Search Results

As reported last night by Atlanta Falcons Reporter Marc Raimondi , Falcons Defensive End James Pearce Jr., was arrested Saturday on multiple felony charges. Those felonies include: two counts of Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon, one count of Aggravated Stalking, one count of Fleeing to Elude, one count of Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement and one count of Resisting an Officer without Violence. The Defendant is currently in jail awaiting his first appearance where a Judge will decide a bond for Aggravated Battery DW (Deadly Weapon and Law Enforcement) as well as the stalking charge. The most serious charges are the Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon charge as well as the Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement. The latter is a 1 st degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison with a 5-year day for day minimum mandatory. That means the Defendant walks into prison on January 1, 2027, they cannot walk out until January 1, 2032. There is no gain time on charges. So, what actually led to this? Per Andy Slater , the entire situation started after Pearce Jr., allegedly stalked his ex-girlfriend from his car and tried to get into her car at an intersection. However, this is where the serious allegations begin. Slater also stated that Pearce, “intentionally crashed his Lamborghini into his ex-girlfriend car multiple times, trying to stop her from getting to a police station.” That is where the Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon charge come in to play as the vehicle itself is the deadly weapon. The alleged intentional act of ramming your vehicle into another’s vehicle is where the charge stems them. However, I ultimately believe the two counts will be reduced to one count if Pearce allegedly tried to ram the alleged victim twice in the same transaction or occurrence within a short amount of time. It would create a potential double jeopardy issue. However, Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement is by far the most serious charge because of the minimum mandatory. “Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement requires the Defendant, in committing the battery to use a deadly weapon (a car is a deadly weapon).” As Slater reported, “Pearce intentionally drove into a police officer, hitting the cop’s knee in an effort to get away.” It is unclear from the police narrative whether the defendant was intending to drive into the officer’s knee or was just driving off. As stated in the Florida jury instructions, the Defendant must, “actually and intentionally have struck the alleged victim against his or her will.” Mr. Pearce may have been driving off, but it is unclear if he intentionally tried to strike the officer. The problem for Pearce Jr., is that Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement is almost always charged by the State Attorney’s Office because they do not need to worry about victim cooperation – law enforcement, as the alleged victim, is always cooperative. The case depends on whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. If there wasn’t intent or the officer wasn’t really injured, the charge will likely be reduced by a judge or jury potentially to Battery on Law Enforcement, which is still a felony, but much less serious one. What happens from here? The Defendant has his first appearance in court today or tomorrow at the latest. The judge will set his bond and any pretrial conditions they deem necessary. From there, the battle begins.   Matthew F. Tympanick, is a criminal defense attorney, personal injury attorney, and sports law attorney from Sarasota, Florida who has tried 45 criminal and civil jury and non-jury trials. You can see him regularly on Court TV, Live Now from Fox, Law & Crime Network and has appeared on television, radio, and podcasts throughout the country discussing sports criminal law issues. Matthew is also a NFLPA certified contract advisor. You can follow him on all forms of social @TympanickLaw.

Although it’s been almost two months since the Georgia High School Association’s (GHSA) football state championship games wrapped up, there’s been one program around which conversations haven’t ceased: the Gainesville Red Elephants. Although the Red Elephants’ 2025 campaign ended in disappointment after falling short in the title game, they took a fascinating, peculiar, and often dominant  path to get there, and potentially set some significant precedents along the way.   Gainesville High School, which is about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta, has recently been somewhat of a football powerhouse in Georgia. Through the early months of the season, they appeared well set up to make a run at the Class 5A state championship. The Red Elephants finished the regular season with an 8-2 record and easily made the second round of playoffs, where they’d face Brunswick High School. During this game, on November 21st, a massive, bench-clearing brawl  occurred, and this brawl would change the entire course of Gainesville football for the foreseeable future.   With around two minutes left in the third quarter, Gainesville held a commanding 42-0 lead. Emotions were high, as Gainesville had all but confirmed their spot in the quarterfinals, and Brunswick was facing the fact that their season was over. On an otherwise routine occurrence of playing “through” the whistle, a Brunswick player took his blocking assignment a little too seriously, and enthusiastically ripped off the helmets of two Gainesville players. The same Brunswick player then threw a punch, and people began to notice the scrum at midfield. Just five seconds after that punch, when a different Brunswick player ran from forty yards downfield and leveled a Gainesville player, mayhem ensued . At this point, almost every single coach, player, and staff person sprinted to midfield to “diffuse” the situation. Yellow flags flew through the air, security and stadium personnel joined the chaos, and referees began their long deliberation. After the fight was fully separated, the referees announced the game would be called off and Gainesville would be awarded the win.   Later that night, the GHSA suspended  a stunning 39 Gainesville players under GHSA bylaw 2.71(d)(3) , which states that “All players who are involved in a fight and any substitutes who leave the bench area during a fight or potential fight and are ejected from the current contest, will be subject to the sit-out rule.” On November 25th, four days after the incident, Gainesville appealed  these suspension decisions to the GHSA. In this hearing, Red Elephants’ head coach Josh Niblett argued  that his players were simply defending their brothers and urged the GHSA not to set a poor precedent that would allow losing teams to start fights and ruin other teams’ seasons. On the 26th, after the GHSA lifted the suspensions of just four players, the Gainesville City School District filed suit against the GHSA in the Hall County Superior Court, seeking judicial intervention that would lift the remaining 31 player suspensions (Gainesville didn't contest four of the suspensions). At this point, they were set to play their next game in just two days, on November 28th . Luckily for Niblett and the Red Elephants, later in the day on the 26th, Judge Clint Bearden ruled in their favor, lifting all 31 player suspensions via a temporary restraining order . Bearden’s legal analysis found that the GHSA had failed “to adhere to its own Constitution and Bylaws.”   