After an arbitration ruling by distinguished sports attorney and former NBA executive Jeffrey Mishkin, Los Angeles Clippers forward Derrick Jones Jr. will have to pay his former agent Aaron Turner of Verus Sports a 4% commission ($1.2 million) on the three-year, $30 million contract Jones signed with the Clippers in July of 2024 during the NBA offseason. The 2020 NBA Slam Dunk Contest winner had a career year statistically  for the Dallas Mavericks in the 2023-24 NBA season in which Jones was a key piece in helping the Mavericks reach the 2024 NBA Finals, starting in 66 games out of the 76 games he played in, averaging 8.6 points and shooting 34.3% from three-point land which were all career highs for Jones at that point. Jones’ career year with the Mavericks in 2023-24 earned him a hefty pay raise for the contract he signed with the Clippers up from the one-year $2.7 million veteran’s minimum contract he signed with the Mavericks in the 2023 NBA offseason. But at dispute in this case was whether Jones owed any of the $30 million contract to his former agent that Jones says he directly negotiated with the Clippers last year. Jones signed a Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC) with Turner back in 2016. Specifically, paragraph 6 of the SPAC states that a player or agent can terminate the agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all provided that “effective 15 days after written notice of termination is given to the other party.” Allegedly , on June 21, 2024, after the Mavericks had lost to the Boston Celtics in the 2024 NBA Finals, the Mavericks offered Jones, through his agent Turner, a three-year, $27 million contract. Jones was unhappy with this offer as he expected a higher figure. Jones testified that Turner told him his market would be somewhere around the area of a four-year, $45 million contract. Turner denies making such a statement to Jones. With Jones being dissatisfied with Turner’s representation, Jones sent Turner an email on June 26, 2024, saying he was terminating their SPAC. Two days later Jones asked Turner to waive the 15-day notice, but Tuner declined. Even though the SPAC was still operative, Jones at that point was without Turner’s representation negotiating for him and bringing him team offers. Jones was talking to other agents during the 2024 playoffs, ultimately signing with Klutch Sports Group. Eventually contract talks with the Mavericks fell through, but   the Clippers offered Jones a three-year, $30 million contract. With the Clippers making this same offer to another player, time was of the essence; both players were told that the first to accept the offer would receive it. Jones testified that the Clippers came directly to him with the offer and that although the NBPA was on the phone with Jones “for help,” Jones negotiated the deal himself. Jones ended up accepting this offer from the Clippers and signed with them on July 9, 2024. Turner was represented by prominent sports attorney Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal, and through Heitner, Turner made convincing key arguments that swayed Mishkin to rule in his favor. First, Turner argued that the SPAC was operative when Jones signed with the Clippers, entitling him to his commission. The termination notice was sent to Turner on June 26, 2024, and was effective July 11, 2024. Jones signed with the Clippers on July 9, 2024, 13 days after the termination notice was sent which would fall within the 15-day notice period.   The SPAC remained in force on July 9, 2024, when Jones signed with the Clippers. Second, Turner contends that his negotiations with the Mavericks were instrumental in securing Jones’ three-year, $30 million contract with the Clippers. Although being $3 million more, Turner argued that the Clippers offer was essentially equivalent to the three-year, $27 million offer the Mavericks made to Jones. Turner accounted for California state taxes and cost of living compared to Texas which has no state income tax. Additionally, Turner argued that although he did not represent Jones in any negotiations after June 26, 2024, Jones still benefitted from and used, Tuner’s assistance, advice, and counseling in his negotiations with the Clippers. Specifically, Turner’s negotiations with the Mavericks and Turner’s work to determine Jones’ value in the NBA free agency market. Jones, represented by Drew Tulumello and Zachary Schreiber of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Andrew Latack of Klutch Sports Group, offered several counterarguments. Jones argued that exigent circumstances justified shortening the 15-day notice requirement. Jones asserted that he should not be penalized due to the Mavericks making it all the way to the NBA Finals which ran so close to the start of free agency, a schedule which was out of Jones’ control. Jones also asserted that the notice period is meant to protect the player and not the agent. Jones’ other main argument was that Turner is not entitled to his commission because Turner did not engage in any discussions or conduct “individual compensation negotiations” with the Clippers on Jones’ behalf. According to Jones, “NBPA jurisprudence is clear that an agent is only entitled to a commission on an executed contract that he actually negotiates.” Because Turner did not negotiate and actually execute the contract Jones signed with the Clippers, he is not entitled to compensation as Jones allegedly negotiated the Clippers contract he signed himself. In siding with Turner, Mishkin decided that the termination of the SPAC was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Therefore, the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into the contract with the Clippers. Mishkin also was not persuaded by Jones’ argument that exigent circumstances existed to warrant shortening the 15-day window. Even though the Mavericks made a deep playoff run in 2024 which prevented Jones from making decisions regarding his representation earlier, Jones still could have fired Turner earlier. Mishkin brought up Jones’ own testimony that by 2023, he had grown dissatisfied with Turner’s representation and contemplated firing him. Mishkin also highlighted that Jones’ argument is further undermined by his testimony that he was communicating with other agents during the playoffs. Mishkin also disagreed with Jones’ narrow view of agent services. Conducting individual compensation negotiations with NBA teams is one of several duties described as “contract services” under the SPAC. Mishkin went on to say that “Jones’s unduly narrow view of compensable services would lead to the absurd result that an agent who diligently assists, advises and counsels a player and represents the player in negotiations would not be entitled to any compensation if the player was offered a contract directly by a club and no negotiation over the terms of the contract took place.” Mishkin stated that so long as an agent is fulfilling his duties under the terms of the SPAC, whether the agent or the player is the one to receive the offer from the NBA team that the player accepts and signs with is not dispositive of an agent’s entitlement to compensation. And here, Mishkin found that Turner contractually performed his duties. In conclusion, Mishkin was convinced that Turner diligently represented Jones and continued to follow his obligations even after Jones notified him that he was terminating their SPAC. Mishkin stated that while it was Jones’ absolute right to terminate the relationship with Turner, under the express terms of the SPAC that termination was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Because the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into his contract with the Clippers, Turner is entitled to a fee of 4% of that contract under the SPAC. Jones could petition a federal court to vacate Mishkin’s decision and arbitration award, but it is highly unlikely that a judge would overturn Miskin’s arbitration award. When it comes to arbitration awards in professional sports, there is precedent  stating that, “Arbitration awards are generally presumed valid, review is ‘extremely deferential,’ and vacatur is appropriate only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” Considering Mishkin’s broad experience on sports law and NBA related legal matters, it’s hard to see a judge vacating his arbitration award in favor of Turner. This player-agent dispute highlights the regulations and rules that NBA players and NBA agents must follow under the NBPA SPAC, which governs the legal relationship between a player and his agent. Specifically, this dispute shows the commissions that agents are righteously owed when properly performing services under the SPAC. Further, this dispute highlights the arbitration process as the method for resolving  any and all disputes in SPAC’s between player agents and individual players as an NBPA SPAC contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Romen Richardson is a 3L at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC. Romen is currently the President of Howard Law’s Sports & Entertainment Law Students Association (SELSA). Romen aspires to be a prominent sports & entertainment attorney after graduating law school, and also hopes to one day be an NBA Agent. You can follow Romen here on LinkedIn .

