When news broke back in February of 2021 that Fernando Tatis Jr. signed a 14-year, $340 million extension with the San Diego Padres, several parties were undoubtedly thrilled. Whether it was the Padres organization, MVP Sports Group (Tatis’ agency), or the ‘Friar Faithful’ fans out in San Diego, there were several ‘winners’ from the transaction. However, those associated with Big League Advance were likely pumping fists and popping champagne when they heard the news as well.   Big League Advance (BLA) is a company that offers minor league players upfront payments in exchange for a percentage of future MLB earnings . According to BLAs website, the company has signed more than 700 athletes since its founding in 2016. One of those athletes is Fernando Tatis Jr., who now owes the company upwards of $34 million after agreeing to a deal with them in 2017.   However, Tatis doesn’t appear to be willing to shell out his money to BLA. Last week, the star outfielder filed a legal complaint against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. According to a press release from his legal team, Tatis is seeking to hold BLA accountable for “exploitative, predatory business practices, which shamelessly push illegal loans on young, vulnerable athletes — most from economically disadvantaged Latin American countries.”   “I’m fighting this battle not just for myself but for everyone still chasing their dream and hoping to provide a better life for their family,” Tatis states in the release. “I want to help protect those young players who don’t yet know how to protect themselves from these predatory lenders and illegal financial schemes — kids’ focus should be on their passion for baseball, not dodging shady business deals.” This statement conflicts with remarks Tatis made after inking with BLA. According to   The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal, Tatis said after signing with the company that his payments would go toward transforming his minor-league training regimen in the U.S. as well as his offseason plan in the Dominican Republic. That included aspirations of hiring a personal trainer and upgrading his diet and living situation as an MLB prospect. “If I’m a successful player and make big money, I’m not going to care about giving that money away,”  Tatis told   The Athletic in 2018, when discussing his BLA agreement. "That will be nothing if I make all that big money."   While he has certainly become a successful player and has made big money, it appears like his sentiments about giving his money away have changed.   Tatis is not the first player to sue BLA. Former big leaguer and top catching prospect Francisco Mejía sued BLA in 2018, citing “unconscionable” tactics BLA used to persuade him to give up 10 percent of his future MLB earnings in exchange for three separate payments totaling $360,000. However, Mejia eventually dropped his case.   Moreover, BLA recently sued former big league outfielder Franmil Reyes in Delaware Superior Court, claiming breach of contract. BLA says Reyes owes $404,908.87 in past due payments plus $298,749.13 in interest, as well as a yet-to-be-determined amount from when he played in Japan. It's worth noting that like Tatis, Mejia and Reyes both hail from Latin American nations. According to his legal team, Tatis received $2 million from BLA in exchange for 10% of his MLB pay. That means that in addition to the $34 million from Tatis' 2021 contract with the Padres, he's responsible for paying BLA a 10% cut of any subsequent MLB deal he inks.   While BLA has yet to comment on Tatis’ filing, they will almost assuredly answer the complaint and offer several defenses in hopes of convincing a court to dismiss the case. BLA could argue that the contract Tatis signed is not a loan, but instead a deal wherein Tatis received capital that he could use to supplement his minor league earnings. BLA will probably also point out the risk it takes in its deals. If the player (like most minor leaguers) never becomes a regular MLB player, BLA might never be repaid. Moreover, because BLA has also signed many American-born players, they could counter Tatis' argument that they are "exploiting" Latin American players specifically. While it will be fascinating to see how this case develops, Sportico references that Tatis’ suit may hit an arbitration snag . According to the article, it’s possible that a judge will dismiss the case to arbitration. Albeit in passing, the complaint noticeably references arbitration, which could become a key issue. An attorney familiar with player investment contracts told  Sportico  that BLA contracts ordinarily contain arbitration clauses; the attorney requested anonymity because the discussions are private. The complaint claims Tatis has suffered a variety of financial injuries including “arbitration costs as a result of Defendants’ efforts to enforce” the contract. The complaint also argues that its demand for injunctive relief “is not arbitrable,” meaning it would be outside the scope of arbitration. To the extent Tatis is engaged in arbitration with BLA over interpretation of the contract, BLA could argue that Tatis’ arguments must first be determined by arbitration before a court can hear his claims. The loser of an arbitration can petition a federal court to vacate an arbitration award, but that strategy might now be more difficult for Tatis. He is contending the BLA contract is entirely void—and thus non-interpretable–which could make it more difficult for him to argue in arbitration that the contract be interpreted a certain way. In conclusion, while one could attempt to make the argument that BLA’s practices are somewhat exploitive, a deal is a deal, and it appears like proper consideration was exchanged between the two parties. It’s possible Tatis isn’t expecting to free himself of all his financial obligations to BLA and is just attempting to see if he can knock down the $34+ million fee down a bit. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to follow this case and the impact it could have on players signing with BLA moving forward.   Brendan Bell is a Rising 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

In the months leading up to the 2025 NBA Draft, Ace Bailey was projected as the consensus No. 3 overall pick. A high-flying, shot-making wing with tantalizing upside, Bailey stood just behind his Rutgers teammate Dylan Harper and presumed No. 1 overall pick Cooper Flagg in virtually every mock draft. Most projections had him landing with the Philadelphia 76ers at No. 3—a franchise in need of youth and length on the wing and a market where Bailey’s brand could flourish. But with just days remaining before the draft, the trajectory of Bailey’s professional journey has taken a sudden and polarizing turn.   Bailey, reportedly represented by Omar Cooper—the father of former Auburn star and NBA player Sharife Cooper—has become the centerpiece of what could be one of the most controversial draft strategies in recent memory. According to multiple reports , Cooper has been attempting to guide Bailey away from the top of the draft toward a select group of East Coast teams, particularly those expected to pick in the 6–9 range. This geographic window includes franchises such as the Charlotte Hornets, Washington Wizards, and Brooklyn Nets, which are positioned closer to Bailey’s home base and potentially offer clearer roles for immediate on-court development.   The strategy reached a boiling point last week when Bailey cancelled his pre-draft workout with the 76ers—less than seven days before the draft. In fact, Bailey will enter draft night without having conducted a single individual workout for any NBA team, an extremely rare occurrence for a top prospect. While this has sparked significant criticism and concern from team executives and fans alike, it also signals a potentially disruptive new tactic in player representation.   The Cost of Control There’s no sugarcoating it: financially, this approach could be expensive —at least in the short term. According to the NBA’s rookie scale , there’s approximately a $10 million difference in total contract value between the 3rd and 8th overall picks. While rookie contracts are guaranteed, Bailey’s refusal to cooperate with top-picking teams could cause him to slide several spots down the board, sacrificing significant earnings before he even steps on an NBA court.   Many scouts and league insiders agree: Bailey’s talent easily warrants a top-three selection. His smooth shooting stroke, athleticism, and defensive upside have drawn comparisons to elite two-way wings like Paul George and Jayson Tatum. So why risk the fall? The answer, some believe, lies in long-term value and career optimization.   A Calculated Bet on Fit Over Fortune Despite the backlash, rival agents are reportedly watching Omar Cooper’s maneuvering with more interest than judgment. In recent years, the league has seen how the right team—regardless of draft position—can fast-track a player’s development and earning potential.   Take Tyrese Maxey, for example, who fell to the 21st pick in 2020 and then signed a 5-year, $204M extension after developing into a cornerstone player for the Sixers. Or Jalen Williams, drafted 12th by the Thunder, who’s blossomed into one of the most exciting young forwards in the league thanks to a well-defined role and patient development. Like Maxey, Williams has turned the opportunity afforded by his draft position into a potential $247M contract extension this offseason.   If Bailey can join a stable organization that offers playing time, a clear role, and market appeal, the bet is that he can recoup—and even surpass—the money lost on his rookie contract. An All-Star appearance, a Most Improved Player campaign, or even a playoff breakout could all position him for a significantly larger second deal. For a player with Bailey’s ceiling, the financial difference between an $8 million rookie deal and a $200 million second contract ultimately comes down to timing, not destiny.   Agents understand this math, and they understand optics. Cooper’s move is undeniably high-risk, but it’s not without precedent. Klutch Sports has famously steered clients away from small-market teams, and international stars have long used draft leverage to control their NBA entry. What’s different here is the brazenness—there’s no medical holdout, no Euro-stash fallback, no secret injury. Instead, Bailey and his team are loudly and publicly refusing to engage with certain teams, deliberately focusing on a select few.   A New Era of Player Empowerment? Whether this gamble works may depend entirely on the trajectory of Bailey’s first two years in the league. If he performs well—particularly if he thrives in a system that gives him a green light early and fosters his shot-creation ability—the narrative may quickly shift. Cooper could be seen not as reckless but as revolutionary.   But if Bailey struggles or fails to stand out on a non-contending team, the questions will only grow louder. Did he overplay his hand? Would a season alongside Joel Embiid in Philadelphia have accelerated his growth more than a rebuild in Washington or Charlotte? Did sacrificing $10 million in guaranteed salary and potential endorsement opportunities set back his career rather than position it for success?   The NBA world will be watching closely. Bailey’s draft-night landing spot and his performance over the next two seasons may serve as the ultimate litmus test for whether agents can—and should—exert more influence over draft outcomes.   In an era where player empowerment continues to reshape the league, Cooper and Bailey may be testing the next frontier: strategic draft manipulation not for ego, but for longevity. And while many disagree with the execution, no one is ignoring the audacity.   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 .

