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.

Earlier today, The PGA called a mandatory meeting for players at the Travelers Championship in Connecticut. While it is still not certain what this meeting will entail, it will certainly address the competing LIV Golf tournament in some way, with insiders suggesting that the PGA is prepared to propose three new tour events, each with a purse of $25 million. While this band-aid solution might prevent some players to leave with the prospect of an additional $75 million, it also highlights other golfers’ criticism of the PGA as an organization. Golfers such as Phil Mickelson and others have criticized the PGA for their “obnoxious greed” in the past few years, implying that there is a huge disparity between the revenue the PGA Tour makes by putting on events and selling their sponsorships and what they actually pass on to golfers through the purses for events. This is essentially the result of the PGA having a monopoly on Professional Golf tournaments because no matter the size of the purse, players in the past were forced to stay because the PGA was the only option for professional golf. Beyond just this speculation, the PGA has already announced that the fall portion of the calendar will consist of eight no-cut, big-money events as another form of Hail Mary attempt to keep golfers from jumping ship to LIV Golf. By announcing these big money events in the fall, the PGA is almost making that criticism more valid. By “magically” coming up with these schemes to keep golfers happy with no-cut big money events, on top of what it already pays in purses, the PGA's implying that they have hordes of cash sitting around that they could use to distribute to golfers but instead have greedily kept for the PGA themselves in the past. If these speculative comments are true and the PGA has decided to have three new events with purses totaling $75 Million, this would further reinforce this idea and sentiment among golfers. While in the short term and at face value both the announced decision about the remaining fall schedule and this highly speculative decision would be a good one to keep golfers from going to LIV Golf, it also makes the PGA look bad and tarnishes their image as an organization. They are essentially confirming the criticisms they've received in recent months—not to mention they are demonstrating through another avenue that they're acting as a monopoly(violating federal anti-trust law). While the only confirmed aspect so far is the fall schedule for this year, and despite the highly speculative nature of the other rumors, it’s a bad look for the PGA as a business and an organization regardless of if it gets more golfers to stay or not. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

There was a time in the United States when televised motorsports and NASCAR were synonymous. Today, NASCAR is lucky if an average non-motorsports fan can recall their name at all. I can only imagine John Middlebrook, National Commissioner of NASCAR is scrambling to find answers to this decline in popularity, especially in light of the reinvigorated challenge brought by INDYCAR and unprecedented growth in interest for Formula One in the U.S. So—Why is NASCAR withering, while other motorsports seem to be thriving in the same market, and what does Middlebrook do to combat this? Growing popularity of competing series: In the past few years, INDYCAR and F1 have experienced a huge resurgence. Rodger Penske and Liberty Media, which own INDYCAR and F1 respectively, have capitalized on high-stakes drama and successful mass-media campaigns to grow their respective sports to new heights. For INDYCAR, average TV viewership is up 13 percent over last year, drawing both F1 and NASCAR fans with drivers Roman Grosjean and Jimmy Johnson joining the series for the 2021 season. F1 boasted an astronomical 54 percent year-over-year growth in U.S. TV viewership for 2021, assisted both by the continued popularity of the Netflix Docuseries Drive to Survive and the announced addition of a destination race in Miami which took place this past May. Both INDYCAR and F1 as organizations are executing well-planned, targeted campaigns for growth, and unless something major changes will both continue to maintain a trajectory of growth. NASCAR’s decline: While INDYCAR and F1 have been building and executing multi-year plans to promote growth, NASCAR has continued to fade into the background. In 2021, NASCAR’s TV viewership set a record for its lowest ratings ever, averaging 2.9 million viewers per event. This was astounding, considering that it was the first year of a full calendar of events since the COVID-19 pandemic. So far for the 2022 season, FOX Sports averaged 4.5 million viewers per race for the 10 races it contracted to cover, a 10% increase over last year—but FOX won’t broadcast any of the 10 remaining races, which will likely temper these numbers, which are still well below peak viewership in 2005 of 9.6 million per race. What can be done? NASCAR’s biggest stumbling block is, as of now, built into their very DNA as an organization. When I say Formula One, you picture Monaco— a refined event with celebrities and billionaires milling about, upscale dining experiences, and champaign flowing freely in the paddock. When I say NASCAR, you see none of these things—you picture “rednecks,” country music, Busch Light beer, and fast food. NASCAR loves to tout its southern roots and heritage, and there is nothing wrong with that—but in recent years this image has become less popular nationally, and alienates entire categories of potential fans that, since there are other options, are gravitating elsewhere. As a casual fan of NASCAR, this saddens me, because going to a NASCAR race is a blast and the sport deserves to grow, but its current national persona prevents it from doing so. Right now, there is an unprecedented interest in vintage NASCAR memorabilia, with celebrities being seen walking the streets of Hollywood sporting a Jeff Gordon or Dale Earnhardt Jr. jacket—which represents a huge opportunity for NASCAR to expand into other markets and change its long-held “good old boy” persona. despite this, NASCAR does not seem to be addressing or doing anything with this tool of newfound vintage/celebrity popularity. Yes, in the past few years NASCAR has made changes to the series to make it more exciting and accessible to fans with the introduction of the playoffs, competition cautions, a dirt race at Bristol, etc., but despite these efforts, viewership is still declined and they have ignored what is, to me, an obvious avenue of increasing national awareness and popularity through these celebrities. The “Future” of NASCAR? In my opinion, NASCAR still has a place in American motorsports. It still provides excitement, racing that you can't find anywhere else, and its own brand of drama. But, unless NASCAR is willing and planning to change itself in ways that make it more marketable on a widespread national scale, they're destined to become a faded memory of the past instead of a bright spotlight on a uniquely American sport. Middlebrook has a tough job ahead of him if he wants to see NASCAR survive another 10 years. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