Where it Began Women’s flag football has been around since the 1970s, but it has never really gained much traction until now. The amount of recognition flag football has received has grown exponentially within the last few years.   Growth in Schools Florida was the first state to recognize girls flag football as a high school sport about 20 years ago. Since then, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Arkansas, Alabama, and California have all followed suit.   The sport saw its biggest surge starting in 2020 when the NAIA came together with the NFL to officially recognize flag football as a collegiate sport. By 2023, almost half a million girls between the ages of 6-17 played a season of flag football across the country. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics declared women’s flag football as an emerging sport in 2020 and expects it to be an invitational sport for the 2025-26 season. The NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics to add women’s flag football to the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women Program across all divisions.   Global Recognition Women’s flag football was played for the first time at The World Games in 2022 where 16 teams across the world, including Team USA, were able to compete and raise awareness on a global stage. After the successful debut, flag football returned to the World Games in 2025 with over 100 countries having a flag football team. Flag football will also be included for the first time in the 2028 Olympics hosted in Los Angeles. With these additions, flag football athletes will have more opportunities to perform at the highest levels as the sport continues to grow rapidly across the globe.   NIL Deals As popularity continues to grow for women’s flag football, standout athletes in the sport are earning NIL deals with major brands. Among the stars in flag football, Janasia Wilson, Diana Flores, and Ashlea Klam are forerunners in receiving deals for flag football.   Janasia Wilson, a talented athlete from Irvington High School, signed the first Nike deal for girl’s flag football. Dazed Studio ran a campaign for the reintroduction of one of Nike’s sneakers called the “Field General” where Nike athletes were selected based on being a leader in their prospective sport. Wilson was chosen along with Colin Kaepernick and Kayvon Thibodeaux to showcase the sneaker. Wilson also appeared on a Nike advertisement with NFL star Josh Allen, amongst other athletes, to showcase the sport. Wilson continues to raise awareness for flag football through Nike and represent her hometown Irvington.   Diana Flores is the team captain and quarterback for the Mexican national team. Flores won two national college championships and then went on to win the world flag football championship in the 2022 World Games. Flores continued to make headlines when she accepted the first flag football Global Ambassador position for Under Armour. In this role, Flores will be able to showcase her own skills and bring the sport to other countries which is a huge step for flag football.   Ashlea Klam, is a talented wide receiver for the U.S. National Team and Keiser University. Klam helped the U.S. National Team win the IFAF Women’s Flag Football World Championship in 2024. Klam has signed a few deals including the data-based analytics platform called scoutSMART and the head gear brand SYZMIK. The scoutSMART platform takes player data and analyzes the level of play a coach can expect from an athlete. With this deal, women’s flag football is now part of their database. In addition, Klam can be seen wearing her SYZMIK headband to prevent or lessen the impact of head injuries while playing. Lastly, Klam was named a Global Ambassador for the Houston Texans where she further promotes the sport.    The Future is Female Women’s flag football continues to expand throughout the country and globally. With major advocates such as the NFL and major brands like Nike and Under Armour, women have the stage to gain the recognition they deserve. As this expansion continues, more women will be able to have the opportunity to compete at the high school level, collegiate level, and even professionally. Funding will be more available as schools continue to add flag football programs and popularity continues to soar. Women’s flag football is certainly here to stay.

One of the better developments in college baseball over the last few years is the proliferation of coaching staffs and the advent of a third paid assistant coach. For decades, NCAA Division I staffs had been limited to a full-time head coach and two full-time assistant coaches while also customarily adding a volunteer position. This volunteer position came with no benefits, often no housing, and usually offered only limited money via a program's offseason camps and/or clinics.   As a result, numerous volunteer coaches, filed suit in November 2022 under the caption Smart v. NCAA , alleging that NCAA rules and member‑school practices restrained competition in violation of the Sherman Act by effectively fixing their compensation at zero, The coaches, through their representation, showed the court that the NCAA, by forcing programs to hire ‘unpaid’ assistants, tested these principles, while also creating hardships for aspiring young coaches looking to break into the coaching industry.   In response to mounting pressure and litigation, the NCAA rescinded the volunteer‑coach classification policy in 2023 with the effective date being July of that year. The settlement class covers volunteer coaches who held these positions between November 29, 2018 and July 1, 2023. This class is estimated at approximately 1,000 members and distribution among class members is based on a formula taking into account years of service and institutional affiliation. Judge William Shubb (E.D. Cal.) had given preliminary approval of the settlement earlier in the year and later held a fairness hearing to evaluate whether final approval was warranted.   Accordingly, the court recently granted approval to the settlement. Under the agreement, the NCAA will pay approximately $49.25 million in aggregate. Of the total $49.25 million, about $32 million to $33 million is allocated to class member payments. The remainder covers attorneys’ fees, costs for the claims administrator, economists, and a modest contingency fund. Some commentary indicates that each coach may receive an average of around $36,000, though in practice payments will vary (some coaches at larger institutions or with longer tenures may receive higher awards). The plaintiffs’ counsel reportedly invested over 7,400 hours in the case and intend to seek fees of around $16.4 million (i.e. ~33.3% of the fund).   Judge Shubb, in granting approval, recognized both the strengths and uncertainties of the NCAA’s defense and noted that the settlement captures over 90% of the claimed damages—a favorable recovery in an antitrust class setting. From the NCAA’s vantage point, settling obviates the risk of a full trial loss (with potential treble damage exposure under Section 4 of the Clayton Act) and avoids further reputational and financial exposure. The NCAA continues to deny liability, asserting that the volunteer‑coach bylaw did not violate antitrust law and instead created opportunities for coaches. While the outcome of this case is obviously good news in and of itself for coaches and college baseball as a whole, the fact that more coaches now have the opportunity to pursue their “dream job” of coaching the sport at the Division I level is significant. In the past, the scarcity of paid positions likely swayed qualified rising coaches away from the profession. With the advent third paid assistant as well as other support staff positions being more prevalent across the country, coaches who may have pursued other careers may be more likely to stay in college baseball.   It’s no secret that the changing landscape of college athletics has led many prominent coaches to retire earlier than some may have expected. We’ve recently seen Hall of Fame caliber coaches like Nick Saban, Mike Jay Wright, Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Tony Bennett, and Bruce Pearl step away from their respective jobs. It would be naïve to believe the heightened demands of NIL, the transfer portal, and roster retention played no role in those retirements. Therefore, removing another “barrier” like the lack of compensation for up-and-coming coaches is a necessary step to ensure we continue to see the most qualified individuals running programs across all of college sports.   Brendan Bell is a 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law and  can be found on X @_bbell5