The moment everyone has been waiting for has finally arrived—the settlement in House v. NCAA has been approved. Athletic directors, coaches, athletes, and fans have been anxiously awaiting the day where Judge Claudia Wilken would approve this settlement. And rightfully so. This settlement strikes at the core of the NCAA’s amateurism model. The NCAA has said that its rules regulating student-athlete compensation are the “standards of amateurism,” the “‘mold’ of rules providing that ‘athletes must not be paid’” to preserve the “‘character and quality” that differentiates it from professional sports.” [1] While Alston led to student-athletes being allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), the schools were still not allowed to make payments to the athletes. This settlement changes that. Schools will now be able to make payments directly to their athletes for use of their NIL. Understandably, this is the most notable aspect of the House settlement. However, another significant outcome of this settlement is the creation of the College Sports Commission, which is partnering with Deloitte to launch the NIL Go clearinghouse.   The NIL Go clearinghouse platform is meant to serve as a vetting process for third-party NIL deals entered into by collegiate athletes. When an athlete enters into a third-party NIL deal of $600 or more, they will be required to submit details about that agreement to the platform, which will then screen the deals based on a variety of factors. While the precise algorithm for evaluating these deals is unknown, there is some information available. When a deal is submitted, the platform will make three determinations: (1) is the third party an “associated entity” with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand?; (2) is the deal for a “valid business purpose?”; and (3) is the deal within Deloitte’s “range of compensation” paid to similarly situated individuals? [2] While each of these determinations present their own legal issues, the third determination, seemingly a fair market value analysis, likely presents the most difficulty.   This fair market value analysis considers a number of factors, including athletic performance, an athlete’s social media reach, the market of the athlete’s school, and the reach of the school in that market. [3] While these factors seem reasonable enough to determine the fair market value of a particular deal, the issues for the NIL Go platform likely do not arise out of these factors, but out of using the fair market value analysis as a method of approving or denying NIL agreements entered into by collegiate athletes and third parties.   When an agreement is reviewed by NIL Go, it may be denied if it does not fall into the range of compensation determined by Deloitte’s algorithm. If an agreement is denied, an athlete has three options: cancel the agreement, revise and resubmit the agreement, or request arbitration. For example, if a Kansas basketball player enters into an agreement worth $2 million, but the clearinghouse has determined that the compensation range is $500,000 or below, the athlete could revise the deal and resubmit it to the clearinghouse. It is possible that Kansas could provide the remaining $1.5 million from its revenue share pool, but there are no guarantees that would occur. Disregarding any legal issues, this outcome seems blatantly unfair to the athlete. After negotiating a deal for himself, he has been told he is being paid over his fair market value, a number determined by factors completely out of his control.   Along with this unfairness, the fair market value analysis and range of compensation limitation may run into issues with antitrust law. 15 U.S.C. § 1 prohibits any “contract, combination, . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” Price fixing is considered a restraint of trade. According to the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, price fixing is “an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold.” [4] This form of restraining trade may well be relevant to the range of compensation limitation set by the NIL Go platform. The NCAA, the College Sports Commission, and Deloitte, are essentially agreeing on a formula which determines what the fair market value, or fair price, for an athlete’s NIL is in any given deal. By rejecting deals that exceed an athlete’s fair market value, the clearinghouse effectively sets a ceiling on what the athletes can earn. This suppression of the market for collegiate athlete NIL deals appears to represent the exact behavior that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.   This fair market value “ceiling” may sound familiar—it sounds similar to salary cap rules in professional sports. However, a critical difference between professional sports and collegiate sports is the athletes’ ability to collectively bargain. In a league like the NBA, the athletes are employees represented by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), which engages in collective bargaining with the league to determine many things, including the salary cap rules. However, collegiate athletes are not employees (yet), and thus do not have a collective bargaining agreement to set out the terms for something like the NIL Go clearinghouse.   The NIL Go clearinghouse is supposedly designed to reduce payments from booster-funded collectives to athletes disguised as NIL deals, where the athlete was providing little to no real value to the collective. This has certainly been an issue since collegiate athletes have been allowed to profit from their NIL, however, the clearinghouse may be eliminating one problem while creating another, potentially bigger problem. The effects of the NIL Go clearinghouse, and the House settlement generally, on collegiate athletics remain to be seen. What seems clear, however, is that the NCAA’s legal problems will not be going away any time soon.   Davis Bax is a rising 3L at the University of Kansas School of Law, where he is president of the Sports Law Society and the St. Thomas More Society. He can be found on LinkedIn as Davis Bax . [1] Brief for Petitioner at 27, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) (Nos. 20-512 and 20-520). [2] Ross Dellenger, What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders? , Yahoo Sports (June 13, 2025, 7:00 AM) https://sports.yahoo.com/college-sports/article/what-is-nil-go-and-why-is-it-the-latest-subject-of-debate-among-college-sports-leaders-120028561.html [3] Id. [4] Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes: What They Are and What to Look For , U.S. Dep’t of Just. Antitrust Div., 2 (2021) https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2016/01/05/211578.pdf

In May, a WNBA matchup between the Chicago Sky and the Indiana Fever, Sky star Angel Reese was reportedly targeted with racial slurs from fans in the crowd. This has led to the league's investigation and major discussion on how such situations should be handled. Though no formal outcome has occurred, the incident forces us to consider imperative questions: What obligations do leagues and arenas have to protect players from targeted abuse by fan bases? Where is the line between fans expressing emotion and engaging in actual harassment? Do we need clearer rules and/or stronger protections to ensure athletes feel safe and respected while executing their jobs? A Rivalry Set by the Media Anyone who knows about women’s basketball knows the rivalry between Caitlyn Clark and Angel Reese. Though there is competitiveness on the court, both Clark and Reese have stated how their so-called “rivalry” is more media-driven than personal. This media framework has allowed for the WNBA to receive more attention. However, this attention comes with consequences. In the 2023 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship where Reese’s LSU defeated Clark’s Iowa, Reese made gestures towards Clark where she pointed to her ring finger once it was known that LSU would win the title. Reese was heavily criticized after this for “unsportsmanlike conduct” even though Clark made a similar gesture earlier in the tournament Since then, the media has fueled this storyline casting these two players against each other for their final colligate season in 2024 and into the WNBA. What could have remained a typical sports rivalry was instead turned into a larger cultural conversation with racial