There were 31 players who submitted filing numbers at the conclusion of the exchange date in mid-March. Despite the thought that many teams employ a “file and trial” strategy and wouldn’t negotiate after the exchange date, only 13 cases went to a hearing, with more than half (18) reaching negotiated agreements. The results of all 13 hearings are publicly available, with Clubs maintaining a 9 - 4 advantage over the Players. Twelve players settled with their teams, with five of those settlements including an additional mutual option for the 2023 season. Six players agreed to multi-year extensions with their Clubs. HEARINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED (13): 9 CLUB Wins 4 PLAYER Wins SETTLEMENTS (12): 2 ABOVE MIDPOINT 3 AT MIDPOINT 1 BELOW MIDPOINT 5 MUTUAL OPTION FOR 2023 EXTENSIONS (6) Dean Rosenberg is a rising 3L student at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City and President of the Cardozo Sports Law Society. He can be found on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dean-rosenberg-4a1507a1/ and on Twitter @deanrosen7. For all of Dean’s Conduct Detrimental Articles, click here.

ESPN is reportedly reached a new broadcasting rights deal with F1 to continue their exclusive right to broadcast races in the United States through the 2025 season. While this deal doesn't come as that big of a surprise, what was surprising was the amount of money ESPN reportedly had to pay to retain this right. Previously, ESPN had a three-year deal with Formula One and Sky Sports (a UK-based sports channel) to use their broadcast on ESPN as the exclusive way to view a race in the United States and was worth approximately 15 million dollars. This new deal, also for three years, is rumored to be worth 85 to 90 million. This substantial jump comes as no surprise to anyone who follows Formula One, or has seen the Netflix docu-series Drive to Survive, which follows a Formula One season for each “season” of the show. This, paired with increasing the number of events held in North America and a brilliant marketing campaign led by Liberty Media who owns Formula One, has led to this massive increase in viewership, causing them to have much more bargaining power when negotiating this contract with ESPN that it had three seasons ago. This is further proof that Formula One has solidified its hold in North America where it has many opportunities to continue to grow, showing that Liberty Media has made Formula One into a much more profitable organization and asset than it was when they purchased it. This contract again highlights the dichotomy between formula one's growing popularity in the United States despite being a “primarily European" motorsport up until recently, and the decline of the truly homegrown motorsport of NASCAR shrinking in popularity within the U.S. It will certainly be interesting to see how much more Formula One grows in the coming years within the U.S., and I hope for the sake of NASCAR as an organization they're taking notes on how to properly increase the popularity of a sport outside of the United States traditional “big four” of football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. 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 an eyebrow-raising, but less-than-surprising decision, FIFA has re-stated its policies regarding following all laws in countries that host the FIFA World Cup—Which this year means no premarital sex, no public drinking, and a restriction on openly homosexual relationships. In Qatar, if athletes or fans are caught engaging in premarital sex or enjoying a beer in public, they could be charged with up to seven years in prison, and any suspected homosexual relationships could subject each party to a year in prison. Being a country with such intense punishments, many thought that FIFA (soccer's governing body) would relax its normal policies of strict obedience and deference to the host country's laws. However, no such relaxation will be present. FIFA reiterated that all laws of the host country must be obeyed by all athletes and all fans for the duration of the tournament, which lasts from late November through December of this year. Now, I don't know how familiar you may be with soccer fans or players, but they are not normally known as a dull or sober crowd. Fans enjoy consuming alcohol at events, and players are regularly found after games in clubs and bars either celebrating their wins or drowning their losses. Going hand in hand with this party atmosphere, I'm willing to bet that many fans and players alike are engaging in premarital sex either with long-term partners or “one-night stands,” and a combination of both of these things being banned in Qatar is going to pose some interesting and high profile issues as the World Cup gets underway. While the move by FIFA to reaffirm its stance is certainly eyebrow-raising, it comes as no real surprise. FIFA is reluctant to set a precedent of requiring relaxation of strict laws in host countries because of what it means for future events and future headaches that this would create, as well as understanding that it really lacks the authority to “require” a sovereign nation to change its rules to host an event. But this is where my understanding of the issue ends. At a time where, in most of the western world, drinking with friends at or after a sporting event and premarital sex are daily occurrences, and where being homosexual is not seen as being a crime, this is definitely major negative press for FIFA. It will certainly impact the number of people who are willing to go watch the World Cup. So, why does FIFA still choose to have the World Cup in Qatar? It's a simple answer to a simple question, and one that we hear again and again—money. Qatar paid handsome fees to FIFA for the opportunity to host the World Cup and has invested approximately 200 billion dollars into infrastructure and