In August 2025 , Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores scored a significant procedural victory in his discrimination lawsuit against three of the National Football League’s (NFL) teams (Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District denied the NFL’s request to compel arbitration and found that the NFL’s arbitration process contains serious flaws, including that it permit s  commissioner Roger Goodell to serve as the arbitrator. This landmark decision opposes the NFL’s standard procedures of funneling employee disputes into private arbitration.    A History of The Claims:  In February 2022,  a fter being terminated as the head coach of the Miami Dolphins, Brian Flores filed a lawsuit against the NFL for alleged racial discrimination in the NFL’s hiring process. Though Miami went 24-25 in his most recently concluded season,   Flores was still relieved of his position a s head coach . After termination, Flores applied to the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans for the same position previously held with Miami.   Although Flores possesses a long history of successful coaching and has fourteen years  of experience , he was denied the position by all three teams in 2022. Flores coached with the  New England Patriots   in several different positions from 2008 to 2018, where he helped coach the team to four Super Bowl Championships and worked with the legendary Bill Belichick.   Flores has been open in stating how the NFL is racially segregated in certain aspects. He has called attention to the fact that, out of its thirty-two owners, none are Black. Flores also stated his belief that the interviews he received with other teams were to satisfy the NFL’s  Rooney Rule . This mandates that every team “ must interview   a minority candidate for head coach, general manager, and top assistant coach positions.” The NFL implemented these rules in   2003 in   an effort to increase diversity amongst the high positions within the NFL.   An Eye-opening Text:  Prior to his interview with the Giants, Flores received a text from Bill Belichick. The following is how the conversation is described within the lawsuit through screenshots. “Sounds like you have landed – congrats!!” Belichick texted to Flores. “Did you hear something I didn’t hear?” Flores replied. Belichick responded, “Giants?!?!?!” Flores responded, “I interview on Thursday. I think I have a shot at it.” “Got it – I hear from Buffalo & NYG that you are their guy,” Belichick replied. Later, seeking clarification, Flores texted, “Coach, are you talking to Brian Flores or Brian Daboll? “Just making sure.” “Sorry… I doubled-checked & I misread the text. I think they are naming Daboll. I’m sorry about that. BB” After this confusing conversation, Flores then conducted his interview a few days later with a full understanding that he has minimal odds of being offered this position. The NFL’s Push for Arbitration: The NFL moved to compel arbitration, noting this standard in coaching contracts.   In 2023,  District Court Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that Flores’s claims against the Dolphins, as well as claims brought by co-plaintiffs and former coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton against their former employers (the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans) must be pursued through arbitration based on the coaches’ contracts.    However, Flores did not have contracts with the Broncos, Giants, and Texans. Caproni ruled that Flores could proceed with his claims through trial rather than arbitration. This was further upheld by the Second Circuit in August 2025. The Second Circuit expressed its dissatisfaction with the NFL’s arbitration provision. The court stated that this provision  “ contractually provides for no independent arbitral forum, no bilateral dispute resolution, and no procedure. Instead, it offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence by forcing claims to be decided by the NFL's principal executive officer.” The Second Circuit criticized the NFL’s arbitration as an “ arbitration in name only.” Should the Second Circuit’s Reasoning be Applied to the Miami Case? In September 2025, Flores and his co-plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit requesting reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision to arbitrate their claims against the teams they specifically worked for. They argue that the recent ruling in August, which allows claims against the Giants, Broncos, and Texans to proceed in court, should also apply to their remaining claims based on the reasoning the Second Circuit stated. Flores stated that the prior ruling  “ constitutes definitive controlling law.” The Fight for Change: Flores is hoping to lead a change within the NFL in terms of racial discrimination. “ The people  who make the decisions and the people who are working – the players, 70% are Black, and the people who are making decisions, the majority are White… what we are trying to do with this lawsuit is really create change. I think that people talk about it. We implement a policy here, a policy there. I’m not looking for fluff policies.” After filing this  lawsuit, Flores expressed that he understands the risk of losing the coaching career he loves. However, he insists it would be worth the loss for generations to come if he could succeed in challenging this systemic racism. Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

Duke University, one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States and home to one of the country’s most famous basketball programs, has found itself in the middle of a courtroom battle. This case is not about basketball wins or losses. It’s about something much bigger, protecting the Duke brand. The lawsuit centers around Duke Athletics’ registered trademarks. “A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another.” (United States Patent and Trademark Office, n.d.). Duke argues that online sellers have been using its logos and name without permission to sell counterfeit merchandise on popular e-commerce platforms like Temu and AliExpress. According to the complaint, these sellers created look-alike websites designed to trick fans, hide behind offshore bank accounts and payment processors, and moved money across borders to make themselves difficult to track. The average consumer believes they are buying authentic Duke gear but instead are buying knockoffs. Now Duke is seeking a permanent injunction to bar the defendants from using Duke trademarks or any reproductions, copies or “colorable imitations” in the marketing, sale, shipping, storing and other uses of products. Some of the counterfeit products featured designs tied to Cooper Flagg, a basketball phenom and the recent No. 1 pick in the NBA Draft. That makes the knockoffs especially problematic, blurring