underliers. This has become one where Reese, a black female, is often cast as the “villain” in contrast to Clark, a white female, as the “hero.” That framing does not just exist in headlines or highlight reels, it shapes how fans view and treat these players, both online and in person. As we saw in the recent game between the Chicago Sky and Indiana Fever, it can fuel real-world incidents that cross the line from fandom into harassment. This media-fueled rivalry has only intensified as these two players begin their second season, escalating to something that is beyond the game of basketball. Just A “Basketball Play” The play that sparked the investigation happened in the third quarter of the game. Clark jumped and reached over Reese’s head for the basketball just as Reese was going up for a wide-open shot. The contact appeared deliberate, causing Reese to fall to the floor and prompting a confrontation between the two players. Officials responded by assessing Clark with a flagrant foul and Reese with a technical foul. While Clark later explained her actions and Reese called it simply “a basketball play,” Reese faced significant criticism from fans, including racially motivated comments. The reaction to this “basketball play” is a prime example of how race plays a major role in how the media and fans interpret players. Clark and Reese are two very competitive and talented players, yet Reese often receives backlash for her “attitude” while Clark is praised for her “competitive edge.” This difference is not just about perceptions. Rather, it impacts how fans treat players and influences how sporting leagues handle misconduct. The biases that have occurred through this “rivalry” are a key example of how fan behavior crosses the line into harassment or abuse, especially targeted attacks like racial slurs. This raises serious questions about the duty of care owed to players and the measures leagues must take to protect them from these occurrences. Legal Protections for Players We often forget that star athletes are employees who have a right to a safe and harassment-free workplace under the law. Just as any profession requires, athletes have the right to perform their jobs without being subjected to abuse, discrimination, or hostile environments. Though their workplace is in arenas with millions watching while most of us are in a more traditional workplace setting, it does not diminish their right to a safe environment. Clark and Angel receiving essentially the opposite treatment reflects how public bias can transition into workplace hazards. This drastic disparity shows why professional leagues must actively monitor the fan behavior of fans to protect players before it becomes out of control. Workplace safety laws, such as those enforced under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, require employers to provide an environment free from harassment. For professional sports leagues and teams, this means taking reasonable steps to prevent and address abusive conduct, including harassment by fans during games. While it is challenging to control every fan in a stadium or arena, leagues are expected to enforce fan conduct policies, remove disruptive individuals, and ensure security measures are in place to protect players. Failure to do so can open the door to legal claims based on negligence or a hostile work environment. The Freedom of Speech Debate One argument that may arise is an individual’s First Amendment right. Fans do have the right to express themselves at games, including cheering, jeering, and showing passion. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that crosses into harassment, threats, or racial slurs. This is especially true in a private venue like a sports arena, where the owner sets the rules of conduct. Courts have generally upheld that venues can limit disruptive or abusive behavior to maintain a safe environment. Balancing Player Protection and Fan Expressions This balance between protecting players and respecting fan expression is a delicate line to follow. The Reese incident highlights the need for clear policies and swift enforcement to ensure that athletes can perform their tasks without fear of abuse while fans still can be passionate about their teams. This incident involving Reese is a reminder that professional athletes deserve more than just praise and applause. They deserve protection, respect, and a safe environment to perform their job. As leagues like the WNBA continue to grow in visibility and influence, they face increasing pressure to not only celebrate their stars but to also shield them from harm. Finding the line between fan passion and harmful hate is challenging, but it is a responsibility the league cannot ignore. Clear policies, consistent enforcement, and a commitment to creating respect both on and off the court are essential to ensure player safety. How the WNBA responds to this event will set a precedent for the future of sports and send a powerful message about the values we want our leagues to uphold for future generations. Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

Something great and unique about baseball is that every ballpark is different.   The dimensions of the actual diamond are standard, but after that, teams can pretty much design their home as they see fit. While MLB ballpark guidelines have generally established minimum fence distances, teams can construct a giant wall in left field or include seemingly endless foul territory down the first- or third-base lines.   In addition to varying dimensions, certain ballparks over the course of baseball history have contained quirks and oddities that you’d never see in other sports. We all know about the Green Monster at Fenway Park and ivy walls at Wrigley Field. However, as recently as 2015, Houston’s Minute Maid Park (recently renamed to Daikin Park) featured a slanted hill in center field with a flagpole in the field of play. We also saw many stadiums with bullpen mounds down the foul lines. Some baseball fans and officials consider these to be fun quirks. Others consider them to be hazards.   While MLB clubs have removed hills, flagpoles, and bullpen mounds in recent years for player safety reasons, certain hazards are still in the field of play that contain high risk of injury. Ex-big leaguer Darin Ruf’s collision with an uncovered tarp in Cincinnati is an unfortunate example.   Last week, Ruf filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas against the Cincinnati Reds for damages after he suffered a career-ending injury while crashing into an uncovered tarp roller at Great American Ball Park in 2023. The lawsuit charges the Reds with negligence in failing to maintain safe field conditions and specifically cites the presence of the unpadded metal tarp roller.   Ruf was playing first base for the Brewers when he was injured during the Brewers' 5-4, 11-inning victory over the Reds on June 2, 2023. In the third inning, Ruf was chasing a foul pop when his knee hit the end of the tarp roller.   According to the complaint, Ruf suffered "permanent and substantial deformities to his knee." Ruf went on the 60-day injured list and never played in the major leagues again. Ruf's complaint says the end of the tarp roller was made of sharp metal and had no protective cushioning or cap. "This was an obvious and avoidable risk," Tad Thomas, Ruf's attorney, said in a release announcing the lawsuit. "There are basic safety protocols every MLB team should follow. Leaving an unpadded metal roller on the edge of the field is inexcusable." "This didn't need to happen," Ruf said himself in the statement. "I wish it didn't happen. Players shouldn't have to worry about hidden hazards like that on a major league field." Ruf is seeking punitive and compensatory damages. The complaint says the Reds didn't take reasonable precautions to keep the stadium safe and also are liable for the negligent acts of the grounds crew's "reckless" conduct. To date, the Reds have not provided a statement or update on the matter. Ruf is not the first MLB player to sue after suffering an injury. F ormer MLB outfielder Mac Williamson sued the San Francisco Giants and the owners of Oracle Park  over a concussion he suffered in 2018. The lawsuit claimed his injury, which ended his career, was caused by tripping over a bullpen mound in foul territory and hitting his head on the outfield wall. Williamson alleged that the placement of the bullpen mounds in foul territory created an unreasonable risk of harm. While the outcome of the lawsuit was not publicly disclosed, the Giants did remove the bullpens in foul territory to beyond the outfield fences in 2020.   Outside the baseball context, longtime NFL running Reggie Bush won a lawsuit against the St. Louis Rams for $12.5 million  in 2018 after suffering a knee injury in a game after slipping on a concrete surface when he was pushed out of bounds.    It will be interesting to see what comes of this suit both on the micro and macro level. While it’s likely this individual case settles behind closed doors, nearly every MLB stadium without a roof features a rolled-up tarp along the foul lines. Ruf’s lawsuit may bring about proper protocols and regulations that mandate that these tarps are sufficiently padded and always covered to reduce injury risk for players. MLB and the MLBPA have a common interest in ensuring player safety, so I’m sure this lawsuit will spark discussions between the league and grounds crews across the league to help prevent injuries (and lawsuits) in the future.     Brendan Bell is a Rising 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

