The whole relocation lawsuit fiasco started with the Rams relocating to Los Angeles, and there being a problem with the fact that the Rams did not leave the city of St. Louis on good terms. There seemed to be a split ever since 2013, when Stan Kroenke, the owner of the Rams, purchased the Hollywood Park Racetrack, and the other 260 acres of space that came with it. Pair this fact with the news that the Rams refused to sign a long-term deal with St. Louis to stay in the city, and it is easy to see that there was a bad breakup incoming. Long story short, the Rams leave for Los Angeles, leaving St. Louis with nothing but the outstanding financial debt and the overall depression of losing another franchise to sunnier states out West. Then, in came the lawyers. Bob Blitz and a team of attorneys representing the city of St. Louis filed suit against the Rams for misrepresenting their intentions in terms of wanting to leave St. Louis. They claim that the Rams organization as well as the NFL knew that city officials were spending lots of time and money trying to make plans for a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis, and the Rams kept encouraging these efforts to be made despite having simultaneous plans to leave the city and move to Los Angeles. This lawsuit dragged on, with the conclusion being that the NFL, as well as the Rams organization, would pay a compensatory fee of $790 million. Not much in the grand scheme of things, considering Stan Kroenke’s net worth alone is in the range of $12 billion. So overall, it seemed to be a slap on the wrist. So, since this occurred, there have also been two other teams that have relocated. The Raiders relocated to Las Vegas, and the Chargers joined the Rams in Los Angeles. The trouble is, each relocation has led to a separate lawsuit on behalf of the city that was deserted against the NFL. This is a trend that may lead to teams being hesitant to move their teams to separate markets, in fear of the league or the organization being sued. On one hand, it can be easily understood that it is wrong to misrepresent your opinions and values if you are an organization. On the other hand, a city full of people may respond very poorly if you make an announcement as an organization that you are leaving the city and relocating come to the end of the season. There seems to be an argument for both sides. The issue is, if a team announces that they are leaving, they will, for obvious reasons, lose a percentage of ticket sales because people are upset that they are leaving. So there is a fine line that needs to be walked in terms of trying to uproot a team from its community. The fact that the lawsuit filed against the Chargers for relocating is the same at its core (the lawyers representing San Diego have stated on the record that “Chargers' statements suggesting the Chargers Football was looking for a way to stay in San Diego in and after 2006 were false”) just goes to show how difficult it is and how careful an organization must be if they plan to try to change markets. Other leagues have had teams relocate and have not had an issue with it. In 2008, the Seattle Supersonics moved from Seattle, Washington to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with no issue. There was no lawsuit filed, there was no financial penalty levied against any party, the only damage was seemingly the emotional toll that losing a franchise puts on a community. In 2005, the Montreal Expos relocated to Washington D.C., with no issue. The examples go on and on, with no legal arguments being made that anything was ever done wrong. The fact that this trend of legal troubles surrounding the relocation of franchises is completely unprecedented, and it does not seem to be stopping. As a result, we may see fewer relocations in the NFL, now that every single relocation or rebranding will be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. This is a problem because relocating to a major market is one way to increase revenue for a team, however, if a team finds itself underwater financially, relocating in this current climate may hurt a lot more than it could help. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at jonathan.trusz@uconn.edu.