the line between official Duke merchandise and fakes at a time when the university’s brand is highly visible on a national stage. It also comes at a moment when Flagg’s own name, image, and likeness (NIL) is at an all-time high. As one of the most talked-about rookies of all time, his personal brand carries immense commercial value, and counterfeiters tapping into that momentum not only exploit Duke’s trademarks but also undermine Flagg’s ability to control and benefit from his own NIL rights. Duke owns numerous federally registered trademarks that cover apparel, athletic uniforms, and the use of its name in connection with apparel and sports competitions. Using those marks without authorization is not creative, it is outright trademark infringement. This is not the first time a university has been forced to fight this battle. In the case, LSU v. Smack Apparel,  four major universities sued Smack Apparel for selling t-shirts using the school’s colors and identifying marks that looked like their official gear. Smack Apparel did this purposefully to capitalize on the school’s popularity. The court reasoned that Smack’s shirts were likely to confuse fans into thinking the products were licensed, and that the company was deliberately trying to capitalize on the schools’ reputations. When fans cannot tell whether a product is officially licensed or not, the trademark registration has already been infringed. The issue extends far beyond a few rogue sellers. Counterfeit goods in the United States overwhelmingly come from China and Hong Kong. In fact, nearly 90 percent of all trademark-infringing products seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2024 originated from those regions. (The Truth Behind Counterfeits , n.d.). This is not just about sports merchandise. Everything from electronics to pharmaceuticals is affected. A 2025 study by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation found that nearly half of sampled products flagged as suspicious on Chinese-based platforms like Temu, AliExpress, and SHEIN were likely counterfeits. Even China’s own regulators acknowledge the scale of the problem, reporting tens of thousands of trademark infringement investigations each year and millions of counterfeit items seized through e-commerce and export hubs. (Clemens, 2025). The economic cost of counterfeiting is staggering. It siphons billions of dollars away from legitimate companies, robs governments of tax revenue, destroys jobs in manufacturing and retail, and leaves consumers with products that are often lower quality or even unsafe. In sports, counterfeit merchandise undermines licensing deals, cheats athletes and schools out of revenue, and erodes the trust fans place in the brands they support. For Duke, the lawsuit is about more than hoodies and t-shirts. It’s about defending decades of brand value and making sure that when a fan buys something with the Duke logo, they know it is authentic. If their trademark registration is not defended, then it could be lost. The owner of a trademark registration can lose their rights if they fail to defend their mark and allow widespread infringement to go unchecked. Trademarks are built on consistent use and enforcement, if you do not protect them, they weaken. Duke is doing the smart thing by filing the lawsuit because once counterfeits flood the market, cleaning up the mess becomes far more expensive and damaging than taking steps to protect your marks from the start. Counterfeiting may feel like a distant issue, but it touches all of us. If you have bought a fake jersey, a knockoff handbag, or a suspiciously cheap gadget online, you have seen the problem firsthand. Duke’s lawsuit shows that in sports and in business, protecting your trademark registrations is of the utmost importance to protect your future. The real win does not come from scoring points on the court, it comes from safeguarding what you have built off of it so no one else can steal it.

There is no doubt women's soccer has rapidly evolved in both   skill and popularity, leading to more opportunities for women to reach the professional level. Traditionally, the pipeline to the pros includes time in the youth and college levels, with some college players conceding their last year of eligibility to move onto professional play. However, women’s soccer is beginning to see young players take alternative pathways.   In March 2025, Mckenna Whitman became the youngest player to appear in the National Women’s Soccer League (“NWSL”) at just 14 years old. Before that, she was the youngest athlete  to sign a Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) deal with Nike and was the youngest professional women’s soccer player, at the age of 13. Like Whitman, players such as Melanie Barcenas, Chloe Ricketts, and KK Ream forewent their collegiate eligibility, signing with NWSL teams before the age of 15.   While we are seeing an increase in the number of girls skipping the collegiate level, none of this would be possible without one player in particular: Olivia Moultrie. Moultrie decommitted from the University of North Carolina and joined the Portland Thorns at the age of 13, with the conditions that she would not sign a professional contract and was not allowed to play in official games. These conditions, however, did not satisfy Moultrie’s desire to compete professionally. In 2021, Moultrie filed a lawsuit against the NWSL to challenge her ineligibility based on its Age Rule.   In Moultrie’s lawsuit, she sought an injunction to prevent the NWSL from enforcing its Age Rule, which required players to be at least 18 years old. The heart of Moultrie’s argument was her exclusion was causing irreparable harm by impeding her development as a soccer player and affecting her professional career. The NWSL argued the rule was beneficial for minor athletes’ development, for protecting from concerns in the Safe Sport Act, and for avoiding the complications of employment contracts involving minors. The Safe Sport Act was created to promote the safety and wellbeing of minor athletes, while protecting them from abuse within their sport. Along with testimony from collegiate coaches and professional players to support her arguments, Moultrie pointed to the public interest of her challenge, noting Major League Soccer, the male equivalent to the NWSL, has no age limit and minors are often employed by teams. Moultrie was successful in her suit, demonstrating the irreparable harm she suffered by being excluded from competition.   Following the lawsuit, the NWSL set forth several rules regarding minor players and their contracts. Amongst these rules, teams are now allowed two players under the age of eighteen, who must be signed to a guaranteed contract thar runs through the season of when the player turns eighteen. Additionally, the player cannot be traded or waived until they turn eighteen or with the consent of both the player and a parent.   This ruling opens the gate for young athletes to approach their careers in a manner geared toward reaching the highest level at a much faster rate. A side effect of this trend, however, may affect the world of college soccer. For example, if the rule limiting the number of minors on each NWSL team is challenged and deemed to be causing “irreparable harm,” more minors could forfeit their collegiate career to play professionally. The ruling also begs the question of how college soccer and recruiting will adapt to incentivize players to pursue the college route, including using the appeal of NIL deals. The rise of young players going straight to professional teams presents a challenge for women’s college soccer. It also presents a unique opportunity for sports lawyers and agents to represent a minor prodigy on the professional stage.