With next summer’s 2025 FIFA Club World Cup set to kick off in the United States, the tournament is already drawing more than just commercial buzz and global intrigue—it’s setting off alarm bells among national team managers and players alike, who are concerned with one thing: burnout.   The tournament’s expansion to 32 clubs, its month-long format, and a promised prize pool reportedly exceeding $150 million have elevated the Club World Cup’s significance for FIFA and the participating teams. But the timing—just one year ahead of the 2026 World Cup—has ignited a fresh round of conflict between club demands and national team ambitions.   And for many of the game’s biggest stars, the tug-of-war is starting now.   Pulisic and Dest: Fatigue Over Flags One of the most telling early signs came when U.S. Men’s National Team head coach Mauricio Pochettino unveiled his Gold Cup roster— without Christian Pulisic. The AC Milan winger, widely seen as the de facto face of American soccer, was left off the squad due to what’s been labeled as "fatigue" following a demanding club season in Italy. He isn’t alone. Defender Sergiño Dest was also recently dropped from contention, with U.S. Soccer citing his recovery from a long-term ACL injury suffered in April.   Though Pulisic has long been a devoted U.S. international, his absence in a tournament where the U.S. is expected to contend raises eyebrows—especially when contrasted with what’s happening in Europe. It’s not just the fans who’ve taken note.   Pochettino’s Subtle Swipe? Pulisic’s USMNT coach, Mauricio Pochettino, has not exactly hidden his feelings about the decision. When asked about national team participation more broadly, the Argentine offered a pointed reminder of the dedication he’s seen from some of the biggest names in football: “Messi, Mbappé, Neymar . . . they are desperate to play for their national teams,” he said. He then added, “[t]he people need to prioritize the national team.”   Was it a direct jab at Pulisic’s decision? The inference was clear enough for some to read between the lines. The pressure from managers like Pochettino shows how players must constantly walk a tightrope of unspoken expectations, particularly when the stakes—both financial and reputational—are as high as they will be at the Club World Cup.   Tuchel Sets a Hard Line for England Meanwhile, over in England, national team manager Thomas Tuchel has made headlines for his own uncompromising stance .   Despite the Club World Cup looming, Tuchel recently named a full-strength 26-man England squad for upcoming matches against Andorra and Senegal. His selection includes players from Chelsea (Cole Palmer, Levi Colwill, Reece James, Trevoh Chalobah, and Noni Madueke), Bayern Munich’s Harry Kane, Atlético Madrid’s Conor Gallagher, and Real Madrid’s Jude Bellingham—all of whom are expected to feature in the Club World Cup.   Tuchel made it clear that no player would be allowed to leave the national team early to prepare for the tournament, emphasizing that country comes first. Perhaps to underscore his point, he left out Manchester City star Phil Foden altogether (at Foden’s own request)—giving the player the chance to partake in the Club World Cup despite City manager Pep Guardiola admitting Foden was "tired" and in need of rest.   It’s a bold move, especially considering the competition for England spots and the prestige of players like Foden. But it sends a clear message: Tuchel wants total commitment to the national team, even if it means butting heads with club managers—or benching superstars.   Redemption and Recalibration: The Ivan Toney Case Perhaps even more surprising than Foden’s exclusion was the inclusion of Ivan Toney. After an eight-month ban by the FA for betting violations and a subsequent move to Saudi Arabia, most assumed Toney's England career was finished. But after finishing second behind Cristiano Ronaldo in the Saudi Pro League goal-scoring charts, Tuchel rewarded Toney’s resurgence with a national team recall.   For a manager so concerned with discipline and national pride, the decision to reintegrate Toney—who many viewed as persona non grata—signals that performance and hunger may ultimately trump baggage. But it also adds a layer of complexity: while some fatigued players are being discarded and pushed aside, others are being flown across continents for a second chance.   A Double Standard? Mbappé, Bellingham, and the Uneven Playing Field In the midst of all of this, one can’t help but notice that not all players are held to the same standards. Kylian Mbappé played in the UEFA Nations League this summer and will almost certainly make the trip to the U.S. next year for PSG’s Club World Cup campaign. Jude Bellingham, fresh off a grueling debut season with Real Madrid (and reportedly set for shoulder surgery following the conclusion of the tournament), is also expected to juggle both club and country.   This inconsistency—where some players are given time to rest while others shoulder massive workloads—only intensifies the debate over what is expected of modern footballers. Are stars like Bellingham and Mbappé simply better equipped to handle the load? Or are national team managers simply more willing to bend the rules when it comes to their most marketable players?   The Bigger Picture: Club Power, Contracts, and the 2026 World Cup Horizon The Club World Cup is more than just a tournament—it's a proving ground for FIFA’s ambition to turn club competitions into global blockbusters. But with the 2026 World Cup on the horizon, national team coaches are already strategizing, monitoring player workloads, and building continuity. The message is growing clearer: skip the Club World Cup if necessary, rest up, and focus on the badge.   Yet, there's one massive problem: contracts. The majority of players may be contractually obligated to appear for their club in tournaments like the Club World Cup if they are healthy and selected. And with millions of dollars in prize money at stake—not to mention branding opportunities in the U.S. market—clubs will likely demand that their biggest and best stars show up.   That raises serious questions and poses tough dilemmas: What happens when a club insists a player travel and compete, even if the player—or their national team manager—wants them to rest? What leverage do national federations have? Could we see situations where clubs “bench” players who opt out? Or worse, will players risk injury or long-term wear just to keep everyone happy?   A Balancing Act with No Easy Answer As the borders between club and country blur—and as the calendar becomes increasingly congested—the burden being placed on elite players is more visible than ever. Christian Pulisic’s absence may be the first domino to fall, but it's unlikely to be the last.   If this summer is any indication, the lead-up to the 2025 Club World Cup (and 2026 World Cup) will be defined by tough decisions, political posturing, and a whole lot of pressure on players caught in the middle.   Because in the end, no matter what badge is on their chest—club or country—it’s the players who carry the weight.   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 .