Who is Richard Dalrymple? Richard Dalrymple is a former Public Relations Executive of the Dallas Cowboys. He worked with the Dallas Cowboys for over thirty years and was primarily valuable to the Cowboys through his ability to soften Jerry Jones’ words to media. Jerry Jones, one of the more popular and outspoken owners in the NFL, needed someone of Dalrymple’s skillset. Clearly, Dalrymple was a trusted friend of Jerry Jones, as he speaks of him highly and Dalrymple has stayed with the Dallas Cowboys since he came on in 1990. However, since Dalrymple retired two weeks ago, his name has come up regarding troubling allegations of voyeurism and connected settlement reports. Allegations The main allegation against Richard Dalrymple stems from an incident that occurred between him and Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders in 2015. The accusation details the incident in which Dalrymple had entered the cheerleader’s locker room and held his phone camera in their direction while they were getting changed. In addition, there are additional reports from ESPN that Dalrymple was caught taking an “upskirt” picture of Charlotte Jones Anderson during the 2015 NFL draft. For those who don’t know, Charlotte Jones Anderson is the Executive Vice President and Chief Branding Officer of the Dallas Cowboys. To add insult to injury, she also happens to be the daughter of team owner Jerry Jones. Dalrymple released a statement addressing both allegations: "People who know me, co-workers, the media and colleagues, know who I am and what I'm about," Dalrymple said in his statement. "I understand the very serious nature of these claims and do not take them lightly. The accusations are, however, false. One was accidental and the other simply did not happen. Everything that was alleged was thoroughly investigated years ago, and I cooperated fully." Settlement/Aftermath ESPN received documentation of the settlement reached between four cheerleaders involved in the incident and the Dallas Cowboys in 2016. Each cheerleader received just under $400,000, which included nondisclosure agreements activating prohibitions against the cheerleaders and their spouses from speaking publicly of the incident. Although an investigation was done internally by the Dallas Cowboys, no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered, and the only step taken was to issue a written formal warning to Dalrymple. Dalrymple has kept his position despite this incident since 2015. ESPN reports that Dalrymple’s retirement comes shortly after ESPN interviewed sources and investigated the allegations, although Dalrymple refutes reports that the timing of his retirement and these allegations are correlated in any way. These issues are becoming more prevalent in professional sports. As you might recall, the Washington Commanders are currently in the midst of investigation regarding the toxic behavior and culture led by Dan Snyder. In addition, we have seen the Pittsburgh Penguins become a topic of discussion after reports surfaced that they covered up sexual assault in the organization. We’ll see what steps professional leagues look to take not only in investigating and punishing this behavior, but preventing it. Sources: 1. ESPN 2. CBS Sports 3. New York Post 4. D Magazine 5. thesporto.com

The NFL Combine is scheduled to return after a one-year hiatus on March 1st, giving a chance for this year’s top prospects and late-round sleepers alike to showcase their skills in front of a national audience in what is the pinnacle of the pre-draft process. Or maybe not. As of Sunday evening, agents representing more than 150 prospects have said their clients will be boycotting the combine, citing concerns over the league’s “bubble” policy that would be in effect during the week-long showcase1. The NFL released a memo to the participants of the combine Sunday, outlining Covid-related protocols that, if broken, would result in them being “disqualified from further participation and sent home”2. To further complicate matters for the league, the NFLPA has officially voiced their support of the players participating in the boycott, saying that they “agree and support the decisions by those to not attend”3. The NFLPA’s support of these players should come as no surprise, as the union has a long history of opposing the combine4. For NFL prospects to take a stand against the league like this is certainly unprecedented, and with the backing of the NFLPA, this could bring about real change in the power dynamics of the players and the league. The combine has been a sort of “void-filler” for the NFL, taking place after the Super Bowl and before the draft and providing entertainment for fans at no real cost to the league5. In short, the combine serves as a job interview for prospects, with the NFL dictating the time, place, hotel accommodations, food provided, and player contacts. For a league built on its players and their ability to perform at the highest of levels, allowing more freedom to those who will become those same players is vital to promoting good relations with the NFLPA. As we have seen recently with MLB, player unions and leagues are very willing to go through long negotiation processes and even arbitration, which is something the NFL certainly wants to avoid if possible. The path to avoiding labor disputes such as the current MLB/MLBPA conflict is by working with the NFLPA when it