Next, the GHSA appealed Judge Bearden’s ruling. Because the postseason schedule was fully in their control, they also decided  to push back Gainesville’s upcoming game against Langston Hughes High School until December 5th. The common understanding was that without their suspended players, Gainesville likely wouldn’t even be able to field a team for their next game. Soon thereafter, on December 1st, the GHSA stated  that the suspended players would be allowed to play in their upcoming game, despite the GHSA’s continued pursuit of the injunction appeal. After a wild two weeks, with no suspensions other than the four that Gainesville didn’t contest, the Red Elephants suited up and beat both Langston Hughes and Rome before falling to Thomas County Central, 62-21, in the state championship in Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Following the game, Gainesville voluntarily dismissed  their original legal action.   Even after this loss, Gainesville’s story still wasn’t over. On January 6th, the school announced  that head coach Josh Niblett would be stepping away, and shortly thereafter he joined  Deion Sanders’s staff at Colorado. However, not even a week later, perhaps the craziest storyline in this entire saga emerged. In a shocking turn of events, with seemingly nothing to do with the suspended players’ debacle, news broke that Gainesville had utilized  an ineligible player in their semifinal win against Rome. Although Gainesville claims they knowingly allowed him to play because of a miscommunication relating to his Form B approval (paperwork to establish a bona fide move and legal residency in the school zone), they were apparently out of luck and no longer in the good graces of the GHSA. On January 13th, Gainesville officially had their semifinal win against Rome vacated and were therefore stripped of their 5A runner-up title.   In this shocking end to this story, the entire thing was just… over. Since then, many have debated what kind of policy and legal fallout this chronicle will create. Some say Gainesville’s favorable ruling will prompt other schools to more frequently challenge association rules they deem unfair or inconsistent, while others believe this case will put pressure on athletic associations themselves to revise and clarify bylaws to avoid similar situations in the future. Still others believe the fact that Gainesville “got away” with fighting could lead to an increased number of fights being the norm, especially in the playoffs when the stakes are so high. No one can predict the future, but one thing goes without saying: the story of Gainesville High School Football’s 2025 season won’t be forgotten anytime soon.   ​Liam Sitz is a senior at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, where he studies political science and recently finished his football career. He can be found on Twitter @LiamSitz and LinkedIn as Liam Sitz .

Philadelphia 76ers player Paul George has been suspended for 25 games, the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) announced on Saturday, January 31st. In a statement made to ESPN, George admitted to taking "improper medication" to treat his mental health issues. In the same statement, he issued an apology   to “the Sixers organization, my teammates and the Philly fans for my poor decision-making during this process.”  This suspension will cost him more than $ 11.7 million  and his absence for crucial games leading up to the playoffs.   George, a NBA veteran of almost 15 seasons, has been an outspoken advocate for mental health. Especially during the 2020 season in the “Bubble,” he has shared his own struggles and encouraged everyone, especially men, to seek help.  He has insisted that the medication he took was only for his mental health  and had nothing to do with improving his physical play.   The current collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which was approved in 2023 and will remain in place until the 2029-2030 season, lays out procedures for players who test positive for a variety of banned substances. EXHIBIT I-2 of the CBA is the list of prohibited substances categorized as Drugs of Abuse: Synthetic Cannabinoids, Steroids and Performance Enhancing Drugs (“SPEDs”), and Diuretics.   The NBA and its medical staff have not released any information about the drugs George tested positive for, and the CBA encourages the league to protect that privacy. However, the specific suspension George received (25 games) connects to Article XXXIII, Section 9(b)(a) and relates to "drugs of abuse." Similarly, the list of Drugs of Abuse include Benzodiazepines, a category of drugs used to treat anxiety and panic attacks.   The same article also states  that any players in violation are required to “enter the SPED Program (or the Drugs of Abuse Program if the positive test or the use or possession is for a Benzodiazepine).” No information has been shared about if George is involved in treatment programs.   The league did not announce why George was drug tested, but this suspension did arrive after George’s best performance of the season. Often after remarkable athletic performances, the NBA will drug test the players, a right they hold within the CBA.   George’s actions, and his recent basketball performance, has divided the NBA community. Many past players  cannot understand how he could have made this error – players are given strict guidelines about which medications are permissible and which are banned. George, as a NBA veteran, knows the medications that are explicitly banned, making this situation even more unusual.   Others feel that medicine for mental health related issues should be exempt from the list of banned substances. Charles Barkley, who played in the NBA in the 90s, argued that George should be allowed to take banned substances if he was taking them to improve his mental wellbeing. However, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) are not included  in the list, but drugs such as Xanax and Valium are. This leads many to believe that George may be using mental health as an excuse for his poor judgement, since alternatives were available.   Paul George’s suspension brings the NBA’s anti-drug policy into discussion. The CBA is not set to expire for another 4 years, so it will be interesting if the league or the players association, or George himself, work to make any changes.       Eliana Halivni is a student at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studying History and Sports Administration. Her LinkedIn can be found   here.