Have you ever wondered what MLB would look like with a salary cap? As a lifelong Yankees fan already aware of this issue, I've seen teams like the Dodgers and Mets recently outspend everyone, making me think about this even more than I would like. Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL, MLB doesn't have a salary cap. Instead, it uses a luxury tax system that penalizes teams exceeding a set payroll threshold, with the tax rate increasing for consecutive years over the limit. This has led to massive spending gaps, with the Dodgers ($337M), Mets ($324M), and Yankees ($289M) at the top, while teams like the White Sox ($67M), Marlins ($68M), and Athletics ($74M) are at the bottom in 2025 payrolls. The difference between the second and third highest payrolls (Mets and Yankees) alone is $35 million. Many fans worry about the future of the sport if this continues. A salary cap would prevent high-spending teams from dominating and encourage lower-spending teams to invest more in their rosters, fostering greater league parity. For this speculative exercise, I've set a hypothetical MLB salary cap at $200 million and a floor at 90% ($180 million), considering MLB's 2024 revenue of $12.1 billion and a 26-player roster size. Here's how current 2025 payrolls would stack up against this hypothetical cap: Team 2025 Payroll Cap Floor (180M) Ceiling (200M) Los Angeles Dodgers $337,000,000.00 -$137,000,000 New York Mets $324,000,000.00 -$124,000,000 New York Yankees $289,000,000.00 -$89,000,000 Philadelphia Phillies $279,000,000.00 -$79,000,000 Toronto Blue Jays $247,000,000.00 -$47,000,000 Houston Astros $219,000,000.00 -$19,000,000 Texas Rangers $217,000,000.00 -$17,000,000 Atlanta Braves $214,000,000.00 -$14,000,000 San Diego Padres $210,000,000.00 -$10,000,000 Boston Red Sox $199,000,000.00 Chicago Cubs $193,000,000.00 Los Angeles Angels $193,000,000.00 Arizona Diamondbacks $181,000,000.00 San Francisco Giants $170,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 Baltimore Orioles $161,000,000.00 $19,000,000.00 Seattle Mariners $152,000,000.00 $28,000,000.00 Minnesota Twins $146,000,000.00 $34,000,000.00 Detroit Tigers $143,000,000.00 $37,000,000.00 St. Louis Cardinals $135,000,000.00 $45,000,000.00 Colorado Rockies $125,000,000.00 $55,000,000.00 Kansas City Royals $119,000,000.00 $61,000,000.00 Washington Nationals $114,000,000.00 $66,000,000.00 Cincinnati Reds $113,000,000.00 $67,000,000.00 Milwaukee Brewers $108,000,000.00 $72,000,000.00 Cleveland Guardians $100,000,000.00 $80,000,000.00 Pittsburgh Pirates $90,000,000.00 $90,000,000.00 Tampa Bay Rays $90,000,000.00 $90,000,000.00 Athletics $74,000,000.00 $106,000,000.00 Miami Marlins $68,000,000.00 $112,000,000.00 Chicago White Sox $67,000,000.00 $113,000,000.00   Only four teams—the Red Sox, Cubs, Angels, and Diamondbacks—fall within this proposed cap. While the Red Sox are underperforming, the D'Backs and Cubs are competitive playoff teams. Surprisingly, 17 teams are currently under the proposed cap floor, indicating a significant amount of underspending across the league. For instance, the Chicago White Sox would need to nearly triple their payroll to reach the cap floor. Conversely, the Dodgers and Mets would need to cut their payroll by almost 25% to get to the ceiling. Here’s how the top five teams over the cap might adjust: Dodgers : They'd need to cut $137 million, likely meaning players like Mookie Betts or Freddie Freeman would be gone. Additions like Teoscar Hernandez, Blake Snell, and Michael Conforto likely wouldn't happen, and Max Muncy and Tanner Scott could be cut. Mets : Juan Soto's $61 million salary wouldn't be an option. They'd probably need to part with Starling Marte, Edwin Diaz, and Jeff McNeil, or choose between Pete Alonso and Francisco Lindor. Yankees : Currently just under $300 million, they wouldn't sign Max Fried or trade for Cody Bellinger without shedding Carlos Rodon or DJ LeMahieu. Phillies : This would be a nightmare for Dave Dombrowski, forcing prospects like Andrew Painter, Aidan Miller, and Justin Crawford into earlier roles to replace key players like Trea Turner, Nick Castellanos, or even Bryce Harper. Blue Jays : Vlad Guerrero Jr. likely wouldn't receive a large extension. While Anthony Santander might stay, the team would have to lose George Springer, Kevin Gausman, or Chris Bassitt. A salary cap would drastically alter team compositions and the league's landscape, making more valuable players available to smaller market teams and fostering greater competition as underspending teams would need to offer contracts to attract new free agents. Michael Moore is a graduate of New York Law School and former member of the school’s Sports Law Society. When he’s not working at the New York Law Department he’s thinking about the intersection of sports and law and when the Knicks or Rangers will finally win a championship.

Malik Beasley just had one of his best seasons statistically  of his career with the Detroit Pistons in the 2024-25 NBA season, averaging 16.3 points, 1.7 assists, 2.6 rebounds, and shot a career-high 41.6% from three-point land. Beasley played a major role in helping the Pistons end a six-year playoff drought, helping the Pistons reach the NBA playoffs this season, and Beasley was a finalist for the NBA’s Sixth Man of the Year Award this season. But now Beasley has run into some potential legal trouble as he finds himself being sued by his former agency, Hazan Sports Management (HSM). Specifically, HSM, now Beasley’s former agency is suing Beasley for breach of contract and related claims, where they allege  Beasley owes at least $1 million in damages. HSM claims that when Beasley became a client on November 27, 2023, by signing him to a standard player agent contract (SPAC), they also paid Beasley $650,000 in advance as part of a separate player marketing agreement which granted HSM exclusive marketing rights that would be for a term of four years. HSM alleges after helping Beasley resuscitate his career by securing him a one-year, $6 million contract with the Detroit Pistons, Beasley fired HSM as his on-court representation earlier this year in February and breached the exclusivity provisions of the marketing agreement when he hired Brian Jungreis of Seros Partners to serve as his on-court agent and marketing representative just 15 months into the four-year agreement as HSM alleges. HSM states that when they took Beasley on as a client, he was a player with “known issues,” issues that included financial ones. The substantial marketing advance of $650,000 to Beasley as the agency claims was to in part help those financial issues of Beasley and to become his exclusive marketing agent as HSM expected Beasley would turn around his career where Beasley’s marketing rights would become valuable and generate high commissions for HSM. The player marketing agreement included a liquidated damages clause that requires Beasley to pay HSM $1 million in the event that the agreement is terminated for any reason prior to the end of the four-year term. The liquidated damages clause of $1 million is one of the claims HSM is seeking judgment on against Beasley. It remains to be seen whether this liquidated damages clause in this matter between Beasley and HSM will be enforceable under New York law. If the case does move forward, an anticipated defense that Beasley can bring forward is that the liquidated damages clause in this contract with HSM is not fair and reasonable, therefore being an unenforceable penalty clause as New York law requires  liquidated damages clauses to bear a reasonable relation to anticipated or actual damages in order to not be a contract provision for an unreasonably large liquidated damage amount which is void as a penalty. To counter this, as HSM has already stated this in the complaint, is that both parties agreed and accepted that this liquidated damages provision in the amount of $1 million in the event of a breach was “fair and acceptable in the light of the amount of the Marketing Advance and the risk assumed by Marketing Agent with respect to the Marketing Advance.” The player marketing contract states that “any and all disputes” arising out of it “shall be adjudicated” by a New York court. This is important because this leads the dispute of the marketing agreement to litigation instead of arbitration which is a standard clause in all SPAC’s where the arbitration clause covers disputes between a player and their agents concerning their contractual relationship. Notably, HSM is not alleging that Beasley breached his SPAC with the agency, but rather tying the breach claim to the marketing contract, so in this instance Beasley would not be able to have the complaint dismissed through claiming that it must first be heard by an arbitrator. This case highlights and shows the importance of enforceability of such agreements, and the factors that can lead to one being successful in dismissing such a suit or being successful in recovering damages from the other side. It also shows what can entice players to sign such player-agent contracts, such as marketing guarantees, cash advances, and other inducements. As of now Beasley has not responded to this suit brought against him by HSM and no lawyer has appeared on his behalf on this matter. Romen Richardson is a rising 3L at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC. He 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 him here on LinkedIn .