The Miami Heat sent shockwaves of speculation and excitement through South Florida with their recent trademark filing  for a new “Heat” wordmark—a mark heavily influenced by the fan-favorite “ Vice ” theme. This new wordmark, which features “Heat” in the iconic, neon-style script used by the Vice jerseys since their debut  in the 2017–18 season, has led fans and trademark attorneys alike to wonder  if this move is simply routine intellectual property protection or a sign of a more permanent shift in the team’s branding and future look.   The organization filed their original trademark application on August 27, 2025. This filing marked the first time the team has officially trademarked a “Heat” version of the Vice lettering, as the Heat’s previous five Vice-themed “City Edition” uniforms had all featured  “Miami” on the jersey chest. The city’s love  for the Vice uniforms is well-documented and longstanding—the original “Vice” uniform, which draws its inspiration from the neon signage at the former Miami Arena, was even so popular that it was brought back to replace  both the Heat’s white “Association Edition” and blood red “Culture” City Edition uniforms for the last stretch of the 2024–25 season. The wild popularity of the Vice uniforms combined with the new trademark filing are the strongest indicators yet that the Heat might be considering a full rebrand, choosing to integrate the Vice aesthetic into their core identity in an attempt to capitalize on fan demand. These rumors were further fueled by a second application  on September 9, 2025, this time using the Vice colorway—highlighting the Heat’s efforts to make these colors an even larger part of their brand.   While a rebrand is indeed a possibility, it’s equally important to note that teams will often apply for trademarks as an anticipatory measure to protect  their organizational intellectual property. This new wordmark could be used for a variety of purposes: for merchandise, a long-term branding strategy, or merely to prevent other users from profiting off of the team’s incredibly popular design. No matter what, it’s clear this filing goes beyond a hint at a future jersey and is instead a calculated legal step to secure (and potentially expand) one of the franchise’s most valuable assets.   The Filing: An “Intent-to-Use” Application The Heat’s trademark application was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), presumably using what is known as an “ Intent-to-Use ” (ITU) application under the Lanham Act’s Section 1(b). This is a crucial step to securing trademark protection, as an ITU application allows  a party to place a trademark on reserve based on a sincere good faith intention to use it in commerce in the near future. Effectively, the filer is putting a hold on the mark so other users do not get to use it or register it as the ITU applicant completes their business plans for their intellectual property.   For the Heat, this allows them to not have to rush the release of a product featuring their new wordmark in the near future because the filing in itself is a declaration of their plans and gives them an early date of rights against future applicants. For the trademark to achieve full registration in the future, the Heat will ultimately have to prove “ use in commerce ,” which is done by selling goods like jerseys and merchandise bearing the mark.   A Two-Pronged Strategy: Protect the Brand While Pushing Commercial Expansion From a legal perspective, the Heat’s trademark application serves both defensive and offensive functions in terms of the team’s brand strategy. Defensively, the Heat are protecting their brand equity. The “Vice” campaign has been a commercial juggernaut for the organization, creating an immense amount of brand equity. Generally speaking, the fundamental legal purpose of a trademark is to act as a source identifier  protecting against consumer confusion. By filing for the “Heat” Vice wordmark, the organization is bolstering the tools they have at hand in their legal arsenal against unlicensed merchandise and counterfeiters. The application filing expands the team’s protected intellectual property, which will make it easier to issue cease-and-desist letters and pursue litigation against infringers of their popular aesthetic in the future—proactively fencing in their brand and protecting the revenue streams generated by it. The recent filing of a second application is similarly vital, since whenever a mark is altered, a new trademark must be filed to document the adjustments. Here, the Heat seem to be working diligently to protect their Vice marks, including any updates as they continue to develop this aspect of their team branding.   On the offensive end, the Heat are also paving the way for a potential future rebrand. As mentioned above, while the previous “Miami” Vice wordmarks are all protected, this is the first time the Heat name itself has been seen in the Vice script. Securing this trademark will be a critical first step before the wordmark could ever appear on an official NBA “Icon” or “Association” edition jersey, potentially signaling a full team rebrand. Without having this registered trademark, any such move would leave a core piece of the team’s new identity in legal jeopardy.   A Look at the Heat’s Other Marks The Miami Heat Limited Partnership owns  a wide variety of trademarks, which include the original “Miami” Vice wordmark, the standard “HEAT” mark used since 1999, “HEAT CULTURE” and “EL HEAT CULTURA,” “COURT CULTURE,” the number 35, and the full post-1999 Ball and Hoop logo with “MIAMI HEAT” beneath it, among many others.   Pat Riley, the “Trademark King” Beyond trademarks owned by the Heat, team President Pat Riley is famous  in his own right for his intellectual property endeavors. Riley notoriously  owns the trademark for the phrase “three-peat,” a term he began using in the late 1980s while he coached several incredible Los Angeles Lakers teams. Riley’s company, Riles & Company, Inc., owns  at least six live trademarks for variations of the phrase, allowing him to cover a wide variety of merchandise.   Famously, Riley also has a history of licensing the “three-peat” trademark to teams on the cusp of winning their third straight championship, mandating that a portion of the proceeds often go to charity . Savvy business moves like this one have led him to be viewed as a sort of “trademark king,” a testament to Riley’s sharp understanding  of intellectual property and branding extending far beyond the basketball court.   Whether the new “Heat” wordmark is a sign of a full-on reshuffling of the team identity or simply a smart business move, one thing is for certain: both the Miami Heat and their executive leadership are always looking for ways to innovate and stay ahead of the curve—both on and off of the court.   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.

Introduction Elite athletes can be franchise-changing, but when off-court demands swing into the extraordinary, GCs must tread carefully. The Kawhi Leonard saga, marked by no-show deals, ownership stakes, and endorsements with minimal obligations, offers a vital case study. Striking a balance between acquiring talent and safeguarding integrity, compliance, and long-term reputation is critical. In many organizations, General Counsel may not have a direct seat at the table when player contracts are negotiated as that role often belongs to the General Manager, President of Operations, or another senior executive depending on the team’s management structure. However, the GC should still be clued in, especially when unconventional or high-risk demands surface. Even if legal is not directly negotiating the deal, compliance with league rules and corporate governance requirements remains a legal function. When things go wrong, the fallout isn’t limited to sport operations, it becomes an organizational crisis, with potential financial penalties, sanctions, and reputational damage. These risks can be mitigated by ensuring that all relevant stakeholders, including the GC, are informed and involved early in the process. This article serves as a brief primer for GCs, Associate GCs, and other Compliance and Risk Management components to a sports organization/team of issues that may arise in contract negotiations.   Know Where the Line Is…and Don’t Cross It Key Insight: Kawhi Leonard’s camp (via his uncle, Dennis Robertson) reportedly requested a partial ownership stake in the Toronto Maple Leafs and other MLSE-affiliated companies, plus $10 million per year in “no-show” sponsorship income, essentially endorsements without any promotional or appearance obligations [1] . Implications: Ownership requests tied to team parent companies may exceed what leagues and corporate governance allow. 