NIL Moves from Compensation to Litigation: NIL has yet to stop surprising the legal world. Within the first weeks of 2026, it has transformed from a mechanism for athlete compensation into a litigation strategy, with universities suing their own quarterbacks over alleged NIL contract breaches tied to transfer decisions. What started with Washington’s Demond Williams and has escalated into Duke’s lawsuit against Darian Mensah creates a new reality: NIL contracts are no longer just about compensation, but about control over athletes. The Duke Mensah Case: The most recent legal battle centers on Duke quarterback Darian Mensah. After initially announcing he would return to Duke rather than enter the NFL Draft, Mensah confirmed a multiyear NIL deal reportedly worth $8 million  in exchange for two seasons with the program. Less than a month later, he reversed course and entered the NCAA transfer portal. In response, Duke filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the NIL agreement and prevent the transfer, arguing that the contract gave the university exclusive rights to market Mensah’s name, image, and likeness. A North Carolina judge, Michael O’Foghludha , granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Mensah from enrolling at another school, signing a licensing deal with another program, or taking any other action that would breach the two-season NIL contract he signed with Duke, running through 2026. While Duke’s initial request to block him from entering the transfer portal entirely was denied, the TRO effectively froze key steps in his transfer process until a previously scheduled hearing on February 2, 2026. As of January 27, 2026, Duke University and Mensah settled the lawsuit , ending the transfer dispute before any court ruled on the enforceability of the NIL  agreement. The Washington Williams Case: NIL Power Without Litigation: By contrast, the University of Washington quarterback, Demond Williams, never faced a formal lawsuit, but his situation demonstrates the power schools have regarding NIL agreements. In December 2025, Williams announced via social media his intent to leave the program, despite having signed a multiyear NIL contract reportedly worth several million dollars . As a result, Washington indicated that they were prepared to pursue legal action in order to enforce Williams’ contract. Though Williams also retained legal counsel, Williams announced he would remain at Washington, ending this chaotic 48-hour frenzy. Though this instance did not see a courtroom, it shows how universities are beginning to pursue legal avenues to enforce NIL contracts. Legal Implications: NIL Contracts and Labor Mobility: The legal issues raised by the Duke and Washington disputes extend beyond simple contract enforcement into uncharted territory for college athletics. At their core, NIL agreements are private contracts governed by state law, but the way they are structured in the emerging revenue‑sharing era is stirring debate about whether they should be treated like ordinary commercial contracts or something closer to  employment restrictions . Experts have observed that many modern NIL contracts, especially those tied to continued enrollment and appearance on a team roster, resemble employment‑style arrangements that could face heightened judicial scrutiny if they limit an athlete’s ability to pursue opportunities elsewhere . Courts traditionally view restraints on labor mobility with caution, particularly where there is a significant power imbalance between the contracting parties. This is applicable to the case between student‑athletes and large institutions. Recent efforts to classify student-athletes as employees, including a unionization petition by Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team , were withdrawn in 2024, leaving the persistent legal view that student-athletes are not employees under federal labor law. The evolving legal landscape also reflects broader antitrust concerns; recent cases challenging NCAA restrictions on NIL recruiting framed certain limits on compensation and movement as unlawful restraints of trade , signaling that anything resembling a restriction on athlete mobility may face legal pushback.  What the Future Holds for NIL and College Athletics: These cases show just how rapidly NIL is changing and gives a glimpse to what the future may hold. How courts and arbitrators handle these contracts could have a ripple effect, shaping how universities negotiate future deals, how much control they can exercise over athletes, and what freedom players have with transferring schools. For student-athletes, the stakes in scoring an NIL deal are higher than ever. Navigating NIL agreements may increasingly require legal guidance to protect both the athlete’s compensation, their ability to transfer, and their overall understanding of their obligations. For universities, the cases highlight the need for careful drafting, clear terms, and an understanding of the legal limits of enforcing NIL contracts. This new type of dispute in 2026 will set precedents that redefine the relationship between athletes and schools, showing that NIL is about far more than money, it’s also about power, leverage, and the evolving structure of college sports. The Washington and Duke cases have possibly marked a turning point in NIL enforcement. If courts uphold enforcement of NIL contracts and cause restrictions on transfer mobility, universities could gain a powerful new leverage tool that puts power back into the hands of the athletic departments. If courts push back, NIL agreements may need to be restructured to avoid undue restraints on athlete autonomy. Either way, these disputes reveal that the next phase of NIL reform could be litigated as much in courtrooms as on fields and in boardrooms. Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

The Demond Williams Jr. transfer saga lasted barely 48 hours, yet it managed to encapsulate nearly every unresolved tension in modern college sports: NIL, revenue sharing, transfer rights, contract enforceability, the amateur/employee distinction, antitrust risk, and, most importantly, the human reality of a young athlete trying to make a career-defining decision in a system that still hasn’t decided what it wants him to be.   Earlier this week, Williams announced via Instagram that he intended to enter the transfer portal. The post landed like a thunderclap in Seattle. Just days earlier, Williams had reportedly signed a multi-million-dollar revenue-sharing agreement to return to Washington for the 2026 season. The deal was supposed to be emblematic of the post-House era: schools retaining elite talent through direct revenue sharing rather than booster-driven collectives. Instead, it immediately became a test case for whether that system can function without collapsing under its own contradictions.   Washington’s response was swift and forceful. Administrators reportedly explored legal action to enforce buyout and liquidated damages provisions in Williams’s contract, initially declining to place Williams’ name in the transfer portal despite an NCAA bylaw requiring schools to do so upon request. For a brief moment, college football appeared on the verge of its most consequential athlete-versus-school lawsuit yet, one that could have redefined the legal character of revenue-sharing agreements and accelerated the push toward recognizing college athletes as employees.   Then, just as quickly, the situation de-escalated. Williams retained new legal counsel, and conversations quickly replaced threats. By Thursday evening, amid the chaos of the College Football Playoff semifinals, Williams announced he would remain at Washington, with head coach Jedd Fisch and athletic director Pat Chun issuing statements of support. What looked from the outside like a sudden reversal was, in reality, the product of an intense, compressed decision-making process under extraordinary pressure.   To understand why this moment matters, it helps to situate it alongside last year’s Xavier Lucas dispute at Wisconsin. In both cases, a school declined to immediately enter a player into the portal. In both cases, the athlete had entered into an NIL-related agreement with meaningful financial stakes. And in both cases, the ticking clock of the transfer window magnified every misstep. The Wisconsin situation spilled into litigation after Lucas ultimately moved to Miami. The Demond Williams situation, in contrast, did not. That distinction may prove just as important as the similarities.   