized the NFL’s popularity and nationwide prominence as reasons to introduce new legislation which would “rein in the abuse of non-disclosure, confidentiality, and non-disparagement agreements in the workplace” in order to create new protections for employees[4]. Essentially, this proposal would prevent misconduct from being silenced by NDAs, a practice that Snyder has made quite the use of during his time as owner[5]. Goodell’s testimony on Wednesday defended the NFL’s decision to hire an independent investigator to look into the claims of workplace harassment, and claimed that the League had “imposed unprecedented discipline” on the club, amounting to $10 million in fines and restrictions on participating in League circles[6]. In the midst of all this turmoil, the Committee announced late Wednesday night that they will subpoena owner Dan Snyder after he declined the invitation to appear before the Committee. Chairwoman Maloney said in a statement Wednesday night that she is prepared to hold Snyder accountable if the NFL isn’t willing to do so[7]. The big question that looms over the hearings is what could actually happen to Snyder, and could he be removed as owner? Certainly, any removal of an NFL owner would be unprecedented. In recent years, sports fans have seen the removal of Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and investigation into Suns owner Robert Sarver, but nothing has shaken the NFL ownership ranks like the years-long saga that has been the Snyder-led Commanders. Rumors have been swirling that other NFL owners are counting votes for an ousting of Snyder, but they would need a super-majority of 24 out of 32 owners to vote in favor[8]. Whether such a vote would actually take place remains to be seen, but the prospect of such a vote is incredibly interesting. Goodell downplayed his power to remove an owner, saying that he does not have the authority to force a removal, but forgetting to mention the fact he can recommend a vote[9]. The fallout and procedure for the removal of an owner would be an enormous story for the law and for sports, and with the upcoming testimony of Snyder, it is very possible that such a process is on the table. Any vote to remove Snyder would likely be after his testimony for the H.O.C., as owners would see how he appears to the public and how forthcoming he is about the misconduct before making a final decision. Greg Moretto is a Pre-Law Student at Boston College ‘23. He is a member of the BC Sports Business Society E-Board. He can be found on Twitter @grejmoretto. [1] https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/tackling-toxic-workplaces-examining-the-nfl-s-handling-of-workplace-misconduct [2] House Oversight Committee [3] House Oversight Committee [4] House Oversight Committee [5] https://wtop.com/washington-commanders/2020/09/lawyers-for-former-washington-football-team-employees-call-for-release-from-ndas/ [6] https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/22/roger-goodells-testimony-to-house-committee-on-oversight-and-reform/ [7] https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/u-s-house-oversight-committee-will-subpoena-commanders-owner-daniel-snyder-to-testify-before-congress/ [8] https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/roger-goodell-authority-remove-daniel-snyder-owner-washington/story?id=85565365 [9] ABC News

Wednesday, June 22, was a busy day for North Carolina’s two sports wagering bills, Senate Bills 38 and 688, which are considered companion bills. In the end, SB 38 passed on its second reading 51-50 and wound up being sent back to the House Rules Committee due to SB 688 failing to pass with a vote of 49-52. North Carolina House Finance Committee After passing through the North Carolina House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, both bills made their way to the House Finance Committee Wednesday morning. The House Finance Committee adopted multiple amendments to SB 38, including reducing the percentage of tax revenue to special events to 30% and apportioning 10% of tax revenues to athletic departments at North Carolina Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Both bills passed through the House Finance Committee via votes of 14-2 and 13-3, respectively. North Carolina House Rules Committee In the afternoon, the bills moved to the House Rules Committee. The House Rules Committee adopted one additional amendment—to phase out sportsbook operators’ ability to claim deductions on promotional credits to 3 years from 5 years. Subsequently, both bills passed via voice vote. North Carolina House Floor Finally, the bills ended the day on the North Carolina House Floor. Lawmakers offered multiple amendments to SB 38, including guaranteeing each of the seven lowest-funding athletic departments at least $300K, which ultimately was adopted. Perhaps the most surprising amendment of the day came from Representative Autry. Representative Autry moved to strike all college sports betting from SB 38. Despite strong opposition to the motion, the House adopted the amendment. Importantly, the amendment is not limited to betting on North Carolina colleges and universities. Instead, the amendment applies to betting on all colleges and universities. In a state