'No-show' income, even outside standard contracts, may trigger legal and ethical scrutiny from league bodies. Action Steps for GCs and Associate CGCs: Maintain an up-to-date understanding of league rules governing permissible compensation and benefits. Establish internal policies for evaluating off-court offers, ensuring full transparency and compliance. Don’t Undermine Promotional Obligations Key Insight: Leonard's camp reportedly stated, “We don’t want to do anything,” rejecting promotional activity while expecting substantial compensation. Implications: Offers structured to require no effort from the talent may look suspiciously like cap circumvention. Such agreements risk league action, as seen with this year’s NBA investigation into a $28 million “no-show” deal with Aspiration. Action Steps: Any endorsement or sponsorship compensation must be tied to verifiable deliverables i.e., appearances, promotional content, etc. Ensure agreements include enforceable performance clauses with measured deliverables. Evaluate Requests Through a Governance Lens Key Insight : Some of Leonard's demands mirrored what he later allegedly received via Aspiration, raising eyebrows about patterns across negotiations. Implications: Recurring patterns of high-level off-court requests suggest possible strategies to evade compensation limits, albeit informally. Failing to scrutinize such demands may expose the organization to regulatory risk. Action Steps: Consult procurement, compliance, and legal teams before entertaining unconventional proposals. Insist on documented rationales and compliance reviews before entering unusual agreement structures. Leverage Firmness as a Negotiation Tool Key Insight: The Raptors ultimately declined the ownership and no-show sponsorship proposals, while the Clippers opted for a different path and, consequently, now face an investigation. Implications : A principled approach can protect both reputation and financial fairness. Some teams may capitulate and risk long-term consequences. Action Steps : Set clear limits in advance: e.g., “No ownership requests; endorsements must require deliverables.” Consider conditional offers: e.g., a performance bonus only if off-court obligations are fully met. Build a Compliance-First Framework Components to Include: Strict Internal Approval Protocols: Ensure non-standard proposals pass legal, compliance, and leadership review Deliverable-Based Agreements: Define specific, verifiable expectations tied to compensation Audit and Reporting Mechanisms – Highlight off-field agreements in regular oversight reports Education & Training: Keep front-office personnel and agents informed about permissible compensation types Goal : Mitigate risk while still offering attractive packages; favor transparency and enforceability. Communication Is Key Best Practices: Tactfully push back on “no-show” proposals: “We’re happy to connect you with sponsors provided there’s a clear agreement for promotional activity.” Use negotiation as an opportunity to set tone: "We value your talent; we just need mutual accountability." Monitor the Broader Landscape Why It Matters: The Kawhi-Aspiration investigation remains active, with possible penalties including fines or pick forfeitures. Historical precedent (e.g. Timberwolves–Joe Smith case) highlights long-term risks of hidden agreements. Action Steps: Stay informed on ongoing league rulings and investigations. Adapt internal policies promptly when enforcement thresholds shift. Conclusion: Win Without Losing In elite athlete negotiations, structure matters as much as star power. By embedding compliance, transparency, and enforceability into every deal, GCs can help their organizations secure top-tier talent without sacrificing integrity or exposing themselves to avoidable risk.   Stephon Burton, aka “Your Favorite Creator’s Favorite Lawyer,” is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] , or on LinkedIn  and X (formerly Twitter) .   [1] For further reading, see: Doug Smith, 'Inside Kawhi Leonard’s bizarre list of secret demands from Raptors and how they line up with Clippers scandal,' Toronto Star, September 9, 2025. Available at: https://www.thestar.com/sports/raptors/inside-kawhi-leonard-s-bizarre-list-of-secret-demands-from-raptors-and-how-they-line/article_9f1b0398-0ebd-4193-bc06-798efda95023.html (note: article is behind a paywall; a subscription is required to access the full text).

In a bombshell revelation on September 3, 2025, investigative reporter Pablo Torre alleged that the Los Angeles Clippers and Kawhi Leonard may have orchestrated a $28 million “no‑show” endorsement agreement with a now‑bankrupt entity, Aspiration, Inc., a purported tree‑planting firm. The deal, structured via Leonard’s own LLC (KL2 Aspire LLC), reportedly entailed $7 million annually from 2022 to 2025, despite there being no public promotion or endorsement activity by Leonard, and a termination clause tied to his Clippers status. Interestingly enough, Clippers owner Steve Ballmer financially backed Aspiration with $50 million, suggesting a potential avenue to funnel compensation outside the NBA’s salary cap framework. To get a better understanding of what’s going on, first we have to understand what an endorsement deal is. An endorsement deal is a type of agreement where a company pays an athlete, entertainer, or other public figure to promote its products or services. In return, the individual allows the company to use their name, image, likeness, or reputation in advertising, marketing, or product placement. These deals can involve things like appearing in commercials, posting on social media, wearing branded gear, or making public appearances on behalf of the brand. At their core, endorsement agreements are about leveraging the credibility and popularity of the individual to boost consumer trust and sales for the company. What Do Typical Endorsement Deals Look Like? Performance & Exposure Based: Customarily, athlete-brand contracts tie compensation to promotional activities i.e. appearances, ads, social media, event participation, and use of name/image. The athlete is contractually obligated to endorse publicly and positively. Fair Market Value Evaluation: Brands pay rates proportional to an athlete’s visibility, draw, and performance metrics. Agencies bargain based on expected ROI and media reach. Compliance with League Rules: In the NBA, the league must be notified of significant third-party deals, and compensation exceeding market value (or contingent upon on-court decisions) risks violating tampering or cap‑circumvention rules. How Does Kawhi’s Deal Differ? No Deliverables: Reports suggest Leonard didn’t promote Aspiration, likely not doing interviews, ads, or appearances. Back‑door Financing: Ballmer’s injection into Aspiration appears timed to give a compensation vehicle disconnected from the NBA's official salary structure. In‑League Ties: The deal tied its continuation to Leonard’s tenure with the Clippers, raising alarms for dependency upon team association. Fake or Inflated Contracts: The endorsement seems disconnected from typical branding functions, instead serving as a workaround for cap limitations. What Should One Watch For in Endorsement Deals (Especially Athlete/Team Linked)? Tangible Deliverables: Any deal should include clear duties: media appearances, social media, photoshoots, public appearances, brand usage, or community events. Market Value Calibration: Compensation must reflect industry standards, not inflated to mask cap circumvention. Contracts should be reviewed by independent valuation experts when in doubt. Disclosure and Oversight: League offices, union representatives, and possibly third-party compliance audits should verify that the deal isn’t lurking outside official salary compliance Term and Termination Clarity: Watch for clauses that terminate when the athlete leaves the team, raising concerns about conditional compensation tied to roster status rather than performance or branding value. Independence from Ownership Structures: Deals structured via companies funded or controlled by team owners should raise immediate suspicion due to conflicts and potential for foul‑play. Red Flags to Signal Caution or Investigation “No‑Show” Clauses: Payment without performance or public promotion. Back‑door Funnel via Shell Companies: Funds routed through obscure LLCs without transparency. Owner‑Controlled Sponsorship Shells: If the owner or entity tied to the team finances the brand or endorsement company, that’s a glaring conflict. Termination Link to Player’s Team Status: Raises questions of conditional compliance. Bankruptcy or Legal Fallout: If the endorsement partner faces legal or financial collapse, it may expose deeper issues. Historical Parallel: The Timberwolves–Joe Smith Case The Clippers’ situation echoes one of the most infamous salary‑cap circumvention cases in NBA history. In 2000, the Minnesota Timberwolves were discovered to have a secret agreement with forward Joe Smith. The deal promised Smith below‑market contracts for several years in exchange for a lucrative long‑term contract later, circumventing the NBA’s salary cap. Once exposed, the NBA levied one of the harshest penalties in league history: a $3.5 million fine and the forfeiture of five first‑round draft picks. Smith’s contract was voided, and the scandal remains a cautionary tale about hidden compensation mechanisms. The alleged Kawhi‑Clippers endorsement arrangement differs in its structure. The money flows through a third‑party company rather than a direct player‑team promise, but the underlying principle is similar: the use of off‑books or artificial arrangements to deliver compensation beyond what the salary cap allows. For lawyers, agents, and compliance professionals, both cases highlight the vital importance of transparency and adherence to league rules when structuring deals that may overlap with player salaries. If Torre’s report holds, the $28 million “endorsement” with Aspiration appears less like a legitimate branding campaign and more like a salary-cap end‑run disguised as a marketing deal. For sports‑law practitioners, it underscores why rigorous review and transparency are essential in endorsement contract design, especially when the contracting entity is tied to team ownership. This debacle can serve as a cautionary case: endorsement contracts must reflect actual promotional work, be clearly separate from team compensation, and withstand scrutiny both from league compliance and public ethics standards. It’s the only way that the integrity of athlete branding, and league financial fairness can be preserved.   Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) .