At the heart of the Williams saga is a question that college sports continue to dodge: what, exactly, are athletes being paid for?   Revenue-sharing contracts are carefully and painstakingly drafted to sound like intellectual property transactions, featuring language that emphasizes name, image, and likeness licensing and disclaims employment. These agreements (and the schools that draft them) insist that participation in athletics remain voluntary, maintaining the long-standing “amateurism” ideal. But substance has a way of overpowering form. When a quarterback signs a contract worth more than $4 million and the school threatens to sue him if he plays football elsewhere, it becomes difficult to maintain that the agreement has nothing to do with labor.   Michael McCann captured this tension succinctly in his analysis of the situation, noting that while enrollment is a voluntary educational relationship, Williams’s relationship with Washington is not the same as that of his non-athlete classmates. He is a party to a contract under which he is compensated and expected to perform football services. That reality would have been laid bare had Washington proceeded with litigation. A breach of contract claim premised on Williams’s failure to play football for Washington would look, in every meaningful way, like an employment dispute.   Dan Wetzel put it even more bluntly . You cannot meaningfully enforce an employment-style deal while denying the existence of employment. College sports spent decades fighting amateurism battles in court, only to arrive at a system that replicates professional sports economics without the professional sports legal framework. The Williams situation is what happens when that bill comes due.   Washington might have had arguments to the contrary. A court could find that Williams breached a valid contract. Liquidated damages provisions might be enforceable. Buyouts might be upheld. But proving harm would have required uncomfortable admissions . If the alleged injury is a competitive disadvantage on the field, how would that square with a contract supposedly centered on NIL licensing? If the harm is reputational or commercial, how is it measured when the athlete’s brand remains intact? These are not academic questions but instead represent the very fault lines along which future litigation will run.   Williams, too, would have had cards to play. He could have argued that the contract was unconscionable or that certain provisions functioned as unenforceable penalties. He could have asserted tortious interference if Washington’s refusal to enter him into the portal impeded opportunities elsewhere. He could have pushed the most destabilizing argument of all: that the contract should be treated as an employment agreement, triggering statutory and constitutional protections that the current NIL framework carefully avoids.   None of that happened, and that may be the most instructive part of this story.   What resolved this situation was not a court order or a public pressure campaign. It was diligence, document review, and legal analysis conducted under severe time constraints. Williams’ team recognized that litigation, however tempting, was not necessarily aligned with the client’s best interests in that moment. The portal was closing, and rosters were quickly filling. While a lawsuit might have made headlines, it also could have left a young quarterback without a team, without certainty, and without a clean path forward.   Williams ultimately chose to return to Washington because he wanted to, not because he was forced to. This is a distinction that matters a great deal, preserving agency in a system that increasingly risks stripping it away. It allows all parties to move forward without the scorch marks of litigation, helping to avoid precedent created through crisis as opposed to careful deliberation.   That being said, the legal questions raised by this episode are not going away. Revenue-sharing agreements will be tested, transfer restrictions will be challenged, and antitrust scrutiny will intensify if conferences or schools are seen as coordinating to limit player movement. Cases like Johnson v. NCAA  will continue to chip away at the employee fiction, using moments like this as evidence that college athletes are treated like workers when it suits institutional interests.   The Demond Williams saga may have ended peacefully, but it was far from a nothingburger. It was a preview, a warning, and perhaps even a roadmap.   College sports can continue to paper over their contradictions, or they can confront them directly. That likely means collective bargaining, clear labor classifications, and rules negotiated rather than imposed. Until then, expect more flashpoints like this one, with some cases ending in court and others (like Williams’) managing to narrowly escape it.   In this case, peace prevailed. And in this volatile modern college athletics landscape, that may have been the most legally sound outcome of all.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

In a bipartisan letter sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), U.S. members of Congress criticized WADA for opening an investigation into the leak that revealed 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive for performance enhancers before the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. The letter maintained that this investigation would attack whistleblowers and intimidate individuals. The letter was signed by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) and Chris van Hollen (D-Maryland) and Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Michigan) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois).   “Operation Puncture” seeks to reveal how the agency cleared the swimmers who had tested positive for banned heart medication. WADA originally stated that they felt the samples were tampered with and political motivations may have been involved. Günter Younger, director of Intelligence and Investigations at WADA, commented that they rely on whistleblowers to find out who is taking illegal drugs. He reassured that this investigation would have no impact on individual protection. WADA also stated that they are looking into the leak and what the motivations were, but not the specific individuals.   The World Anti-Doping Agency was created in 1999 alongside the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to monitor the rising use of performance enhancing drugs in international sporting competitions. WADA also established the World Anti-Doping Code that has been adopted by over 650 sports organizations and has become the standard for anti-doping policies.   WADA receives half of their funding from the IOC and the other from national governments. They insist that they are a neutral body but that proves increasingly difficult if they are financially compensated by a variety of countries each with their own political agenda.   This letter follows a recent suspension of funding from the US government to WADA. In 2024, the United States did not pay the $3.6 million to WADA, citing their longtime frustration with WADA’s handling of Chinese steroid cases. WADA then suspended any American officials from its board and top committees.   At ​​WADA’s World Conference on Doping in Sport held in early December in Busan, South Korea, Kirsty Coventry, President of the International Olympic Committee, emphatically called for unification, stating, “There is only one fight that we should be fighting – and that is the fight against doping. But instead, at times, we have been turning on each other. The only people who benefit from this disunity are the drug cheaters.”   With the World Cup coming to North America in 2026 and the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028, Congress’s tension with WADA will certainly impact international cooperation. This powerful letter also proves that international sports will never be separated from politics.   Eliana Halivni is a student at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studying History and Sports Administration. Her LinkedIn can be found here.