that loves college sports, the amendment is a shocker for fans all over the state. Ultimately, SB 38 narrowly passed the House at 51-50. It was originally placed on the House calendar for a final reading on Thursday. Later, it was taken off the calendar and moved to the Rules Committee. The day ended with the House taking up SB 688. While lawmakers offered a couple of amendments, the House did not adopt either. In another shocker, SB 688 failed by a vote of 49-52. This is notable considering that SB 688 served as the big structure for sports wagering and SB 38 is an amendment to portions of SB 688. Thus, SB 38 is dependent on SB 688. Next Steps With SB 688 failing, SB 38 is now the standalone bill on sports wagering. For now, proponents of SB 38 could strip the portions that rely on SB 688. However, with the session set to end no later than June 30, time is running out to get the bill through both chambers. Thus, in a surprising turn of events, it appears that North Carolina will end the session without mobile sports wagering. 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 March 13, 2022, Josh Donaldson was traded to the New York Yankees from the Minnesota Twins. The blockbuster trade seems to be working well for both sides as involved players are succeeding. However, there is a side to player transactions that fans don't see. The athletes are forced to abruptly move and find a new place to live with their families, among other fresh challenges. Donaldson, his partner (who was six months pregnant at the time), and their 17-month-old daughter needed to quickly find a residence in the New York metropolitan area in advance of the Yankees’ Opening Day on April 7, 2022. On April 1, 2022, Donaldson did find a place, located in Greenwich, Connecticut. He entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Bill Grous to lease the residential property. Pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff Donaldson agreed to pay Defendant rent in the amount of $55,000 per month and a security deposit in the amount of $110,000. Despite contractual language requiring the lessor to maintain the leasehold “in a fit and livable condition," Donaldson and his partner noticed a host of issues. Those issues included, but are not limited to, ant infestation, non-working showers, water damage, broken toilets, and squirrels infiltrating the house. Defendant called workmen to attempt to rectify the issues. However, Donaldson says in the complaint that this was "a hopeless attempt." "Defendant had workmen constantly coming to the Premises often without notice." "Not only did these workmen not resolve many of the issues, but they interrupted Plaintiff’s sleep (a priority for a professional athlete)." In addition, shortly after moving in, Donaldson's partner and their daughter both developed lung congestion and a lingering cough. Per the complaint, an inspection conducted by a professional environmental testing company on April 19, 2022 revealed an extensive and widespread infestation of Chaetomium mold and Aspergillus mold throughout several key rooms in the house. On May 17, 2022, after defendant failed to cure the mold, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a formal notice confirming that the lease had terminated and that the premises were being vacated and demanding an immediate return of the security deposit. Up to June 24, 2022, the date of filing of this lawsuit, Defendant has still not returned the $110,000 deposit. Thus, Donaldson filed this suit for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Jason Morrin is a recent graduate of Hofstra Law School. He was the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He will be a Law Clerk at Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok after taking the July, 2022 Bar Exam. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

Tuesday at the Travelers, Koepka walked up to Mickelson on the driving range and gave him a fist bump while exchanging a few words. This was enough to send the rumor mill into full swing, as everyone suspected this action preceded an announcement that Koepka would be jumping ship—and these speculations were quickly confirmed Wednesday, with LIV issuing a press release confirming the switch. On the one hand, this move is not surprising—Koepka, like many of the other golfers who have made the switch is battling injuries that cast doubt on his ability to compete at the top level in the PGA. This paired with older players like Mickelson who are “past their prime” are enticed by the money available to them and the ability to continue to do well against slightly less skilled competition. BUT What makes this move in particular so interesting is that Koepka is on the record condemning the LIV tour and the other golfers who “left” the PGA to join LIV as recently as a week and a half ago. This can only mean one thing—LIV gave Koepka a payment he couldn’t logically refuse to change his tune. This will be a bit of an embarrassment for Koepka because of his public comments around LIV in the past, but when you get down to brass tacks, money talks—which is exactly what the PGA is so afraid of. 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 or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.