associated expenses, with approximately 10 billion being allocated to actually building the stadiums. FIFA just simply couldn't ignore the prospect of earning that much money from hosting fees, and FIFA apparently is turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations committed by the country as a result. On top of all of the issues with imprisonment for what is largely considered “normal” behavior in most of the soccer-playing world, there are questions about the labor conditions of workers building this infrastructure and these stadiums. Reports have circulated that over 6500 migrant workers have died while working to build these stadiums since construction began, further showing a lack of concern for not only human rights, but also human life—all of which FIFA has inexplicably ignored due to its own prospects for profits. Unfortunately, stories like this are all too common where a governing body ignores issues of human rights or health and safety, despite stated initiatives to increase diversity and inclusion, all in the name of cash. I understand, as do many of us, that (as much as we don't like to think so) all sports leagues are businesses that need to make a profit to continue to exist. But as a fan of sports in general, it's frustrating and disheartening to see such blatant and transparent money grabbing from these leagues and how far they are willing to compromise their own stated beliefs and policies to the whims of the highest bidder. I understand that FIFA's hands are tied in the position that they are currently in with Qatar, but it's important to remember that FIFA themselves is the ones that created the situation in the first place. Going forward and from a management perspective, I can only hope that at some point the negative press and consequences of making decisions like this that compromise the human rights of patrons and athletes who will be attending events like the World Cup will mean that it's not financially viable for organizations to ignore these issues. As much as I hope for this, the economist in me understands that there's always going to be money in these places and also very little social change, so issues and conflicts like this one will continue to occur—continuing to reduce the validity and believability of leagues’ statements promoting “diversity and inclusion.” https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022 https://frontofficesports.com/the-most-expensive-world-cup-in-history/#:~:text=Russia%202018%3A%20%2411.6%20billion,Qatar%202022%3A%20%24220%20billion https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/22/unmarried-sex-public-alcohol-consumption-could-lan/ 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.

Last week, THE Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio trademarked the word “THE” for use on all university and athletic apparel. This trend started in 1986, according to CNN. This occurred because Ohio State wanted to stop or move away from the “OSU” symbol. There are two other schools that use the “OSU” logo: Oklahoma State University and Oregon State University respectively. During Sunday Night Football games, the starters say their names and which universities or high schools they attended. Any former Buckeye usually states their name and THE Ohio State University. Trademarks protect their owner and consumers. Trademarks include articles used or intended to use in commerce to distinguish goods. Trademark protection prohibits competitors from using marks where confusion could occur. A mark can be arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, or generic. Arbitrary bears no relation to the goods’ characteristics. Suggestive suggests the article’s characteristics. Descriptive describes its characteristics. Generic is the product’s common name. Descriptive terms are protected if they acquire secondary meaning. Secondary meaning exists when the public interprets it as a representation origin. Factors determine secondary meaning, and there are eleven non-exhaustive factors. The factors that apply are name, exclusivity, and confusion. Ohio State wants to protect its university and goods because the trademark “THE” is descriptive. The public interprets it as a representation origin. The factors that apply in their case are the name of the university and apparel, exclusivity to Ohio State, and it avoids confusion because by trademarking the word “THE," it is a reference to Ohio State The word “THE” is in all capital letters because the players put an emphasis on it. This trademark battle started in 2019 when Ohio State filed a trademark application for it. Ohio State University argued the word “THE” is a rallying cry for the university, and it has been for many years. The possible hiccup in the university’s application for the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was that fashion designer Marc Jacobs filed to trademark the same word, according to CNN. In 2021, Ohio State University and Marc Jacobs reach an agreement. It allows both parties to register “THE” branded products for continuous use and license, according to Ohio State spokesperson Ben Johnson. Ohio State worked to protect its brand and trademarks because this asset benefits students and faculty, and it supports the university’s core academic mission, which is teaching and research. This trademark and licensing program generate more than $12.5 million in revenue, which funds university programs and student scholarships, according to Johnson. This trademark battle was similar to Texas A&M University trademarking the 12th man, after the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks tried to trademark it themselves back in the 2010s. Another recent battle was between two universities, South Carolina and Southern California, when both schools tried to trademark the interlocking SC logo in the 2010s, according to herrick.com. These trademark battles may seem silly, but they protect products and entities from confusion. The trademark allows for these products and entities to “mark” themselves from other products and entities that are similar to those products. 