With FIFA president Gianni Infantino by his side, President Donald Trump announced  the creation of the FIFA Prioritized Appointments Scheduling System (PASS). This FIFA Pass will expedite the process for international visitors seeking visas to attend World Cup games in 2026. A separate FIFA portal will be created  for ticket holders to have the interview portion of their application prioritized.   They will not be guaranteed a visa, but they will have priority status. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated ,  "We're going to do the same vetting as anybody else would get. The only difference here is we're moving them up in the queue.” Secretary Rubio also mentioned that the State Department has added  400 additional counselor offices around the globe to quicken the visa process. Rubio estimated that the average wait times  will hopefully be between six and eight weeks. However, not all fans need to apply for visas to attend the matches. Most spectators can enter the country visa free for up to 90 days.     This initiative will not simply help fans but assist national teams who have been waiting months for interviews after applying for visas. In Colombia, for example,  citizens requesting U.S. visas can expect a wait time of around 11 months. If these queue times continue, teams who have qualified for the games will not be able to participate.    North American World Cup The World Cup is set to take place between June 11 and July 19, 2026. This is the first year that the international sport spectacle will be held in three different countries : the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The United States will host games in 11 different cities across the country. The draw for which teams will play in which group stage will take place on December 5th at the Kennedy Center - a cultural location in the heart of D.C., where President Trump serves as chairman.   Trump Administration Influence President Trump has expressed  his unwavering commitment to making the World Cup games in America a resounding success. In his announcement of the FIFA Pass, he claimed  that the World Cup could generate $30 billion and create 200,000 jobs. President Trump also emphasized his dedication to keeping spectators, especially visitors from other countries, safe. He advocated  for the Games to be moved out of American cities he felt were dangerous, such as Seattle , and commented that he would be willing to send in  the National Guard if the Games became unruly.   Another international component is the inclusion of World Cup visitors from countries that President Trump banned travel from  in June. In the proclamation, President Trump stated that the athletes, coaches, and their immediate families would all qualify for visas, but it is unclear if their fans will be able to. Iran, for example, was granted an exemption  for its national teams to participate in the World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, but their fans may not be able to cheer them on. The World Cup is a global festival that will bring millions of visitors to the United States, and Trump’s embrace of this influx stands in sharp contrast to his broader anti-immigration policies. This FIFA pass, designed to streamline visa access for teams and ticket holders of permitted countries, highlights this tension and raises important legal questions about how sporting events intersect with U.S. immigration law.

JuJu Watkins is a talented basketball player for the University of Southern Carolina Trojans. She had a standout freshman year scoring over 900 points and receiving several accolades, including the AP Player of the Year and a unanimous first-team All-American. Because of a torn ACL, Watkins will have to sit out the 2025-2026 season, but Watkins still has a NIL valuation of close to $1 million which places her in the top 50 overall in NIL earnings for college athletes.   About Boston Legacy FC Boston Legacy is a new team in the NWSL and will play their nationally televised debut match on March 14, 2026 in Gillette Stadium. Jennifer Epstein, Stephanie Connaughton, Ami Kuan Danoff, and Anna Palmer are the all-female founding partners. Boston Legacy is gaining a lot of investors as the team continues to grow. The pillars of Boston Legacy on and off the field include integrity, belonging, grit, and style. Chicago Bears Quarterback Caleb Williams, Indiana Fever player Aliyah Boston, actress Elizabeth Banks, three-time Olympic gold medalist Aly Raisman, among others also invested in this team. Add JuJu Watkins to the list of high-profile investors. Watkins became the first ever college player to use her NIL earnings to invest in a women’s professional league.   In November 2025, Watkins decided to invest in Boston Legacy FC, a team in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL ) . Watkins believes in the football club and stated that, “Boston Legacy FC is creating a space for women to achieve, lead, and inspire others at the highest level, and I’m proud to be a part of the movement pushing women’s sports forward .”   Future Trends of NIL Investments JuJu Watkins used NIL earnings to make a long-term investment which is the future of NIL earnings. The NIL landscape is shifting from a short-term investment, where student-athletes focused on their tenure in college alone, to creating a brand that will last a lifetime. College athletes are starting to think long term about their careers. The harsh truth is that most college athletes will not make it to the professional leagues, so what is an athlete supposed to do once their college earnings run out and their athletic careers are over? Athletes entered the marketing world to land brand deals and invest in companies and teams. Instead of worrying after their college careers, athletes are smarter with their NIL earnings by investing for their future. Athletes can stay involved in the sports world and support themselves without the need to make it to the professional leagues.   Jennifer Epstein, the controlling owner of Boston Legacy, stated that, “As the first college athlete to directly invest in a women's professional sports team, Juju’s showing that today’s student-athletes aren’t just building their own brands — they’re shaping the future of the game .” Using NIL earnings to invest in professional sports not only helps the sports teams expand, but is also a smart business move for college athletes broadening their reach and looking towards a successful future after their college years are over.