voices concerns, especially in a new frontier such as the prospect boycott of the combine. I think the decision the NFL makes, whether to appease these grievances or to double-down on their current policy, will be indicative of a potentially shifting power dynamic between the players and the “shield”. Those who follow the NFL closely know it as a league with immense power in the hands of the league office, with player power relatively dwarfed by Roger Goodell & Co. The NBA, however, places a lot of power into the hands of the players, and it will be interesting to watch the NFL to see whether pressure from the NBA “player-centric” league potentially impacts future labor disputes. The two sides are in negotiations to reach a compromise on the issue6. *Update* The NFL announced Monday evening that it will be scrapping its “bubble” idea, signaling a win for the NFLPA and the players who threatened the boycott. Although the players are not yet part of the player’s union, ultimately, the power of the union reigned supreme in these negotiations. I would keep an eye on this as a potential jumping-off point for the NFLPA to work to repeal other Covid-related policies the NFL will potentially have in place for the upcoming season." 1 https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2022-nfl-mock-draft-jets-take-wr-at-no-10-after-four-pass-rushers-and-three-ots-go-in-first-nine-picks/ 2 https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1495112835264921605 3 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/20/nflpa-supports-players-who-choose-to-skip-scouting-combine/ 4 https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33341018/agents-threaten-boycott-nfl-scouting-combine-concerns-covid-19-bubble-sources-say 5 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/20/nflpa-supports-players-who-choose-to-skip-scouting-combine/ 6 https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33341018/agents-threaten-boycott-nfl-scouting-combine-concerns-covid-19-bubble-sources-say

(Photo by Allen Eyestone/USA Today Network) By Daniel Wallach The name of Bruce Beal has surfaced in recent weeks as the potential new majority owner of the Miami Dolphins if the current majority owner Stephen Ross is forced to sell his interest in the team. The NFL is believed to be investigating allegations made by former head coach Brian Flores that Ross offered him a $100,000-per-loss inducement to tank the 2019 season--Flores' first with the team--to ensure that the Dolphins received the number one overall draft pick in the 2020 NFL Draft, and, with it, the right to select LSU Quarterback Joe Burrow. Beal, the current Vice-Chairman and Partner of the Dolphins, would presumably take over as the new owner should he choose to exercise a "right of first refusal" to buy out Ross's interest in the team. As reported by Jason La Canfora several years ago, that right of first refusal was granted to Beal in 2016 as part of an NFL-approved succession plan for Ross, who was 76 years old at the time. According to La Canfora's reporting, this succession plan gave Beal "the right of first option" to purchase the franchise if Ross dies or "decides to sell." This language--which is from La Canfora's article and not the legal document itself--suggests that Beal's right of first refusal would be triggered only by Ross's voluntary decision to sell his interest in the franchise. ROFR's are triggered by voluntary sales, not forced sales This is where Beal's path to potential majority ownership begins to fall apart. Under New York law--both Ross and Beal were full-time residents of New York in 2016--a right of first refusal "requires [an] owner, when and if he decides to sell, to offer the property first to the party holding the preemptive right so that he may meet a third-party offer or buy the property at some other price." Lin Broadcasting Corp. v. Metromedia Inc., 544 N.Y.S.2d 316, 317 (1989) (emphasis added). Rights of first refusal are construed narrowly under New York law; the owner's willingness to sell--as opposed to being compelled to do so by legal or judicial process--is an essential element that must be present for that right to be triggered. As the New York Court of Appeals has declared time and again, the triggering event for the proper exercise of a right of first refusal is a "voluntary decision to sell" by the owner of the property at issue. Id. at 319 ("[A] right of first refusal contemplates a willing seller who desires to part with the property.") (emphasis added). By contrast, forced sales, such as an involuntary foreclosure or judicially compelled sale, generally do not trigger a right of first refusal. See Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Cornelius, 914 N.Y.S.2d 327, 330-31 (App. Div. 3d Dep't) (holding that since foreclosure is an involuntary process, the right of first refusal could not be invoked during foreclosure). Forced sales under the NFL Constitution and Bylaws If the Flores allegations turn out to be true, Ross would not be selling his interest in the team on a "voluntary" basis. Rather, he would be forced to sell under a league-mandated process governed by the NFL Constitution and Bylaws. Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws, if an owner engages in "prohibited conduct"--which includes "offering , agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to influence the outcome of any game" (Section 9.1(C)(12))--and assuming that the maximum monetary fine of $500,000 would not be "adequate or sufficient, considering the gravity of the offense involved" (Section 8.13(B))--the Commissioner is empowered under Section 8.13(B)(2) to "refer the matter to the Executive Committee, with a recommendation" that the owner's interest in the team be "cancell[ed] or forfeit[ed]" and then "sold and disposed of" in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.8(B). (Note: the cancellation or forfeiture of an owner's interest for engaging in "prohibited conduct" or "conduct detrimental to the League or professional football" requires an affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths of the remaining owners). The cancellation or forfeiture of Ross' ownership interest under these circumstances would constitute an "involuntary termination" (that's precisely how it's characterized in Section 3.8(B)). Equally important, any sale or disposition of his cancelled or forfeited interest would be conducted pursuant to a league-supervised process (which would include mandatory arbitration to determine the sale or disposition price in the event that Ross's stock ownership interest is not sold within 120 days and the price cannot otherwise be fixed by mutual agreement between Ross and Commissioner Goodell). This is much more akin to an involuntary foreclosure sale than it resembles the actions of a “willing seller” who “desires to part with the property" of his or her own accord. As such, it may lack the requisite "voluntariness" sufficient to properly trigger a right of first refusal under either New York or Florida law. See, e.g., Huntington Nat'l Bank , supra; Pecora v. Berlin, 62 So.3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (surviving partner's spouse's right of first refusal did not apply to court-supervised sale of partnership asset). The ROFR is derivative of the owner's interest in the underlying asset Another way to look at this is to view Beal's right of first refusal as coextensive with Ross's interest in the team. See USA Cable v. World Wrestling Fed'n Ent., Inc., 766 A.2d 462, 467 (Del. 2000) ("Under New York law, the right of first refusal is coextensive with the subject matter of the original contract.") (citing cases). In other words, if Ross's interest in the Dolphins franchise is cancelled or forfeited pursuant to the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, then so too is Beal's right of first refusal to buy that interest. How could Beal have a right to purchase an interest that has been cancelled? It would seem that Beal's right of first refusal would be extinguished in that situation. Daniel Wallach is the co-founder of Conduct Detrimental. He is a nationally-recognized gaming and sports betting attorney. You can follow him on Twitter at @WALLACHLEGAL.

The dance team at the Louisiana State University, known as the Tiger Girls, was founded in 1999. Each year in addition to performing at school and athletic events, the dance team attends the Universal Dance Association (UDA) College Nationals in Orlando, FL. The LSU Tiger Girls is recognized as a top collegiate dance team and have won National Championships in 1999 and 2010, and in 2013, they also won World Championships. However, last year the Louisiana State University did not allow the Tiger Girls to compete at UDA College Nationals. The University blamed it on a variety of reasons including funding, COVID-19, and a lack of resources, specifically a staff shortage in the training room. The LSU Tiger Girls were however, still expected to perform at all school and athletic events and were allowed to host practices. Additionally, they were required to follow the same COVID-19 protocols and testing as every other athletic team on campus. Despite the various excuses of the University, every other “athletic” team on campus was allowed to attend their National Championships. The LSU Tiger Girls were not being prioritized because the “athletic” teams and sports that drove in revenue were; the University and NCAA do not identify the dance team as either. While the LSU Tiger Girls are not recognized as an “athletic” team, they are required to follow all student athlete guidelines, including maintaining a minimum GPA and attending over ten hours of practices and rehearsals per week. Last year was the first time in 22 years that the dance team did not compete at UDA College Nationals. After a year off, when this year rolled around, the LSU Tiger Girls were eager to attend and trained harder than ever for their comeback. The LSU Tiger Girls attended UDA College Nationals and won first place in the D1A Hip Hop division. They brought home the title for the first time in 12 years. Since then, their performance has gone viral and even become a Tik Tok trend. However, it is not simply for winning a championship that they have gained recognition, but for the actual message that these dancers delivered. The team’s inspiration for this routine was the struggles they faced last season. The LSU Tiger Girls performed to “Like A Boy” by Ciara and dedicated it to all female athletes. The routine was choreographed by Carson Rowe and Sammy McFadden of Tribe 99 and their vision was to create a routine that also spoke to the need for the recognition of dance as a collegiate sport. In an Instagram post on the team page, the LSU Tiger Girls stated “Today, we represented ourselves, our