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.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach that lost his job due to his continuous praying post-game at midfield. In a 6-3 decision, the majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, held that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect Kennedy’s conduct. Joseph Kennedy was a coach for the football team at Bremerton High School. Kennedy is a practicing Christian and performed post-game prayers at the fifty-yard line immediately after football games concluded. The prayers typically lasted around thirty seconds. Initially, Kennedy would pray alone. In later post-game prayers, Bremerton high school students and eventually players from opposing teams joined him. In September 2015, the Bremerton School District sent Kennedy a letter asking that Kennedy avoid talks with students that “include religious expression, including religious prayer,” as the school district wanted to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. After halting the practice for a brief period, on October 14, Kennedy sent a letter to school officials informing them that he would resume offering a “post-game personal prayer” at midfield. On October 16, Mr. Kennedy offered a prayer at midfield after the game, and players from the opposing team and members of the community joined him. Subsequently, after the football game on October 23, Kennedy again knelt in prayer at midfield. This time, nobody joined him. Finally, after the football game on October 26, Kennedy knelt at midfield while other adults joined him on the field. After the October 26 football game, the Bremerton School District placed Kennedy on administrative leave due to Kennedy engaging in “public and demonstrative religious conduct while still on duty as an assistant coach.” Later, Bremerton School District did not rehire Kennedy for the following season. Majority Opinion Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, views this case through the lens of the Freeh Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause. “Where the Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercises, whether communicative or not, the Free Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.” Free Exercise Clause The Free Exercise Clause states that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. A violation can be void when “a government entity has burdened [Kennedy’s] sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or generally applicable.’” Justice Gorsuch found that Kennedy’s religious beliefs are unquestioned. Thus, he turned to whether Bremerton School District’s policy was neutral or generally applicable. In finding that the policies were not neutral nor generally applicable, Justice Gorsuch reasoned that they were not neutral because Bremerton School District “sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious character.” In turn, the policies were not generally applicable because Bremerton School District “advised against rehiring Mr. Kennedy on the ground that he ‘failed to supervise student-athletes after games’” due to Kennedy’s postgame prayers. However, Bremerton School District permitted other coaches to forgo supervising students for the coaches to visit friends and family. Thus, Bremerton School District did not apply its supervisory requirement to all coaches. Free Speech Clause In analyzing the Free Speech Clause, Justice Gorsuch focuses on the following question: “[d]id Mr. Kennedy offer his prayers in his capacity as a private citizen, or did they amount to government speech attributable to the [Bremerton School] District?” Generally, the Free Speech Clause does not protect government speech. The majority found that Kennedy was offering his prayers in Kennedy’s capacity as a private citizen. In answering the question, Justice Gorsuch focuses on the prayers after the three football games in October, when Kennedy had halted his motivational postgame talks. Viewing Kennedy’s actions after the football games in October, Justice Gorsuch found that Kennedy “was not seeking to convey a government created message. He was not instructing players, discussing strategy or encouraging better on-field performance, or engaged in any other speech the [Bremerton School] District paid him to produce as a coach.” Thus, Kennedy’s speech was not government speech attributable to Bremerton School District. Government Interest After analyzing Kennedy’s speech through the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause, Justice Gorsuch turned to the strict scrutiny test to determine whether Bremerton School District’s restrictions on Kennedy’s speech “serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored” to the interest. Justice Gorsuch rejected Bremerton School District’s noted interests, including Bremerton School District’s interest in not violating the Establishment Clause and not coercing students to pray. In dispensing of Bremerton School District’s interests, Justice Gorsuch noted that “Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.” Again, Justice Gorsuch focused on the three October football games when Bremerton High School players did not participate in the prayers; thus, they could not feel coerced to pray. “[I]n no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.” Therefore, in finding that there is not a compelling government interest, the majority ruled in favor of Mr. Kennedy, noting “[r]espect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a Free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through spoken word or a bowed head.” Dissenting Opinion Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join, dissenting, frame