The demand for digital content—whether on social media or streaming platforms—combined with the name, image, and likeness (NIL) era, where athletes actively monetize their personal brands, is reshaping how sports content is created and distributed.   Last year, women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins partnered with UNINTERRUPTED, 4.4 Forty Media, and State Farm to produce On the Rise: JuJu Watkins , a six-part documentary giving viewers a behind the scenes look of her rise to stardom. The series aired partially on NBC and is available on Peacock. NBC posted the first episode on YouTube which has surpassed 270,000 views alone.   Similarly, Amazon paid $1 million to LSU to produce The Money Game , an NIL-focused documentary featuring athletes like Jayden Daniels, Angel Reese, Flau’jae Johnson, and Livvy Dunne. Each athlete received individual NIL contracts, in addition to Amazon’s payment for exclusive production rights.   However, these examples represent more than individual NIL deals, they signal a broader shift in brand advertising strategy. Much like how major studios exclusively licensed their films to Netflix or Hulu, and then these streaming platforms began producing their own content, athletic brands are now developing in-house production studios to tell stories on their own.   Historically, brands relied on product placement, event sponsorships, and traditional advertising campaigns. But these methods are no longer as effective as they once were. Everybody skips YouTube ads, scrolls through their phones during commercial breaks, or pay for ad-free streaming. Why? Because traditional ads interrupt the content audiences actually want to consume.   Today, these brands are building entertainment studios to produce original series, films, and content that engage consumers directly. This in a way parallels the streaming revolution and highlights the value of creating and controlling content. These projects are not simply long-form product placements, though brand visibility is almost certain. Rather, they seek to tell authentic, premium stories that reflect the values and ethos of the brand.   Dick’s Sporting Goods recently launched its in-house production studio, Cookie Jar & A Dream Studios, following a decade of producing feature-length films and documentaries. These films earned the company two Emmy Awards. Notably, We Could Be King  documented the merger of two rival Philadelphia high schools due to the district budget crisis, while The Turnaround  highlighted Phillies superfan Jon McCann’s who helped turn the team’s 2023 season around. Most recently, the brand released Big Dreams: The Little League World Series 2024  in partnership with Imagine Entertainment and MLB Studios.   Under Armour is following suit, launching LAB96 Studios in October. Under Armour hit its peak in 2015, competing neck and neck with Nike, but has struggled in recent years. LAB96 represents part of its comeback strategy. UA believes its new in-house studio will help deliver athlete stories in “fresh, episodic, and cinematic ways.” Lab96 Studios has already announced partnerships with Overtime to create a series featuring IMG Academy’s football team and with SMAC Entertainment following St. Frances Academy’s women’s flag football team. Under Armour is also investing in building a film and podcast studio at their headquarters in Baltimore.   As brands expand into this longer form content, they must navigate the same legal framework as traditional studios. These productions, though meant to educate and entertain, are still subject to advertising and consumer protection laws, including the Federal Trade Commission’s Endorsement Guides, which mandate clear disclosure of sponsorships, product placements, and endorsements.   Other key considerations include: Intellectual Property Rights:  Contracts with creative talent, NIL, licensing agreements, and ownership of original footage. Permitting:  Securing authorization for shoots in public or private spaces. Insurance: Obtaining specialized film insurance and also covering production-specific risks such as IP infringement or equipment damage. Union Compliance:  Meeting compensation and working condition requirements under SAG-AFTRA, WGA, DGA, and Teamsters agreements. Distribution and Licensing:  Negotiating streaming, broadcast, and territorial rights with distributors. International Compliance:  Adhering to varying censorship and disclosure laws across global markets. Expect more athletic brands to establish in-house studios as this model redefines how sports narratives are shared. The benefits extend beyond marketing as these projects give the brands and athletes creative control, offer another source of revenue, and build unique connections with audiences that a commercial or ad simply cannot do. The association of a brand with a heartwarming story is enough to change customers’ minds and give a brand a chance, even if the product is not heavily featured.   In a rapidly evolving media landscape, the most successful brands may not just sponsor stories—they’ll create the means to tell them.   Andrew Gagnon is a licensed attorney in KS practicing labor law. He can be found on Twitter @A_Gagnon34 and LinkedIn as  Andrew Gagnon .

When NASCAR teams filed sweeping antitrust lawsuits in 2024, led by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, with support from the Race Team Alliance (RTA), they didn’t just challenge a sport’s business model. They put the entire franchise league power dynamic on trial. At stake is control over the economic engine of stock-car racing: the teams that build and race the cars, or the sanctioning body that owns the brand, the schedule, and the broadcast rights. These lawsuits, now moving forward in federal court, spotlight a deeper question: how much authority can a governing body exert over the independent entities that make its product possible? NASCAR’s centralized control over media, sponsorships, and competition rules has long been a point of tension. Now, it’s a matter of legal scrutiny. The Road to the Lawsuit In October 2024, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR, alleging that the sanctioning body’s control over media rights, sponsorships, and competition rules violates federal law by restraining trade and monopolizing the market for premier stock-car racing. The RTA, while not a named plaintiff, has long voiced similar concerns, and in 2025, it formally aligned itself with the suit’s objectives, submitting declarations and supporting the plaintiffs’ claims in court.  