school, and every woman before us who has helped pave our path for success. We are BURSTING with gratitude & love from all of the support we have received this weekend.” The LSU Tiger Girls’ vital message has rapidly spread throughout the nation, adding to the numerous existing Title IX and Equal Pay suits in the sports world. This story shines a bright light on the continuing inequalities faced by all female athletes. The full routine can be viewed at the link below: https://www.instagram.com/p/CY0de5dMZzx/ Link to LSU Tiger Girls website: https://lsusports.net/spiritsquads/tigergirls/ Nicole L. Gentilella is a 3L at Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, where she is VP of Sports of the Sports & Entertainment Law Society. She obtained her undergraduate degree from Northeastern University, where she was a collegiate dance team member. She is currently Director of Cheerleading and Dance for Narrow Pathway Management. She can be contacted via email at nicole@npathwaymgmt.com, on twitter @NLGent and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ngentilella/

For the last six years, the United States Womens Soccer Team’s members and the parent company of the team, U.S. Soccer, have been in ongoing litigation regarding the equal pay and treatment of the women soccer players in comparison to their male counterparts. The dispute focused around unfair working conditions, the lack of equal pay in bonuses and salaries, and unfair treatment by coaches and medical staff. The dispute began in 2016, when five key players of the USWNT, Solo, Sauerbrunn, Morgan, Rapinoe, and Lloyd, filed a wage discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Within the complain, the players cited financial reports from U.S. Soccer that proved that the organization’s main source of income was through the USWNT. U.S. soccer responded calling their math “inaccurate, misleading, or both,” and cited various figures suggesting that the USMNT brought in more revenue and viewership. Following U.S. Soccer’s clear stance against working with the USWNT’s players, the players took matters into their own hands and unionized as the USWNTPA. Within the union, the players received education on important labor laws, and further elected a counsel and appointed negotiation teams in order to best take on this issue of equal pay head on. Because of their united front, the players were able to sign a 2017 contract that increased their control over marketing and licensing rights and improved match salaries. Still so, the equal pay issue was largely sidestepped in this contract. After little progress on the equal pay frontier, the USWNT’s members pressed the issue further by withdrawing their claim with the EEOC, and instead directly suing U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination, stating that the discrimination affects how they are paid, where and when they play, how they train, the medical treatment and coaching they receive, and the travel provided for the matches. Throughout the proceedings, it was clear how divided U.S. Soccer and the USWNT were. Both parties filed numerous summary judgements, with the players focusing on a set salary request, and the federation focusing on the inequalities between men and women players. Notably, the former U.S. Soccer president, Carlos Cordeiro, stated that “indisputable science” proved that the women’s national team players were inferior to the men’s national team players. Such comments lead to an abandonment of settlement negotiations. In April 2020, the lawsuit was ruled in a way that looked grim for the players. Judge Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the Central District of California stated that the women’s team had earned more cumulative and on average per-game than their male counterparts. Ironically enough, this was due to the USWNT’s extreme success over the last decade, and the USMNT’s failures to qualify for the World Cup. Still so, post-defeat, the USWNT appealed, and U.S. Soccer suggested their desire to find common ground in the future. Common ground was initially pursued in November of 2021, when U.S. Soccer and the players agreed to resolve claims surrounding unequal working conditions. Such unequal working conditions, such as staffing, travel, hotel accommodations, and venue choices, were all committed to being addressed by U.S. Soccer, with a goal of equality in mind. The goal for a more stable relationship was best achieved by the recent agreement between the players and U.S. Soccer, one that cost $24 million in compensation for the athletes. The agreement largely included back pay for numerous players who were included once the plaintiffs were granted class-action status. Further, the agreement granted millions of dollars in seed money for a fund that gives players post-career plans and the ability to grow women’s soccer in the United States. Most notably, U.S. Soccer includes a pledge to equalize pay, appearances fees, and match bonuses between men and women players. This mindset of equality is one that is celebrated by the players who worked endlessly in the fight for equality in women’s sports. The USWNT’s agreement is up, so we will have to wait and see what further agreements the USWNT, and U.S. Soccer come to, but in the meantime, we can celebrate a massive win for women’s rights advocates and soccer fans alike. Ashlyn can be found on Twitter @Ashlyn_Stone2.