When the NHL’s newest franchise in Salt Lake City unveiled its permanent identity as the Utah Mammoth, it was supposed to be a moment of clarity. After months of speculation and temporary branding as “Utah Hockey Club,” the Smith Entertainment Group finally planted its flag with a name, colors, and logo that it believed would carry the franchise into its future. Ironically, almost as soon as the new identity went public, the franchise found itself staring down a different opponent, not on the ice, but in court. The Dispute Emerges Enter Mammoth Hockey LLC, an Oregon-based company that has been manufacturing hockey bags and related gear since 2014. Though it never obtained a federal trademark registration, the company claims common-law trademark rights in the “Mammoth” name, citing years of use in commerce within the hockey space. In June 2025, Mammoth Hockey sent a cease-and-desist letter to the NHL club, warning that the “Utah Mammoth” name and branding risked confusing consumers into believing that the two entities were related. Rather than backing down, the franchise took the offensive. On August 1, 2025, Smith Entertainment Group and UYTE, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asking a judge to confirm that their team’s name and logo do not infringe on Mammoth Hockey’s rights. Key Legal Issues This dispute raises several legal issues that go beyond just hockey fans and merchandise: Common-Law vs. Federal Registration: Trademark rights in the U.S. can arise from actual use in commerce, even without a federal registration. Mammoth Hockey has leaned heavily on this doctrine. The Utah Mammoth, however, argue that federal protection and distinct branding give them the upper hand. Likelihood of Confusion: The heart of any trademark dispute is whether consumers are likely to be confused. Does a hockey bag company operating primarily online or in retail channels conflict with a professional NHL franchise selling tickets, jerseys, and fan gear? Courts will weigh the overlap. Market Expansion: Even if the two don’t directly compete today, what happens if Mammoth Hockey grows into apparel, or if the NHL team launches its own line of bags and gear? Judges often look at whether brand owners might reasonably expand into each other’s spaces. What makes this case especially interesting is Mammoth Hockey’s prior stance. Reports indicate that the company originally expressed support for the “Mammoth” name and even floated the idea of collaborating. Only later did its posture shift to opposition. That inconsistency may weigh in the franchise’s favor, especially if evidence shows the team relied on the company’s earlier signals in moving forward with the branding. Lessons for the Industry This isn’t just a squabble between a local bag maker and a pro franchise. It underscores broader themes for general counsel across sports and entertainment: Do the Clearance Work: Even massive organizations can end up in disputes if they underestimate the reach of smaller companies’ common-law rights. Clearance searches should go beyond the federal registry. Brand Expansion is Predictable: Courts expect brands to grow beyond their immediate products. A General Counsel should always think two or three moves ahead…a bag company today can be an apparel company tomorrow. Perception Matters: Mixed messaging from a potential challenger (like initial support followed by litigation threats) can create legal leverage, but it also complicates negotiations. Documenting every communication becomes critical. What’s Next As of mid-August, Mammoth Hockey has been served but no hearings have been scheduled. The case will likely hinge on whether a court believes consumers could mistake a professional NHL team for an equipment bag maker, and how much weight to give to Mammoth Hockey’s years of use versus the franchise’s new high-profile identity. For now, the Mammoth are set to skate into their inaugural season under their contested name. Whether the courts allow that name to stick long-term remains to be seen.   Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] , or on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) .

On any given night at the US Open, the broadcast cuts from what looks like a Met Gala after-party to a sea of pink cups raised just as often as tennis racquets. Those cups hold the tournament’s unofficial MVP, the HONEY DEUCE. Part cocktail, part status symbol, the mix of Grey Goose vodka, raspberry liqueur, lemonade, and honeydew melon “tennis balls” has become as iconic in New York as the matches themselves. And the numbers prove it. In 2024, fans downed more than 550,000 HONEY DEUCES, pouring over $12.8 million into the US Open’s tills. Since their debut in 2007, sales have soared past 2.8 million cocktails, at an eye-watering $23 each. That is one drink sold every 1.5 seconds during the tournament. Not bad for a vodka lemonade with a clever garnish. HONEY DEUCE is not just a catchy phrase; it is a registered trademark owned by the United States Tennis Association (USTA). Grey Goose has a licensing agreement that allows them to market HONEY DEUCE as the “official cocktail of the US Open,” but the legal rights to the name sit with the tournament itself. From a trademark perspective, the name is fantastic. “Honey” signals something sweet and fun even though there is not a drop of honey in the drink. Then “Deuce” ties directly to tennis, where a tied score is called a deuce. Together, it creates a mark that is playful and immediately tied to the sport. On the trademark distinctiveness scale, HONEY DEUCE would be considered suggestive, where it does not describe the cocktail outright, but nudges you to make the connection between sweetness and tennis. Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and strong, which typically gives those marks a favorable position to be registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USTA has even extended protection by filing a USPTO application for HONEY DEUCE on merchandise like shirts and hats. Similar to how the mint julep has become inseparable from the Kentucky Derby or how strawberries and cream are Wimbledon traditions. The HONEY DEUCE now sits in that same category. The pink cup in hand cements source identity in fans’ minds. Every time a spectator posts a courtside photo with the drink, they reinforce that this specific name, look, and experience come from the US Open. That consistent, event-tied use builds distinctiveness and ultimately makes the HONEY DEUCE trademark stronger. The HONEY DEUCE trademark registration does not only preserve tradition, but it also creates new opportunities. The USTA owns the mark, so they have the power to license HONEY DEUCE in ways that could make the drink even more profitable. Imagine official pop-ups in New York during the Open or sanctioned HONEY DEUCE cans sold nationwide. Those expansions would only be possible because the trademark registration gives USTA control. Without a registered mark, the HONEY DEUCE would just be another cocktail. Now the drink is a multi-million-dollar brand asset that can be strategically licensed, managed, and grown. The HONEY DEUCE shows how branding and experience can work hand in hand. A cocktail with no honey and a simple garnish has become a global talking point because it’s tied to a world-class event and protected by trademark law. It is living proof that when a name is memorable and safeguarded, it can grow into something far bigger than the product itself.