The NCAA’s transfer portal was created to give student-athletes greater autonomy, the freedom to explore new opportunities and make decisions that align with their academic and athletic goals. For high school prospects, the recruiting process similarly aimed to empower athletes to choose the best path for their future. Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) reforms were intended to complement this freedom, finally allowing athletes to be compensated for the value they bring to their schools and communities. However, what began as a framework for empowerment and fair compensation has quickly morphed into something far more complicated: a quasi-pay-for-play system where inducements masquerade as endorsements and recruiting has escalated into an arms race funded by third-party NIL collectives. The Rise of NIL Collectives: A Legal Gray Zone These third-party NIL collectives are donor-funded groups that pool money to support athletes at specific schools. [1] These collectives have become powerful players in the transfer process. Functioning as intermediaries between schools and athletes, many collectives now offer upfront guarantees of NIL compensation as a condition of transferring or enrolling, echoing the salary negotiations of professional sports. This raises a critical question: if NIL deals are structured to induce athletes to enroll or transfer to specific schools, are we witnessing a covert violation of amateurism or its outright collapse? Case Study: Jaden Rashada and the NIL Fallout No case better illustrates this murky legal area than that of Jaden Rashada, a highly touted high school quarterback. In late 2022, Rashada reportedly signed an NIL deal with a Florida-based collective valued at $13.85 million, contingent upon his enrollment at the University of Florida. [2] When the collective failed to deliver on its financial promises, the deal unraveled. Rashada decommitted from Florida and ultimately enrolled at Arizona State. [3] The fallout from this agreement exposed the transactional nature of many NIL deals and the risks inherent in unregulated, donor-driven collectives. While no NCAA violations were officially alleged, the saga sparked widespread debate over whether NIL has turned recruiting into open bidding wars, challenging the NCAA’s guidelines. Rashada’s experience highlights the fragile position of young athletes promised life-changing sums, only to find themselves entangled in contractual disputes and legal ambiguity before ever stepping foot on the field. The NCAA’s Enforcement Challenges The NCAA maintains that NIL compensation must not be used as a recruiting inducement or tied directly to athletic performance. [4] Under NCAA guidelines, NIL agreements must be for legitimate services, such as endorsements, social media promotions, or public appearances. [5] Compensation cannot be contingent on committing to a specific school, nor can schools or collectives directly guarantee NIL deals for recruits or transfers. [6] Yet, in practice, these rules have proven nearly impossible to enforce. Universities enjoy plausible deniability, as collectives operate independently on paper, even while advancing the schools' interests. High school prospects and transfer portal athletes are swiftly contacted by collectives tied formally or informally to prospective programs. These collectives often offer six- or seven-figure deals, contingent on enrollment or transfer decisions. As a result, while schools claim separation from the process, collectives continue to exploit the gap between NCAA policy and practical reality. Legal Exposure and Future Litigation Risks As the NIL marketplace grows, the blurred line between permissible activity and impermissible inducements is drawing increased legal and regulatory scrutiny. While the NCAA has stepped up enforcement, courts have frequently ruled against restrictions on athlete compensation, citing antitrust concerns, most notably in  NCAA v. Alston , [7]  where the Supreme Court unanimously found the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits to be unlawful. More litigation is inevitable. Some state legislatures have passed laws allowing schools to play a more active role in NIL deals, directly conflicting with NCAA regulations. [8] Federal intervention also looms, with multiple proposed bills aiming to establish a national standard for NIL governance. For universities, collectives, and athletes alike, the legal landscape remains unsettled. Without clearer guardrails, whether through NCAA reform, state law harmonization, or federal regulation, the quasi-professional model of college sports will continue to evolve in unpredictable ways. The Future of Amateurism The convergence of the transfer portal, NIL opportunities, and the growing influence of collectives has transformed recruiting and transfers into a full-blown competitive marketplace. What started as an effort to enhance athlete autonomy has inadvertently accelerated the erosion of amateurism and upended the collegiate sports model. Unless the NCAA and lawmakers can reconcile athlete compensation with the preservation of competitive integrity, the line between college and professional sports will continue to blur, perhaps irreversibly. Sade Frazier is an attorney and Sports Lawyers Association NextGen Committee member, passionate about how NIL, IP, tech, and media are shaping the future of sports law. Learn more at www.linkedin.com/in/sadefrazier .   Sources: [1]  Pete Nakos, What are NIL Collectives and How Do They Operate? , On3 (July 6, 2022), https://www.on3.com/nil/news/what-are-nil-collectives-and-how-do-they-operate/ . [2]  Thomas Hunt & Kyle Stroup, A $13.85 Million NIL Deal Gone Wrong: Jaden Rashada Sues University of Florida , JD Supra (June 26, 2024), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-13-85-million-nil-deal-gone-wrong-4508505/#:~:text=The%20Recruitment%20and%20NIL%20Agreement,remaining%20$13.35%20million%20to%20follow . [3]   Id . [4]  Twane Duckworth and Mike Williams, Understanding NIL Rights for College Athletes , WTW (Dec. 20, 2024), https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2024/12/understanding-nil-rights-for-college-athletes . [5]   Id. [6]   Id. [7]  Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 1 (2021). [8]   NIL College Rules , On3, https://www.on3.com/nil/laws/college/ (last visited Apr. 16, 2025).

New York basketball is starting May off strong, and I'm not talking about the Knicks leading the Celtics 3-1. Knicks and Rangers fans, get excited to welcome a new tea partner to MSG. Though really it is the Liberty who are stealing the show, signing multiple partnership agreements in advance of their home opener this Saturday, May 17th. New York Liberty and Liberty Mutual sign jersey deal. Liberty Mutual's logo will be featured on the jerseys below the players' names. Yahoo Sports New York Liberty and Rihanna's Fenty brand sign partnership. As part of the deal, the Liberty's pre-game warm-up jackets and shooting shirts will feature the Fenty logo. Vogue Business MSG names Snapple its Official Tea Partner. Snapple to be the Official Tea Partner of the Knicks, Rangers and MSG. Snapple will be featured on digital signage throughout MSG on game days. Snapple will also host sampling opportunities, and a "Statue of Liber-Tea" photo opportunity. MSG Kirsten Flicker is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law from the class of 2021. She can be found on LinkedIn here .