the question differently. Rather than isolating the prayers after the three October football games, the Justices review all of Kennedy’s conduct. “This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religious to students as the public watched.” With that question in mind, Justice Sotomayor turns to the Establishment Clause, which “prohibits States from adopting laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’” Turning to public schools, Justice Sotomayor notes that states cannot use “its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals.” Thus, Justice Sotomayor finds that an Establishment Clause violation is clear. Specifically noting that Coach Kennedy was the face and voice of Bremerton School District during football games and that Kennedy was speaking from the location he met the opposing to shake hands. “Permitting a school coach to lead students and others he invited onto the field in prayer at a predictable time after each game could only be viewed as a postgame tradition occurring ‘with the approval of the school administration.’” Further, Justice Sotomayor recognized that Kennedy’s practice was coercive for athletes as players depend on Kennedy for benefits, including letters of recommendation. In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor writes that the Free Exercise Clause “serves as ‘a promise from our government,’ while the second erects a ‘backstop that disables our government from breaking it’ . . . . [t]oday the [Majority] once against weakens the backstop.” Takeaway Overall, Justice Gorsuch and the majority chose to analyze isolated instances that did not include Kennedy giving motivational talks with religious references. Thus, Bremerton High School football players were not involved. Otherwise, Kennedy’s conduct could have run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The ruling is an unsurprising ruling from the current court, as the five most pro-religion justices sit on the current court. Even though this ruling appears to be narrow, expect more challenges to the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses in the future. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Throughout the years, the sport of tennis has trended in the media both for athletic performance as well as for racism, sexism, and double standards. Wimbledon 2022 is underway and so too is the analysis of the tournament’s old-fashioned clothing rules, shedding light on the sport’s history of disparate treatment and questionable standards. Wimbledon’s dress code for competitors reads as follows: Vox’s incredible piece detailing how the all-white dress code was derived from the Victorian era notes that class, hygiene, wealth and privilege are the reason for the color white’s dominance in the tournament. Repeatedly, these attributes have been found to be rooted in racism and classism. Despite the perceived implications of this dress code, it is quite shocking that it has continued for so long. Tennis fashion has evolved and adapted to the times at least to the degree that women are no longer wearing petticoats on the court; however, the all-white fashion is steadfast at Wimbledon. The most recent concern regarding the all-white Wimbledon dress code is for athletes experiencing menstrual symptoms during the tournament and having concerns over competing in the all-white attire while internationally televised. Some find these concerns to be trivial, as athletes in all sports have to compete while experiencing menstrual symptoms. However, many do not understand the fear and embarrassment that comes with bleeding through your attire in public. It’s a fear that all people who menstruate have felt, and it should not have to be a concern that athletes face when they are competing. Wimbledon is not the only tournament to come under fire for its dress code requirements. In 2018, Serena Williams donned a Nike catsuit at the French Open, that was not only stylish and sleek, but health-oriented. Williams openly stated that during her pregnancy she experienced complications, and also has a history of blood clots. The catsuit aided blood circulation in order to prevent blood clots. Despite the underlying medical reasons for her attire, some found the attire disrespected the sport. Bernard Giudicelli, President of the French Tennis Federation, stated that William’s catsuit would no longer be accepted at the French Open because “[Y]ou have to respect the game and the place.” The question of respect for the sport and the athlete’s choice of attire has not only plagued tennis but other sports as well. The Norwegian women’s beach handball team was fined for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms, apparently constituting “improper attire” by the European Handball Federation. However, if athletes are better able to play the game while wearing certain attire, then why does the attire in question disrespect the sport itself? Couldn’t one argue that it is more respectful to the sport if athletes wear clothing that enables them to play their best? In addition, it remains to be proven how certain colors affect respect for the sport. White attire may be the coolest to wear under bright sunlight. Yet, surely other light colors could achieve the same benefit particularly given the range of fabrics and materials available in this day and age. One would hope that professional athletes competing at premier tournaments like Wimbledon would know whether playing in an all-black catsuit would affect their ability on the court. Given the issues related to tennis attire and how it affects athletes on the basis of sex, race, and even disability, a question arises as to why legal action has not been sought more frequently, such as the case with Casey Martin and the PGA Tour. The Supreme Court found that “the PGA Tour was required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to grant Martin a reasonable accommodation based on his disability” that made it painful for him to walk the courses. Although a few athletes have challenged the right to accommodations or the freedom to wear attire that enhances their performance, many athletes fear repercussions for confronting outdated rules and may often feel they lack the legal standing to oppose the associations behind these tournaments. Kate Rosenberg is a J.D. candidate for the Class of 2023 at Texas A&M University School of Law. She can be reached at @Katerosey1 on Twitter.