Baseball has always thrived on rivalries: Yankees–Red Sox, Dodgers–Giants, Cubs–Cardinals. These matchups don’t just fill stadiums; they fuel headlines, drive TV ratings, and keep casual fans invested. At the Little League Classic, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred dropped a notable hint: if MLB expands, it could spark a sweeping geographic realignment, possibly dissolving the well-established American and National Leagues in favor of an East/West conference model that mirrors the NBA or NHL. For a league built on tradition, this would be its boldest structural shift since the pitch clock. Manfred framed expansion as a way to “save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel,”  while giving ESPN and other partners crisp East vs. West playoff matchups. But the implications run deeper. Realignment wouldn’t just adjust travel schedules; it could redefine rivalries and supercharge the business of baseball. An East/West structure wouldn’t just reduce travel, it would concentrate historic rivalries into single conferences, creating higher-stakes matchups throughout the season. Expansion has long remained a back burner idea. Yet it may be baseball’s best chance to reset its trajectory. Rivalries Drive Relevance An East/West conference model would give MLB a rare chance to double down on its rivalry-driven formula, while setting up new franchises for success. Imagine a Portland team dropping straight into an instant rivalry with Seattle, or a Nashville franchise locked in early battles with Atlanta. That’s what makes realignment so powerful: it doesn’t just change schedules; it creates storylines that sell themselves. The NHL’s success with Vegas and Seattle proves the model works. By aligning expansion teams with natural regional rivals, the league gave them immediate identity, relevance, and value. MLB has an even bigger opportunity. With carefully crafted conference rivalries, it can amplify fan passion, boost national TV appeal, and deliver the kind of must-watch matchups that keep baseball culturally relevant in an increasingly crowded sports landscape. Rivalries as the Growth Engine MLB’s balanced schedule is more than a tweak; it’s a strategic necessity. Other leagues, especially the NFL and NBA, have leaned into rivalries and star matchups to fuel growth. Baseball can no longer afford to lag. The league’s financial reality underscores the point. MLB revenue ( $12.1B ) trailed the NBA’s ( $11.3B ) and NFL’s ( $23B ) in 2024, and younger fans are drifting toward faster-paced sports. Expanding rivalry games is one of the few levers MLB can pull to recapture attention in a crowded entertainment landscape. Imagine Mets–Yankees and Cubs–White Sox clashing in meaningful series across the calendar. Add Ohtani facing his former Angels multiple times a season, and these aren’t just games; they’re storylines that sustain engagement.   Rivalries   create must-see TV, and must-see TV creates revenue. The data backs this up. In the   Subway Series   finale, peak viewership topped 3 million, making it the most-watched Sunday Night Baseball game in seven years. Dodgers–Giants games consistently rank among MLB’s highest-grossing gate receipts, often selling out regardless of standings. Rivalries don’t just create buzz; they drive ticket, merchandise, and media revenue. Proof of Concept: The NHL Model If MLB wants proof that expansion and realignment can be a growth engine, it doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel; it just needs to look at the NHL. In 2014, the NHL realigned  its divisions to prioritize geographic rivalries, grouping teams more regionally to cut travel and boost local intensity. The result was a schedule packed with rivalry-driven matchups that consistently delivered higher ratings and stronger fan engagement. That groundwork made the league’s recent expansions seamless. When the Vegas Golden Knights launched in 2017, they sold out consistently, built an instant identity, and are now valued at over $1 billion just seven years after joining the league. The Seattle Kraken followed in 2021, tapping into a ready-made regional rivalry with Vancouver and sparking another passionate fan base. NHL franchise values  jumped 44% in 2024, growth that outpaced basketball and football.  The NHL proved how strategic realignment can turn expansion into opportunity. Now MLB has a chance to take it even further: adopting an East/West model could supercharge rivalries, give new franchises instant relevance, and deliver the matchups fans and media crave. In today’s crowded sports landscape, this might be baseball’s best shot at its biggest growth era in decades. Just as the NHL’s divisional shift made Vegas–Vancouver and Seattle–Vancouver natural rivalries, MLB’s East/West structure would place expansion teams in rivalry-rich regions from day one, igniting fan engagement and maximizing media impact. Legal Implications of Expansion and Realignment But for MLB, bold moves come with high legal stakes, from territorial rights to billion-dollar media deals, making the legal landscape as critical as the business one. MLB’s unique   antitrust exemption , upheld in Flood v. Kuhn (1972) , gives the league rare power over territorial rights, franchise moves, and scheduling. But that power cuts both ways. Drop an expansion team into the wrong market or disrupt a billion-dollar regional TV deal, and suddenly that exemption looks less like a shield and more like a target. We’ve already seen how ugly these fights can get. In   San Jose v. MLB (2013) , the city sued after the league blocked the Oakland A’s move to San Jose, arguing MLB’s territorial rules were anti-competitive. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the antitrust and unfair competition claims , leaving MLB’s exemption intact, but the case underscored just how explosive relocation battles can become. But cities aren’t the only stakeholders. Regional sports networks (RSNs) pay massive sums for exclusive broadcast territories, and realignment could scramble those boundaries overnight. If an expansion team lands in a market that overlaps existing contracts, think Nashville cutting into Atlanta’s TV reach, RSNs like Bally Sports or YES Network could sue to protect their rights.  That risk is amplified by the financial instability many RSNs already face due to cord-cutting and subscription losses.  There are also potential marketing and branding risks. Recent controversies across sports, from missteps in NIL marketing in college athletics to disputes over team trademarks, show how quickly public perception can turn into a legal or regulatory problem. Expansion franchises would need airtight intellectual property strategies to avoid conflicts with existing brands. At the same time, the league as a whole would face increased scrutiny over how it sells and packages new rivalries. Closing Pitch: Rivalries Are MLB’s Real Expansion Playbook Baseball has always sold itself on tradition: the timeless rivalries, the summer rituals, the comfort of knowing which teams belong where. But in an era dominated by the NBA and NFL, tradition alone can’t capture attention. Expansion is coming, but adding new teams isn’t enough — MLB needs a structural reset. Adopting an East/West conference model would concentrate historic rivalries, give expansion franchises instant relevance, and deliver marquee matchups that drive engagement, ticket sales, and media value. Realignment isn’t just about geography; it’s about giving MLB the tools to control its competitive, cultural, and financial future. Preserving tradition while unlocking unprecedented growth opportunities for a modern audience. Oliver Stevens 1L at Hofstra Law. You can find him on LinkedIn .