This shift marked a turning point. What began as a targeted legal challenge now reflects the grievances of nearly the entire Cup Series grid. NASCAR responded in April 2025 with a counterclaim accusing the teams of collusion and attempting to form a cartel. But in October, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell dismissed that counterclaim, allowing the teams’ Section 2 monopolization claims to proceed toward trial, now scheduled for December 1, 2025 ( ESPN , Oct. 31, 2025 ). According to   Fox Sports , NASCAR President Steve Phelps said the organization is “trying our hardest to settle” the dispute, emphasizing that the sanctioning body wants to “keep this family together.” But as litigation proceeds, the “family” looks more fractured than ever. - This quote confirms that teams within the RTA are supporting the lawsuit, and that NASCAR is trying to negotiate with them, not fight them all in court. What Teams Are Fighting For At its core, the lawsuit is about economics. Teams argue that NASCAR’s central control of media revenue leaves them with too little to sustain operations, forcing a near-total dependence on corporate sponsorship. According to financial disclosures cited in the filings, Cup Series teams receive less than 25% of total industry revenue; a stark contrast to the 40–50% shares seen in the NFL and NBA. A key structural issue is NASCAR’s charter system, implemented in 2016. The system grants 36 teams guaranteed starting spots in races, functioning like franchise licenses; but without the equity value or permanence of true ownership. The RTA contends that the limited, revocable nature of these charters keeps teams economically dependent on NASCAR, restricting their ability to negotiate media or sponsorship deals independently. That imbalance, combined with rising operational costs and shrinking sponsor budgets, has left even major organizations in the red. ESPN  reporting revealed that some teams are losing upward of $10 million annually, a figure that underscores just how strained the current model has become. The RTA’s core argument is that NASCAR’s monopoly over commercial rights, including TV and streaming deals, locks them out of the profits their performance drives. Legal Stakes: The American Needle Parallel While no U.S. sports league has faced this level of antitrust scrutiny in years, the case echoes a landmark precedent: American Needle v. NFL  (2010). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that NFL teams could not claim “single-entity” protection when jointly licensing merchandise, opening the door for antitrust liability when leagues suppress team-level competition. NASCAR, like the NFL, has long operated as a centralized commercial entity. But unlike the NFL, its teams aren’t franchise owners; they’re effectively contractors. That distinction could make this lawsuit even more volatile. If the court determines NASCAR wields monopoly power over essential commercial markets (broadcasting, sponsorships, and licensing), the ruling could reshape how every major sports league negotiates media deals. Inside the Fallout The lawsuit has already reshaped the sport’s internal politics. The Drivers Advisory Council — a separate but influential body — released a statement calling for “unity and progress,” while cautioning that litigation risks “long-term damage to the ecosystem of the sport” ( Motorsport.com , Oct. 2025 ). NASCAR’s leadership, meanwhile, has sought to calm the storm. At the Phoenix race weekend, Phelps told Autoweek  that the sanctioning body was “fully committed to finding a long-term, sustainable business model for all stakeholders.” Still, behind the diplomacy lies an existential fight. For teams, this is about securing a fair share of a multibillion-dollar ecosystem. For NASCAR, it’s about defending the structure that gives it unparalleled control and arguably, its brand identity. What Comes Next With discovery underway and settlement talks reportedly active, the next several months could determine whether this becomes one of the most consequential sports law cases in decades or a negotiated truce. Either way, the lawsuit has already forced a reckoning: NASCAR’s business model, once seen as immutable, is now under the legal microscope. And if the teams succeed, or even force major concessions, it could set a precedent reaching far beyond Daytona. Every league that centralizes its commercial rights, from the PGA Tour to Formula 1, will be watching closely to see whether the courts decide that tradition and efficiency justify monopoly power, or that it’s time for a new balance between leagues and the teams that make them possible. Oliver Stevens 1L, Hofstra Law Linkedin

On a Saturday morning in October 2025, Dallas Mavericks guard Brandon Williams was on his way through  Terminal C of Dallas Fort Worth’s International Airport. As his suitcase traveled through TSA screening, it was flagged  by an agent, who identified a container that held something an incident report later described as “a green leafy substance.” The contents tested positive for THC and turned out to be marijuana. Williams claimed  that his manager was the one who packed his bag (and was thus responsible for the misstep), but the young guard was nonetheless arrested at the airport and charged with possession of less than two ounces of marijuana, an offense that is a misdemeanor in the state of Texas.   If this were a different era, Williams’ story may have ended  with a considerable suspension passed down by the league, a weighty fine, and an undeniable public relations crisis. Instead, the Mavericks player’s October 26 arrest only magnified a growing disconnect within professional sports: the tension between progressive league policies and a shifting patchwork of restrictive federal and state regulations.   From the perspective of the National Basketball Association (NBA), Williams’ alleged possession is a non-issue—at least officially. In 2023, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and the league were able to come to terms  on a new seven-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). One of the agreement’s most significant adjustments involved the removal  of marijuana from the league’s list of banned substances. The NBA has now formally  stopped randomized testing for cannabis, a move that effectively decriminalizes use  for its players.             Under the new CBA, marijuana is treated  much like alcohol. The only true path that the league has towards intervention  would be if a player were to show signs of addiction and dependency or if the individual were believed to be under the influence while acting in an official league or team capacity. The NBA’s policy shift is in line with broader societal acceptance  and a growing understanding that marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug. The change also brings the league in line  with other major sports leagues. For example, the NHL no longer punishes  players for positive marijuana tests, instead referring athletes whose readings contain “abnormally high levels” of THC to substance abuse programs. The MLB also removed  cannabis from their banned list in 2019, with the NFL now significantly limiting  their respective testing window to a two-week timeframe during training camp, having also replaced suspensions with fines.   However, these progressive policies are an idealistic bubble that bursts the moment a player steps into the wrong jurisdiction. While the NBA may not punish Williams for his marijuana possession , the state of Texas certainly can. Use of recreational marijuana remains  illegal in Texas, with the charges  faced by Williams (possession of less than two ounces) being a Class B misdemeanor carrying a potential penalty of 180 days in prison and a fine of up to $2,000. These potential punishments highlight the essence of the professional sports weed paradox: what may be permissible for an athlete in their capacity as an employee is still criminal  as a visitor or resident of the state of Texas.   The arrest  of the Mavericks guard itself was a product of this very jurisdictional clash. The TSA agent who originally spotted the marijuana container is a federal employee . Under federal law, cannabis is still  a Schedule I controlled substance, and U.S. airports are under federal jurisdiction. While TSA agents are primarily tasked with security and not drug enforcement, they have a standing policy  to notify local law enforcement when illegal drugs like Williams’ “green leafy substance” are discovered. Once the police were called, Texas state law took over, and Williams was placed into custody.   