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional levels of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! In each article, we highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to a sports-centric curriculum; sports law certifications; unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; and sports law journals The focus of this Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Texas A&M University School of Law When you think of Texas A&M, the first things that normally come to mind are its great engineering reputation, the passionate “12th Man” fanbase, or Johnny Manziel. What you probably don’t think of when it comes to Texas A&M is that it has a good law school, even though it hasn’t been in existence for very long. Even though A&M was established all the way back in 1876 in College Station, Texas, the Texas A&M School of Law has only been around for a decade. In 2012, Texas A&M University reached an agreement with Texas Wesleyan University under which it would take over ownership and operational control over the school, which is located in Fort Worth, Texas. Since then, the TAMU law has shot up the ranks, attracting world-class professors and talented students along the way. To learn more about Texas A&M law and what it offers to prospective sports-minded students, I had the pleasure of talking with Chris Missimo, a current Aggie law student and former president of the TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Sports Law Curriculum The Texas A&M School of Law has no shortage of excellent courses that prepare its students for a career in the legal profession. Aggie law grads have a stellar pass rate on the bar exam and there are numerous clinics available for students to take advantage of while enrolled. In addition to the standard law school curriculum, TAMU law offers a few courses for sports-minded students. In the past, the “sports law” course was only offered on a semi-regular basis, but with increased interest, the course was offered in consecutive years for the first time this past year. To top it off, a new class dedicated to NIL is set to begin next spring. This class will be taught by Trayveon Williams, a former Aggie running back who holds the school’s record for rushing yards in a season, and Alex Sinatra, a sports attorney, and business consultant. TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society While many law schools have good student-run organizations dedicated to sports and entertainment, the goal of Texas A&M’s is straightforward and clear: to make meaningful connections in the industry. Over the course of the year, the society hosts paneled discussions roughly every month with experts from various areas of sports and entertainment law. Students can absorb great advice and knowledge during these events, but also have the opportunity to network and build connections. In addition to the various paneled discussions throughout the year, the spring Sports Law Symposium is the society’s biggest event annually. While several students attend the monthly events, the symposium draws in even bigger crowds of Aggie law students. High-profile executives, athletic directors, general counsels, and other sports lawyers come to Fort Worth either in person or virtually to share insights and advice. In summary, the Texas A&M University School of Law offers a great experience for prospective law students interested in sports law. Between sports law courses and the TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society, there are a lot of opportunities to learn and make great connections with experienced professionals in the field of sports law. In addition, its location in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is a big plus. With six professional sports franchises, multiple Division I college sports teams, and several sports firms and businesses, the opportunities are plentiful for any student attending TAMU law to land internships and externships. Even though the law school is relatively young compared to others across the country, it’s a great time to be an Aggie law student. Big thanks to Chris Missimo for taking the time to share all of the great information for this sports law spotlight! You can follow him on Twitter @cmissimo

First reported by Evan Drellich of The Athletic, The United States Senate Judiciary Committee has sent a letter to the Executive Director of Advocates for Minor Leaguers, Harry Marino, with questions regarding the impact of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption on minor leaguers. The letter comes after Senator Richard Durbin stated in March that Congress should reconsider the antitrust exemption. Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption The United States Supreme Court established MLB’s antitrust exemption in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, which found that Major League Baseball does not satisfy the interstate commerce clause under the Sherman Antitrust Act because any travel is merely incidental. Thus, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 does not apply to Major League Baseball. Since 1922, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption has been upheld twice, in 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees and 1972 in Flood v. Kuhn. In 1998, Congress narrowed the scope of the antitrust exemption when it passed the Curt Flood Act, which stipulated that the antitrust exemption did not apply to player employment issues and was a major win for major league baseball players. Notably, the Curt Flood Act does not apply to minor leaguers. For years, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption has been called into question due to baseball ballooning into a billion-dollar industry that includes ample commercial activities crossing state lines. In March, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “Save American Baseball Act” to remove Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. Despite Senator Sanders’ efforts, Congress has yet to eliminate the antitrust exemption. Importantly, Major League Baseball is the only league with a general antitrust exemption. Other leagues are limited to a narrow antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts. Letter From Senate Judiciary Committee Penned by Senators Richard Durbin, Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, and Michael Lee, the letter takes direct aim at the antitrust exemptions’ impact on minor leaguers. Questions include: Please discuss the impact of the antitrust exemption on the negotiation of minor league players’ length of contract, wages, housing, or other working conditions. What effect would removing the antitrust exemption have on minor league player working conditions? If a more tailored approach, like extending the Curt Flood Act to cover minor league players, was taken, what would be the impact? Other questions cover a lockout’s impact on minor leaguers, the abuse and exploitation of international athletes, and Major League Baseball removing dozens of minor league teams prior to the 2021 baseball season. Potential Responses The antitrust exemption allows Major League baseball to control nearly every aspect of professional baseball, including wage-fixing and other working conditions for minor leaguers. As it currently stands, minor leaguers have little opportunity to negotiate salaries, and a minor leaguers’ first contract lasts for seven seasons (less than a typical major league contract), with minimal increases in pay. Thus, removing the exemption or extending the Curt Flood Act to cover minor leaguers would enhance a minor leaguer’s ability to negotiate and instantly improve life for minor league baseball players. Additionally, the antitrust exemption plays a role in the exploitation of international athletes because it allows Major League Baseball and the owners to set minimal parameters on the signing of international athletes. Other areas impacted by the antitrust exemption include intellectual property rights and team markets. Specifically, Major League Baseball and its owners may freely deny teams opportunities to move. For now, it appears that Congress is ready to undertake a thorough review of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. By shedding light on issues in minor league baseball, the Senate Judiciary is focusing on an area that needs change. Hopefully, changes are coming soon. 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.

As reported by TMZ Sports, Charlotte Hornets Forward Miles Bridges Sr., has been arrested for felony domestic violence. Mr. Bridges was later released on a bond for $130,000. This bond is extraordinary for a domestic violence case even if it is classified as a felony. As a former felony prosecutor who handled thousands of domestic violence cases, the $130,000 bond was eye-popping. That is the type of bond you see on sexual assault cases or even some homicide cases. This particular type of charge usually would carry with it a $15,000 to $25,000 bond. California Penal Code 273.5(a) which governs felony domestic violence states as followed: Any person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in subdivision (b) is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6000), or by both that fine and punishment. One type of victim that this would apply to would be an intimate dating partner. Thus, the alleged victim is very likely a dating partner of Miles Bridges. As reported by TMZ, police were called to the scene, but Mr. Bridges was gone by the time law enforcement arrived on scene. The woman required medical attention. The last sentence is very, very important. That means there were visible injuries. At this time, we do not know what type of visible injuries the alleged victim had. At a minimum, there was bruising but there may has also been bleeding. Based on the high bond, my guess is that there was bleeding and potentially a lot of it. Where does the case go from here? The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office will make a filing decision as to whether or not formal charges will be filed. Unfortunately, in domestic violence cases, many victims do not want to go forward with charges. They almost become the protector of the abuser. It is a sad reality. The alleged victim is well aware that Mr. Bridges is on the cusp of Free Agency and a huge potential contract. She knows pursuing charges would give a ton of NBA teams pause as to whether or not Mr. Bridges is a worthy investment. She may very well tell the DA’s Office she doesn’t want to move forward with charges. The DA’s Office would then have to evaluate whether they can continue without the victim’s cooperation. Based on the serious nature of the charges, hopefully they can. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Sports Law. He is frequent legal analyst on Law & Crime Trial Network. He has also appeared on television, radio, and podcasts discussing criminal law issues. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. In over five years as an attorney, Attorney Tympanick has tried forty cases and handled thousands more You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick. www.tympanicklaw.com.

