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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota and North Dakota high school athletic associations have each passed name, image, and likeness (NIL) policies to permit high school athletes to profit off their NIL. The Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) Board of Directors and the North Dakota High School Activities Association (NDHSAA) both passed their NIL policies on June 7, 2022. Minnesota High School NIL Policy The MSHSL NIL policy lists several key guidelines: The compensation is not contingent on specific athletic performance or achievement (e.g., financial incentives based on points scored). The compensation is not provided as an inducement to attend a particular school (“recruiting”) or to remain enrolled at a particular school. The compensation is commensurate with market value. The compensation is not provided by the school or an agent of the school (e.g., booster club, foundation, etc.). NIL activities must not interfere with a student-athlete’s academic obligations. A student-athlete must not miss athletic practice, competition, travel, or other team obligations in order to participate in NIL opportunities. The policy also lists several permissible NIL activities, such as teaching/instructing/coaching, advertisements, and autographs, provided that there is no school involvement and no MSHSL or school logos, marks, mascots, or apparel are used in the NIL activities. In addition, the policy prohibits several NIL activities, such as the following: A student-athlete is not permitted to sell items provided by the school until that student‑athlete has exhausted their high school eligibility for that sport. Use of MSHSL or school marks and logos is prohibited for any NIL activity. A student may not reference their involvement in high school activities at their school when promoting a NIL activity. Students are not permitted to promote certain activities in vice industries, including but not limited to: alcohol; tobacco, cannabis, or related products; gambling; and weapons. The policy puts the responsibility on the student-athlete to comply with MSHSL bylaws and policies, school policies, and NCAA rules and regulations. “It is the student’s responsibility to know and understand any NCAA requirements before engaging in covered activities,” the policy states. “In order to protect eligibility, students are encouraged to closely review [MSHSL] rules and policies prior to engaging [in any NIL activities].” Bayliss Flynn, a soccer player at Edina High School in Minnesota, recently became the first high school student-athlete to sign a NIL deal in Minnesota. North Dakota High School NIL Policy The NDHSAA NIL policy is reported to be similar to the policy adopted by the MSHSL. “An athlete can’t use school uniforms, logos or high school league logos in marketing or promotion. Booster clubs also can’t be involved with NIL or compensation can’t be used for recruiting an athlete to a certain school. Athletes also can’t be compensated for performance,” said the NDHSAA spokesperson. “I think the two biggest pieces are not having an affiliation with the school and not being influenced, or having an effect, where you attend school,” said NDHSAA Executive Director Matthew Fetsch, per The Forum. Fetsch said the NDHSAA had been working on drafts for its policy since last September and inquired with North Dakota State and the University of North Dakota about their NIL policies. Fetsch also said the NDHSAA has yet to deal with a NIL inquiry from schools, students, or families of students, but the Board of Directors wanted to have the policy in place if that time comes. Minnesota and North Dakota join several other state high school athletic associations—Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Utah—that permit high school athletes to monetize off their NIL while maintaining their amateur status. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for start-up and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.

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.