Brandon Williams’ situation differs significantly from the cautionary tales of the previous generation. One needs to look no further than Ricky Williams, the former Miami Dolphins running back and 1998 Heisman Trophy winner whose career in the NFL was repeatedly derailed  by punishments for positive cannabis tests. These infractions culminated in a one-year suspension  for the running back, forcing him to miss the entire 2006 season. At the time of Ricky Williams’ violation, professional sports leagues were functioning  under a framework that was punitive and harsh. While leagues today have moved  on, the law in many places has not.   Modern athletes face a stark geographic disparity  when it comes to marijuana regulation. More than 80% of teams across the four major American professional leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL) currently  play in locations where recreational or medical marijuana has been legalized. Players are now able to legally purchase cannabis in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Portland, creating a confusing legal minefield for players who travel constantly.   Texas is amongst a handful of states (including Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) that are home to major professional sports teams but do not have any broad laws legalizing  marijuana use. Thus, a player for the Mavericks is often governed by a set of laws that is entirely different from a player on the Sacramento Kings or Brooklyn Nets, simply based on the home address of their team.   The fallout following the arrest of Williams underscores that such situations may be the new normal for leagues around the country. The Mavericks declined  to comment on the legal matter faced by their guard, instead listing Williams as “questionable” for their next game due to “personal reasons,” which was the same designation  causing the guard to miss fixtures prior to his arrest becoming public. Notably, there was no league-issued suspension or team-issued condemnation reprimanding  Williams for his actions. Instead, all parties involved seemed to want to resolve the situation as quickly and quietly as possible.   The incident serves as a clear warning message to other players: changes to league policy will not grant immunity from the law. The NBA’s new rules  surrounding marijuana serve to protect players from their employer, not from the police. Individual athletes must now come to terms with an additional layer of personal responsibility, navigating not only the playbook of their team but also the contradictory and complex landscape of the twenty-nine-plus other cities they visit each season.   While Brandon Williams’ legal trouble is minor in the grand scheme of the criminal justice system (especially amidst headlines about FBI investigations  and federal charges ), it makes the perfect illustration for the awkward transition phase now faced by American marijuana policy. The world of sports has, in many ways, crossed the finish line, now viewing cannabis as an issue of personal choice  or wellness rather than athletic integrity. However, until alignment  between state and federal laws is reached, players will continue to be at risk of getting caught in a sticky gray area , with potential legal traps waiting at their next airport security checkpoint.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

Playing History Tyon Grant-Foster is no stranger to NCAA men’s basketball. Grant-Foster began his collegiate basketball career as a member of the class of 2018, playing two seasons at Indian Hills Community College (a non-NCAA institution) before transferring to Kansas for the 2020-2021 season. Following his stint at Kansas, Grant-Foster transferred to DePaul. During DePaul’s first game of the season, he collapsed. Grant-Foster’s next 16 months were full of medical testing and multiple heart surgeries, ultimately leading to a diagnosis of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.  Grant-Foster returned to the court for the 2023-2024 season playing for the Grand Canyon University Antelopes in Phoenix, Arizona. In his first season with the Lopes, he led the team to the NCAA tournament and its first tournament win over Saint Mary’s. Grant-Foster was the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) player of the year and averaged 14.8 points per game. He returned for the 2024-2025 season where he again led the Lopes to the NCAA tournament before transferring to Gonzaga for the 2025-2026 season.  NCAA Eligibility In NCAA athletics, athletes have five years to play four seasons of collegiate sports. Unfortunately, his life-saving heart surgery ate up a year of eligibility. Grant-Foster requested an eligibility waiver that would allow him to play at Gonzaga for the 2025-2026 season. The NCAA denied his waiver request. Gonzaga appealed and requested reconsideration, which was denied. Grant-Foster then filed suit in Spokane County Superior Court requesting a preliminary injunction that would allow him to play for the 2025-2026 season.  From the Basketball Court to the Courtroom On Wednesday, October 22 the NCAA filed a notice of removal, which was 24-hours before Grant-Foster’s preliminary injunction hearing. Grant-Foster’s attorneys timely filed a motion to remand. On Friday, October 24, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted Grant-Foster’s motion to remand. The Court stated that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the NCAA did not identify a single federal issue in the complaint. Thus, the injunction hearing was set to be heard in Spokane County Superior Court on Monday, October 27 with Judge Marla Polin.  In a 2.5 hour-long hearing on the preliminary injunction, Grant-Foster’s lawyers argued that Grant-Foster was being discriminated against by the NCAA because of his disability. Washington Court Rule 65  states that to prevail on a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff must show that (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party her or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the applicant’s claim that notice should not be required. Grant-Fosters attorneys argued that he is a member of a protected class, and that the NCAA cannot discriminate against him. In Washington state, it is unlawful for any person or institution operating a place of public accommodation — including public and private colleges — to discriminate based on the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability. In addition to the arguments that the NCAA was discriminating against Grant-Foster because of his disability, Grant-Foster’s main argument surrounded the blanket waiver allowing junior college athletes to have an extra year of eligibility if their eligibility was set to expire at the end of the 2024-2025 season. This was based on the decision from a District Court in Tennessee that granted quarterback Diego Pavia a preliminary injunction that allowed him to play a sixth season of college football.  The Verdict is In On the day of the injunction hearing, Gonzaga was set to play an exhibition game against Eastern Oregon. Judge Polin found that Grant-Foster is a member of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against because of his disability. She also said that Grant-Foster would be harmed if he did not play for Gonzaga this season, thus granting him an injunction. One hour after the hearing, Grant-Foster went straight from the courthouse to the Kennel, and started in the Bulldog’s exhibition game.  Shelby Stevens is a civil litigation attorney and is a graduate of Gonzaga University School of Law. She was most recently the Pacific Northwest law school representative for the Conduct Detrimental law student board from 2024-2025.