While American football fans and legal analysts have fixated their attention on events pertaining to the numerous lawsuits entered against Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson and his former team in recent weeks, global football fans are observing with a hopeful optimism the events that have just recently concluded in Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court. After years of an exasperating lack of transparency and accountability, the two men who formerly sat atop of the world of soccer are at risk of conviction for crimes they allegedly committed as a collaborative tandem. On June 21st, closing arguments were held in Bellinzona, Switzerland for what has been characterized by local media officials as the sports trial of the century – the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland against Sepp Blatter, former president of FIFA, and Michel Platini, former president of the European football federation (UEFA). Blatter and Platini are currently facing charges of fraud, misappropriation of FIFA funds, criminal mismanagement & forgery of a document, with the case brought forth by the Swiss authorities centering around a mysterious payment of 2m Swiss francs made out to Platini by Blatter in 2011. An investigation by the Swiss Attorney General’s Office uncovered a contract agreement between the two men whereby Platini would serve as a FIFA consultant between 1998-2002 in exchange for an annual salary of 300,000 Swiss francs. Over eight years after the conclusion of Platini’s contract, FIFA obliged the demands of the thrice-voted Ballon D’Or (the award given to the player voted best in the world from the previous year) winner by making out to him the mysterious payment. According to Platini, the payment was made as part of a verbal agreement between himself and FIFA under “conditions of the utmost legality.” Blatter’s perspective on the payment was consistent with that of Platini, emphasizing that the payment was merely an “administrative matter” as a “salary payment that was owed.” Nevertheless, Swiss prosecutors maintain that the payment in question was made without a legal basis, ultimately damaging FIFA’s financial assets and unlawfully enriching Platini. Metaphorically speaking, the allegations lodged against Blatter and Platini are the cherry on top of a corruption-flavored sundae that aptly characterizes their unpopular reign atop soccer’s governing bodies. Whether it be sexist comments against the advancement of the women’s game or making a comparison between transfers and slavery, Blatter has displayed a knack for offending numerous groups of supporters with his misguided statements. Platini is also culpable for such statements, recently emphasizing that Lionel Messi – arguably the greatest player in the history of the game and an invaluable ambassador for its global development – deserved to be booed by his own fans during a game in which his team won by 3 goals. Nevertheless, the crown jewel of their infamous tenures must certainly be the role Blatter and Platini both played in 2010 to award the right to host the 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup to Qatar – a nation with inhospitable summer temperatures and an egregious record of human rights atrocities. If you are wondering why the World Cup – a summer tournament – is not currently being played, it is because Qatari summers are so hot that FIFA was forced to move the tournament to November, thereby forcing many countries to temporarily suspend their domestic seasons. And if you are wondering how Qatar has prepared to host the World Cup, many of the stadiums have been constructed by the hands of migrant workers trapped in a sponsorship-based employment system. This system forces workers to endure employer abuse and dangerous working conditions in order to avoid the risk of immediate deportation. Needless to say, while the decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup was not the primary reason for the charges presented at trial, it is consistent with the notion that Blatter and Platini have utilized their resources to expand the scope of their control over the game. The verdict for Blatter and Platini’s trial will be released on July 8th. If convicted, the two would likely face suspended 20-month sentences. For soccer fans around the world, the severity of their sentence is not the most important issue. What matters most is that the figureheads responsible for years of corrupting the integrity of the beautiful game would finally be brought to justice for their actions. Conviction would bring an ignominious end to Blatter and Platini’s presence within the sport of soccer. And frankly, it might be deserved. 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.