In the midst of the college football Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) era, nothing says “we need some guardrails” quite like the Iamaleava debacle. Within the past week, both Nico Iamaleava (“Nico”), Tennessee’s starting quarterback, and his brother, Arkansas early enrollee Madden Iamaleava have both hit the transfer portal – despite being in superficially strong positions – leaving college football fans across the country scratching their heads. With the NCAA v. House settlement on hold, Trump administration’s rescission of Title IX guidance for NIL, and state of college football at a critical juncture, the straightforward question remains, though the answer is anything but simple: what comes next?   Nico, the former starting quarterback for the university of Tennessee has sent college football into a frenzy with his latest moves and rumored demands for exorbitant sums of money. For context, Nico’s contract with Tennessee of roughly $8 million over three years made him one of the highest-paid players in college football. Despite zero threat of losing his starting job at the SEC powerhouse, he recently sought to restructure his deal to the tune of around $4 million per year. While he was a highly touted signal caller out of high school and certainly displayed some flashes his freshman year, many would argue Nico did not warrant a higher salary. After failed negotiations with Tennessee and his absence at multiple practices, he and the team decided to part ways. Nico recently committed to UCLA, and ironically, he’ll be earning less per year at a school with a football program miles behind the University of Tennessee in terms of prominence, success, and development. Funny enough, UCLA quarterback Joey Aguilar entered the portal and committed to Tennessee in the wake of Nico’s decision, effectively marking what could be considered the first ever college football trade. While Nico’s father denied that money was the core issue, numerous reports and indications suggest this was likely a strategy to secure a higher payout.   Just when you thought Nico entering the portal was wild, the plot has thickened as his younger brother recently decided to join him by entering the portal and heading to UCLA. Nico’s younger brother, Madden Iamaleava (“Madden”), was a four star recruit in the class of 2025 poised to compete for the starting job at Arkansas. Although Madden was initially committed to UCLA, the time of the decision raises some questions. While it’s true both Iamaleava’s are from Southern California, why would they suddenly leave big SEC programs with bright futures to return home together at the same school? What prompted the change? Let’s not sugarcoat it – money’s likely at play, and college football fans aren’t exactly thrilled.   The Iamaleava debacle is making headlines, but more importantly, it’s reinforcing growing concerns about NIL in college sports. So much so that the University of Arkansas’ NIL collective, Arkansas Edge, is reportedly demanding around $200,000 from Madden, who entered the portal just after spring camp. This represents close to half of Madden’s alleged $500,000 contract, signed in December. Amidst calls for buyouts in college football athlete contracts, it would come as a surprise that many NIL contracts already have buyout clauses, though few have been enforced until now. So why the reluctance to enforce such provisions? For one, suing 18-19 year-olds does not reflect well on any school. However, the recent surge in contract breaches suggests this enforcement of such provisions might become commonplace. Given reports that Nico was under a three-year deal, he could potentially be the next subject of legal action especially in light of how he left Knoxville.   So, what is the answer? It’s no secret that the majority of college football fans are deeply frustrated with the current state of the sport, and there’s little appetite to see a perpetual free agency in college sports. Over the past year – and specifically in recent weeks – many now believe the only viable solution is granting college athletes employee status and implementing collective bargaining to ensure loyalty to schools. In NCAA v. Johnson, the Third Circuit allowed the athletes’ claims to proceed, as opposed to dismissing them outright. If successful, the athletes could reshape the landscape of college athletics. With athletes under employment status, schools would not hesitate to strictly enforce buyout provisions. Moreover, the House v. NCAA offers a glimmer of hope and change. The proposed settlement includes $2.8 billion in back pay for current and former athletes, reduced roster sizes, and a new revenue-sharing model that allows schools to directly pay student-athletes. Considering the National Labor Relations Board generally governs unionization and collective bargaining, it appears employment status would be necessary for such changes to be made. However, there are plenty of critics to that approach, with many believing the NCAA should take the lead in implementing reforms on its own. Unfortunately, the NCAA might have missed the boat for leading on this issue, as implementing such changes could likely expose the organization to antitrust liability.   The final twist comes with the influence of the Trump administration and Republican control across all branches of government. Before former President Joe Biden left office, his administration issued in January of 2025, guidance stating that NIL compensation, even from third parties, should be distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner based on Title IX. Considering the Trump Administration has been less supportive of extensive regulation regarding NIL, it comes as no surprise that his administration rescinded the Title IX guidance issued from Biden.   The future of college football remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: it’s a full-blown disaster. Given the passion, camaraderie, and unity that comes with the sport, a solution must be hammered out soon, or we’ll keep seeing situations like the Iamaleava brothers popping up left and right - college football and college sports as a whole, deserve better.

I.         Background Although Nico Iamaleava dominated headlines in the past month before transferring to UCLA, it is his younger brother, Madden Iamaleava, who has found himself in the middle of controversy as of late. A four-star quarterback recruit, Madden Iamaleava initially committed to UCLA but flipped his commitment to the University of Arkansas on December 4, 2024. [i] He enrolled in January 2025 but announced his intention to transfer back to UCLA just four months and zero snaps of competitive football later, following his brother Nico Iamaleava’s lead. [ii] This decision raised concerns among the University of Arkansas and its NIL collective, Arkansas Edge, particularly since Madden had not participated in any athletic competition and had reportedly received up to $500,000 in NIL-related compensation. [iii]   In response to Iamaleava’s decision to transfer, Athletic Director Hunter Yurachek issued a public statement supporting Arkansas Edge’s efforts to enforce repayment provisions embedded in NIL agreements. [iv] This support reflects a growing concern within collegiate athletics regarding the accountability of student-athletes receiving NIL funds without fulfilling corresponding obligations.     II.         Breach of Contract Framework Under Arkansas Law Under Arkansas law, each of the following four elements are necessary to sustain a breach of contract claim: (1) The existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) The obligation of the defendant under that contract; (3) A violation of the contract terms by the defendant; and (4) Resulting damages suffered by the plaintiff. [v] Each of these elements must be supported by credible evidence and fact-specific analysis.   III.         Application of Arkansas Contract Law to the Madden Iamaleava Case o   Existence of an Enforceable Contract: Reports indicate that Madden Iamaleava signed a one-year NIL agreement with Arkansas Edge. This agreement included a buyout clause stipulating that if the athlete breached the agreement, such as by transferring before the contract's term expired, he would be responsible for repaying 50% of the contract’s remaining value. [vi] o   Obligations and Breach: While it cannot be confirmed without a review of the signed contract, the Arkansas Edge agreement likely required Madden to perform promotional, social media, or appearance-related events in exchange for financial compensation. His transfer prior to the fulfillment of these obligations could constitute a material breach. The issue of whether he provided any of these obligations before departure would be fact-specific and critical to determining liability. o   Damages: Damages in contract law are intended to compensate the injured party for the loss. In this case, Arkansas Edge would need to demonstrate that they suffered quantifiable economic harm. This could include the loss of promotional opportunities, brand value, or reputational benefits anticipated from Madden’s participation.  IV.         