In the past year, former female employees within the newly named Washington Commanders Organization have begun to publicly come forward with allegations of workplace misconduct and sexual harassment against team owner Dan Snyder and other team executives. This revelation is not unique. As reported by ESPN’s Don Van Natta Jr. on February 16th, 2022, the Dallas Cowboys paid a confidentially settlement of $2.4 million after four members of the iconic Dallas Cowboys Cheerleading squad accused former team executive, Richard Dalrymple, of voyeurism in their locker room as they were undressing at a 2015 event at AT&T stadium.[1] Dalrymple was a longtime senior vice president for public relations and communications with a long personal history in the Cowboys organization and with owner Jerry Jones. As reported by ESPN, Dalrymple was allegedly seen by Jones as a “member of his extended family”.[2] In addition, Dalrymple also served as Jones’ confidant for 32 years.[3] Dalrymple conveniently announced his retirement on February 2, 2022, just days after ESPN contacted the attorneys involved in this settlement. The alleged incident, as reported by EPSN, occurred on Wednesday September 5, 2015, during the Cowboys annual Kickoff Luncheon, held at AT&T Stadium. After the four Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders performed, they returned to their locker room, and as they were undressing, heard the locked back door open. One of the cheerleaders then noticed a man’s hand and a cellphone pointed in their direction appearing to be filming the four women.[4] According to ESPN, the cheerleaders were completely naked at this time, and one of the veteran cheerleaders immediately recognized the man to be Dalrymple. The cheerleaders then proceeded to report this incident to the security guard outside of their locker room who wanted to initially call the police. In Texas, it is a misdemeanor to secretly observe someone without their consent, and a felony to take a photo or a video of “an intimate area of another person” without their consent.[5] The police, however, were never called. The Dallas cheerleader’s director, after hearing about the incident, told the four women to report it to the Cowboy’s Human Resources department and the department took the statements of the four cheerleaders, the security guard, and two other employees who were potentially witnesses.[6] Cowboys General Counsel, Jason Cohen, then confiscated Dalrymple’s work-issued iPhone to search for the alleged photos or videos. Dalrymple, admitted to Cohen that he used his security code to enter the Cheerleader’s locker room, but denied using his phone to take pictures of the four women. Eight days following the incident, team officials finally met with the four cheerleaders in person. The four women were told by team officials that Dalrymple had admitted to entering their locker room, but the cheerleaders were told he did not expect to find the women present in their locker room. The cheerleaders further inquired if Dalrymple also had a personal phone in addition to a work phone, in which the team officials responded that Dalrymple had previously assured the team he did not. As reported in ESPN, Cohen told the cheerleaders that Dalrymple “understands he was this close to being fired and still will be fired if anything even remotely like this comes to light.”[7] The issue herein lies in the fact that Dalrymple was “this close” to being fired, but in reality was never disciplined for his alleged actions, he kept his job, and he kept the power. The cheerleaders and their lawyers were never told whether footage from the hundreds of security cameras all over AT&T were looked at to confirm this incident. The Dallas Cowboys team officials failed to properly investigate the alleged allegations by not providing the women the security camera footage that would confirm or deny the exact timing of the allegations. The team officials did not investigate the very legitimate possibility that Dalrymple could have been using another iPhone, but instead choose to believe Dalrymple. One of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders stated, “it was a ‘he said, she said’ and the team chose to believe Dalrymple’s side of things” as concluded by EPSN. This narrative is comparable to the numerous former Washington Commanders female employees who came forward with sexual harassment allegations against owner Dan Snyder and other team executives. Former Washington cheerleader Tiffany Scourby stated, “I know people will say it’s he said she said… She said it because it happened” according to The Washingtonian.[8] It is, unfortunately, not uncommon for professional sports organizations to protect their long-time employees and especially senior executives. However, according to ESPN, this story is slightly different given that there are also allegations that Dalrymple had also taken inappropriate photos of Charlotte Jones Anderson, Cowboys Executive Vice President, and Jerry Jones’s daughter, on a livestream in the Cowboys’ draft “war room” on April 30, 2015.[9] As reported by EPSN, lifelong Cowboys fan Randy Horton took to Facebook writing that while watching a video stream of the Cowboy’s “war room”, he could clearly see Dalrymple taking “upskirt photos” of Charlotte Jones Anderson.