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

In response to Roger Goodell’s answers to her questions as part of the House Oversight Committee Hearing on Tackling Toxic Workplaces, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney announced today that she will be issuing a subpoena for Washington Commanders’ Owner Dan Snyder to testify before the committee. The subpoena comes after Dan Snyder politely refused to voluntarily testify at today’s hearing and instead flew to France for the Cannes Lions Awards. The subpoena announcement was surely one of the biggest stories coming out of the hearing, generating a large amount of traction on social media. While the announcement is significant, Dan Snyder will more than likely not acquiesce to this demand, and we’re probably headed for a long legal battle where Dan Snyder has a path towards avoiding testifying altogether. As Dan Wallach argued at the end of the simultaneous ConductCast of the hearings (like, rate, and subscribe to the Conduct Detrimental YouTube!), Dan Snyder will almost certainly not submit to this subpoena voluntarily. As Dan pointed out, Dan Snyder will probably file a lawsuit to challenge the subpoena and the scope of Congress’ investigation (or insert whatever legal justification he uses here) prior to being held in Contempt of Congress. Through that lawsuit, and the inevitable motions and appeals process, Dan Snyder and his attorneys will have one primary goal in mind: push this subpoena, and the related hearing, until after the mid-term elections this fall. I’m aware this is not a political website, but the mid-term elections are important in the context of both today’s hearing and the legal proceedings regarding the Commanders’ workplace going forward. If the House of Representatives “flips,” that being where the Republican Party would control the majority of the seats and, therefore, assume responsibility to chair the various House Committees, these proceedings will probably cease. Based on the testimony of the Republican members of the committee today, there is very little appetite from the Republican members for continuing hearings on the topic. And based on Dan Snyder’s history as a Republican Donor, it’s very possible that he’ll be making some calls if the House does flip to help make these proceedings a thing of the past. Combining the expected lawsuit from Dan Snyder with the possibility of a Republican-controlled committee, there is a scenario where Dan Snyder never has to sit and answer the tough questions he should be forced to answer about the workplace of the Commanders under his tenure. Further, the NFL may possibly tag along on this delay in order to avoid having Roger Goodell answer more questions under oath. Without the prospect of another visit to Congress, and more importantly the threatening of the NFL’s Anti-Trust Exemption, as Congressman Hank Johnson alluded to during the hearing, the NFL may conveniently wait until after the mid-term elections to publish any findings from the Mary Jo White Investigation into Tiffani Johnston’s allegations. By waiting, the NFL would take the pressure off themselves to publish a detailed-enough report, and possibly an adequately severe punishment, to satisfy Congress as well as the general public. After the mid-terms, the NFL could reasonably assume to be free from further Congressional scrutiny, and may then be able to report and administer the findings of the White Investigation on their own terms. To be clear: I cannot say that either a Republican victory in the mid-term elections or the subsequent cessation of Congressional attention on the Commanders are foregone conclusions, but assuming they are, those who are interested in justice for the victims of the horrific workplace allegedly overseen by Mr. Snyder should turn towards the Gruden litigation for greater hope, as that would then present the more significant concern for Dan Snyder and the NFL at that point. Assuming events unfold as I have laid out, the best method for achieving any sort of transparency from the Commanders or the NFL would be through the discovery process of the Gruden lawsuit. If discovery proceeds, and is not blocked by the inevitably exhaustive appeals of the NFL, then the public may finally get a full glimpse (through the probable discovery of the rest of the unreleased emails from the Wilkinson Investigation) into how much of the Commanders’ workplace the NFL knew about, and how much (or, more likely, how little) the NFL did to fix the problem. And through that process, the renewed public attention on the heinousness of Dan Snyder’s actions combined with the lack of action by the NFL may cause enough outcry, or provide the proverbial “smoking gun,” to force the other NFL Owners to more seriously consider voting Dan Snyder out of their very exclusive club. Michael DiLiello is an Army Officer transitioning to the Sports Law field and will enroll as a 1L in the Fall of 2022. His opinions are purely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the United States Army, the Department of Defense, or any other external agency. Twitter: @Mike_DiLiello LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/michael-diliello-1057b439