Challenges in Proving Damages: o   Uncertainty Around Value : One of the most significant hurdles is the speculative nature of anticipated NIL benefits. As the opportunity for Iamaleava to perform had not yet occurred, the collective is left to argue about the hypothetical value of branding exposure, promotional opportunities, or reputational gains that might have happened. Courts are generally reluctant to award damages based on conjecture, and without clear, objective indicators of value, claims risk being dismissed as too uncertain. o   Lack of Performance Data : Since Iamaleava did not play and it is unclear if he performed NIL obligations, there are no engagement numbers, media impressions, or fan interactions that could help estimate what the NIL efforts might have been worth. Without those metrics, any estimate becomes highly uncertain. o   Comparability Issues : Valuing NIL deals often involves comparing the agreement to similar arrangements in the market. However, there may be very few comparable deals involving athletes with similar profiles or market value. Even where other NIL deals exist, differences in athlete profile, brand reach, and contract terms can undermine their usefulness as comparisons. o   Causation : The collective must prove that the loss resulted directly from the breach and not from other intervening events.    V.         Statutory Support The Arkansas Publicity Rights Act, as significantly amended by Act 589 (Ark. 2023), provides a legal framework for enforcing NIL contracts. This law confirms that student-athletes in Arkansas have the right to be paid for the use of their name, image, and likeness and it also expands the tools available to universities and related organizations to respond when those agreements are violated.  It states: "A university may bring a cause of action against any individual or entity who induces a student-athlete to breach an NIL contract when that athlete has already signed an enrollment agreement with the university." [vii]  VI.         Application by Arkansas NIL Collectives The revised law extends legal standing not only to universities, but also to their "supporting foundations or authorized entities." This means groups like Arkansas Edge, which describes itself as working to support University of Arkansas athletes and using the university's brand and connections, may potentially be treated as an "authorized entity" with the right to sue in court. [viii] , [ix] This language is especially important because it may allow Arkansas Edge to directly file a lawsuit without having to go through the university. If another school’s boosters or NIL collective offered money to entice Madden Iamaleava to transfer and terminate his deal, Arkansas Edge may be able to argue that this was a clear violation of the law and sue for damages. The statute also strengthens enforcement by allowing recovery not just for actual financial losses but also for punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs. This creates a strong deterrent against any tampering. [x] Simply put, the law also prohibits anyone from promising NIL money to a player already committed to an Arkansas school as a way to get them to switch schools. That provision is relevant in the Iamaleava case, if any NIL transfer conversations happened while he was under contract with Arkansas. [xi] This statutory update shows Arkansas’s proactive stance in attempting to regulate the constantly evolving NIL environment. It offers universities and their partners clear legal pathways if they are harmed by unethical or unlawful acts. The law provides collectives such as Arkansas Edge with safeguards against unauthorized recruitment efforts and establishes a way to recover compensation if a student-athlete breaches their NIL agreement. VII.         NIL Buyout Clauses Buyout clauses are becoming more common in NIL deals, especially with high-profile recruits. These clauses are designed to protect collectives by allowing them to recover some money if an athlete leaves before the contract ends. Still, whether these clauses can be enforced in court depends on the specific facts of each case. Courts usually look at whether the buyout is a fair estimate of potential losses or just a way to punish the athlete. For a buyout clause to hold up legally, it must: o   Represent a reasonable estimate of anticipated loss at the time the contract was formed; o   Not be punitive in nature; and o   Be clearly written in the contract. Attorney Darren Heitner explains that buyouts characterized as penalties are less likely to be upheld in court. However, if they are a fair estimation of harm from lost NIL activities, they may be valid. [xii] Mit Winter adds that collectives must demonstrate how the loss of an athlete’s NIL value translates into measurable economic harm and that without this demonstration, courts may deem the buyout clause unenforceable [xiii] . VIII.         Challenges of NIL Enforcement Even if Arkansas Edge possesses a solid legal foundation to pursue breach of contract or statutory claims, broader practical and reputational concerns must be weighed carefully before initiating formal legal action. The NIL environment is not only governed by law but also shaped by public perception. o   Reputation Risk: Bringing a lawsuit against a young student-athlete, especially one who may be perceived as making a personal or family-driven choice, can be viewed negatively by the public and also potential recruits. The narrative of a powerful collective suing an 18-year-old could be damaging to the University of Arkansas’s broader athletic brand. Such action may also give the impression that Arkansas is inflexible or hostile to athlete mobility, potentially deterring future prospects from engaging with the program. o   Enforceability: Collecting on a judgment can be difficult. Even if a court rules in favor of Arkansas Edge, collecting on a judgment may pose significant challenges especially if they have not yet achieved any commercial success. A favorable ruling without meaningful enforcement may have limited practical impact. o   Negotiation Leverage: Often, demand letters serve to open negotiations rather than enforce payment in full. A settlement may offer faster resolution, reduced reputational damage to the Collective, and limit reputational damage in the court of public opinion. o   Policy Trends: As states move toward legislation allowing schools to pay athletes directly, contract structures and enforcement mechanisms may evolve further. Incentive-based compensation plans may reduce the risks associated with upfront lump-sum payments.  IX.         Conclusion Arkansas Edge likely has a legitimate argument that Madden Iamaleava breached his NIL contract by transferring to another university before fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The existence of a buyout clause, combined with support from Arkansas contract law and specific provisions under Act 589, gives the collective a potentially strong legal position. However, whether Arkansas Edge can successfully enforce the contract depends on more than just having the law on its side. The outcome will largely rest on the specific language used in the agreement and whether the collective can clearly show how it was financially harmed by Iamaleava’s early departure. Proving such losses in court may be difficult, especially if they are measured by intangibles like publicity or fan engagement. This situation highlights a major issue in the NIL landscape. How do we balance the rights of student-athletes to make personal and career decisions with the expectations of universities and NIL collectives that invest significant resources in these athletes. As NIL agreements become more commonplace and more complex, clearer legal standards, contract language, and policies will be essential. Both athletes and collectives deserve a system that is fair. A stable NIL environment will depend not only on strong contracts and clear NCAA standards, but also on mutual understanding and respect between institutions and student-athletes [i] Madden Iamaleava (@MaddenIamaleava), X (Apr. 21, 2025, 6:55 PM), https://x.com/MaddenIamaleava/status/1864417254101930392 . [ii] On3 Sports (@On3sports), X (Apr. 17, 2025, 3:10 PM), https://x.com/On3sports/status/1914473758292639946 . [iii] Yurachek, Arkansas Edge Make Bold Statement , Ark. Democrat-Gazette (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2025/apr/24/yurachek-arkansas-edge-make-bold-statement/ . [iv] Pete Nakos, Arkansas AD Hunter Yurachek Enforcing NIL Buyouts for Madden Iamaleava , On3 (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.on3.com/nil/news/arkansas-athletic-director-hunter-yurachek-enforcing-nil-buyouts-madden-iamaleava/ . [v] Smith v. Eisen , 245 S.W.3d 160, 168–69 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) [vi] Amanda Christovich, Will Arkansas Spur an NIL Buyout Crackdown? , Front Office Sports (Apr. 24, 2025), https://frontofficesports.com/will-arkansas-spur-an-nil-buyout-crackdown/ . [vii] (Act 589, § 4-75-1308(b)) [viii] (§ 4-75-1308(b)(2), Act 589). [ix] What We Do , Arkansas Edge NIL, https://arkansasedgenil.com/pages/what-we-do . [x] (§ 4-75-1308(c), Act 589). [xi] (§ 4-75-1308(b)(1), Act 589). [xii] Amanda Christovich, Will Arkansas Spur an NIL Buyout Crackdown? , Front Office Sports (Apr. 24, 2025), https://frontofficesports.com/will-arkansas-spur-an-nil-buyout-crackdown/ . [xiii] Amanda Christovich, Will Arkansas Spur an NIL Buyout Crackdown? , Front Office Sports (Apr. 24, 2025), https://frontofficesports.com/will-arkansas-spur-an-nil-buyout-crackdown/ .