When news broke today that USC and UCLA are reportedly leaving the Pac 12 for the Big Ten, nearly everyone involved in college athletics was floored, and rightly so. Similar to how Texas and Oklahoma left the Big 12 for the SEC last summer, the two biggest national brands of a power five conference are leaving for a more nationally relevant league. We all know the chaos NIL and the transfer portal have caused across the landscape, but news like this will fundamentally change the power structure of college sports as we know them. Throughout most of history, the most prominent teams across a multitude of college sports have been members of the “power conferences.” In recent times, being a part of the “Power 5” meant your school had more prestige and recognition than the majority of Division I schools. While the Big East still boosts great basketball, the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC have garnered much attention and coverage in comparison to mid-major leagues like the Sun Belt, Conference USA, and Big West to name a few. Until the late 2000s, the gap between each of these power 5 conferences wasn’t tremendously noticeable, if at all. As hard as it is to imagine now, the SEC was not the dominant conference in college football on an annual basis. At the turn of the century, schools like Miami, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, and Ohio State were winning titles at the same rate as any SEC program did. The same goes for other revenue-generating sports as well. Sure, the SEC and Big Ten still were the most successful and most profitable conferences during that time, but the gap between them and the three other power leagues wasn’t large. But over the past 20 or so years, the shift of power and prestige has moved incrementally more to the SEC and Big Ten each year. From 2006 to 2012, an SEC team won the college football national championship every year. Conference realignment has seen big-time brands like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 for the SEC and Maryland leave the ACC for the Big Ten. The SEC signed a lucrative$3 billion media rights deal with ESPN/ABC in 2020 and the Big Ten’s new deal is expected to be worth at or near $1 billion and should be announced shortly. The number of NFL draft picks coming from SEC in Big Ten schools across multiple sports recently has far outpaced that of the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12. All of these developments have highlighted that we were moving closer to a “Power 2” instead of a “Power 5.” When the new Big Ten media deal is signed, each school is expected to receive approximately $100 million annually, which would be five times what the Pac 12 pays out to its member institutions. USC and UCLA joining the league obviously might enhance that number. By 2028, the SEC is expected to distribute a nine-figure sum to each of its members as well. With the ACC locked into a not-so-great media rights deal until 2036 and the Big 12 losing two of its biggest brands last summer, all signs have been pointing to the SEC and Big Ten dominating the rest of the conferences financially for the last year. Today’s news only moves us closer to that. Where things go from here is hard to predict with 100% accuracy. Is the Pac 12 dead? Where do schools like Oregon, Washington, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State go? Do the Big 12 or Big Ten pursue them, or are they done expanding? What about Clemson, Miami, and Florida State? How long will it be before they look to join the SEC? Does Notre Dame stay independent? All of this is up in the air. But what is not is the fact that the future of college athletics points to the SEC and Big Ten being the two most powerful conferences. It’s a sad day for the Pac 12 conference and schools like Washington State, Oregon State, and Colorado, who may not have the attraction that a school like Oregon does to other leagues. Hopefully, for them, they can land on their feet in a good situation like how the remaining Big 12 members did last year. But the reality in college athletics today comes down to this: if you’re not in the SEC or Big Ten, you’re trying to get into one of those two leagues. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The Oakland Athletics secured a victory Thursday from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. As reported by Owen Poindexter of Front Office Sports, the Commission voted 23 to 2 to remove Howard Terminal’s port priority use designation, clearing the way for the Athletics to use the site for the team’s mixed-use ballpark project. Previously, due to the site no longer being used to load and unload container ships, Mayor Libby Schaaf stated that “[t]ime has shown [Howard Terminal] is not needed nor ideal for shipping activities.” Mayor Schaaf echoed similar sentiments at the Commission hearing, asking for the Commission’s approval to remove the designation. Other port and city leaders noted that Howard Terminal is no longer viable for port use. In total, there were over 100 public comments, many in support, others noting that the stadium project would push out residents and workers. Now, the Athletics will shift their focus to the team’s negotiations with the City of Oakland over a development agreement. At the same time, the team will need to resolve multiple lawsuits, including a lawsuit challenging the Oakland City Council’s certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the stadium project, which alleges that the project will lead to “massive displacement and gentrification,” a major issue in the Bay Area. On the other hand, the Oakland Athletics are not limiting their options. Reports have surfaced that the team is also looking at two potential sites in Las Vegas, Nevada. Earlier this week, Major League Baseball made it clear that it would support the Oakland A’s moving to Las Vegas by reporting that the league would waive the relocation fee for the team to move to Las Vegas. With the Commission vote and the league’s waiver of the relocation fee to move to Las Vegas, the Oakland Athletics have multiple options for the future. Thus, to keep the Athletics in Oakland, the pressure is on the city of Oakland to meet the team’s needs. Otherwise, the Athletics may be off to Las Vegas. 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.