[10] The Cowboys were made aware of the “upskirt” allegation in May of 2015, four months prior to the cheerleader’s locker room allegation. However, a source told EPSN that Cowboys’ HR officials found no wrongdoing by Dalrymple in the video.[11] The cheerleader’s lawyer again brought this video to the Cowboys’ attention on September 30, 2015, in a letter written to the Cowboy’s lawyers. The Cowboys issued a disciplinary letter to Dalrymple on October 19, 2015, and only then revoked his access to the cheerleader’s locker room. In May of 2016, a settlement and nondisclosure agreement bound the four women and team executives to secrecy, and, in addition, barred the four women from discussing any details of the Charlotte Jones Anderson “war room” incident.[12] This settlement remained confidential until ESPN received a tip, six months ago, from a former Cowboys executive about the alleged allegations against Dalrymple. As reported by ESPN, the NFL determined that it will not be opening a separate investigation into the events surrounding the $2.4 million confidential settlement with the four cheerleaders and the cheerleaders’ allegations are “considered a club matter” according to NFL spokesman Brain McCarthy.[13] These allegations come during a tumultuous time for the National Football League, and perhaps it’s time that the League does open a separate investigation that is not conducted by the club under allegations. Last October, the leak of the racist and misogynistic emails sent by former Las Vegas Raider coach Jon Gruden to former Commanders President Bruce Allen, gained the attention of Congress who then demanded the NFL release the 650,000 emails gathered by the NFL who were then investigating the alleged wrongdoing.[14] Among the disturbing exchanges between Allen and Gruden, the email chain also included photos of topless Raiderettes, Vegas’s team cheerleaders.[15] The Washington Post also reported that Washington Commanders longtime owner Dan Snyder had attempted to thwart the investigation.[16]The Washington Post also reported in August of 2020 information received by a former Washington Football Executive, that employees were instructed to create a “behind the scenes video” for owner Daniel Snyder featuring clips of partially nude cheerleaders pulled from a 2008 swimsuit calendar shoot.[17] There appears to be several striking similarities between the toxic workplace culture at the Washington Commanders, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders voyeurism settlement. The first is the repugnant response by the team’s officials to turn legitimate allegations of misconduct into a “he said, she said” situation which pins “low-ranking” female employees against “high-ranking” male executives. This type of behavior continues the antiquated portrayal of football as a misogynic “boys’ club” where cheerleaders are only present for male pleasure. Former Washington Commanders Cheerleader, Chasity Evans, told NBC Sports Washington that the women original didn’t come forward sooner regarding the 2008 video allegedly made for Snyder because “I don’t think they viewed us as people. They viewed us as replaceable objects” and idea of being seen as “replaceable” has silenced female employees within the National Football League to keep workplace misconduct quiet.[18] There is further investigation needed for mistreatment allegations of how the team officials handled the cheerleader’s original report by the National Football League. To protect and safeguard another incident from occurring, all teams must make a continual effort to protect their female employees by reviewing club policies, making sure their human resources department is accessible, and given all allegations swift and thorough hearings by an independent third party. As described by former Washington cheerleader and Director of Marketing, Melanie Coburn on NPR, “the culture and environment in those offices was deplorable, like a frat party run by a millionaire who knew no boundaries.” [19] A similar toxic culture seemingly existed at the Dallas Cowboys where a top executive was protected. With these allegations coming to light, is it imperative now more than ever that team owners and officials take responsibility and tangible action toward treating female employees as equal. [1] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [2] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [3] https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/cowboys-voyeurism-settlement-explained-cheerleaders-paid-allegations-richard-dalrymple/myicruytd7ogcn8crtwqdzf0 [4] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [5] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [6] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [7] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [8] https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/02/dan-snyder-espn-is-about-to-run-interviews-with-four-women-who-say-they-were-harassed/ [9] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [10] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [11] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [12] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [13] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33322431/nfl-says-investigate-settlement-dallas-cowboys-cheerleaders-voyeurism-claim [14] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33231841/dallas-cowboys-paid-24-million-settle-cheerleaders-voyeurism-allegations [15] https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/jon-gruden-emails-provecheerleaders-unsafe-nfl [16] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33322431/nfl-says-investigate-settlement-dallas-cowboys-cheerleaders-voyeurism-claim [17] https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29746029/former-washington-employee-says-lewd-video-cheerleaders-made-owner-daniel-snyder [18] https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/post-report-further-details-alleged-mistreatment-washington-football [19] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/03/1077636343/nfl-washington-football-team-workplace-sexual-harrassment-capitol-hill

When it comes to competitions among sports-minded law students, the Tulane International Baseball Arbitration Competition is widely renowned as the most famous. For the past 15 years, law students from across the country have participated in simulated salary arbitration competitions modeled closely on the procedures used in Major League Baseball. The competition’s main goal is to provide the participating law students with the opportunity to sharpen their oral and written advocacy skills within the specialized context of an MLB salary arbitration proceeding. While competition is fierce with the many smart law students going head-to-head, one school has separated themselves from the pack in recent years. Fordham University School of Law’s team is in the midst of a semi-dynasty, winning three of the past four competitions, 2019, 2020, and – most recently – in 2022. What’s fueled Fordham’s success, you might ask? Well, you’re in luck. Dan Lust and I had the privilege of speaking with two members of the Fordham team to learn how they’ve accomplished so much over the last several years. Here’s what Sydney Glazer (2L) and Tori Klevan (1L) had to say. The most interesting thing about Fordham’s success at the Tulane International Baseball Arbitration Competition is that they go about it in a unique way compared to their competitors. Instead of having experienced 2L and 3L students participate in the competition, Fordham leans on their 1Ls. This is almost unheard of at other sports law societies noting that some schools flatly refuse to let 1Ls compete. Maybe they should reconsider their position in light of Fordham’s success. At Fordham each fall, interested 1L students tryout for the competition team soon after arriving at their Manhattan, NY campus. From there, the selected individuals begin preparing for the competition, which takes place early in the spring semester. While many law schools have faculty advisors with experience in the sports law world, Fordham’s team is 100% student run. Therefore, the experienced 2L and 3L students serve as coaches to ensure that the competing 1Ls are set up for success come competition time. There are no faculty members involved in the competition process as it is entirely student run. Again, this is atypical of sports law societies – but hey, whatever works rights! As the results show, Fordham’s process has netted amazing results as they are currently the gold standard when it comes to winning the most prestigious sports law competition going. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it up in the coming years with such a unique model. This is a truly unprecedented run. “If a school wins three of the past four championships in any sport, they are considered a dynasty,” explains former Fordham Sports Law President Dan Lust. “That’s exactly what we have with Fordham and their incredible success at the Tulane Baseball competition. We are looking at the first-ever dynasty in the history of sports law competitions.” In addition to the success of Fordham law in sports competitions, the law school itself is one of the best in the nation. Ranked in the top 40 among all law schools nationwide by US News & World Report, the Manhattan is a great place to land for any prospective law student with an interest in sports. In addition to their competition team, the Fordham Sports Law Forum also puts on a Sports Law Symposium each spring, where big names in sports law come to speak along with a sports law blog. Students can get involved in three different areas: the competition team, the symposium team, and the blog team. All of these three segmented groups come together to form a great sports law experience for Fordham law students. If you want to be a part of a highly successful sports law organization and win some of the biggest competitions in the country, Fordham law might be the best place for you. Located in the heart of Manhattan, the opportunities are endless in the sports law field. At Conduct Detrimental, we already knew that Fordham produces great sports lawyers because Dan Lust is a proud alum. But getting firsthand insight from Sydney and Tori shines an even brighter light on Fordham sports law.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022, Marshall University filed a lawsuit against Conference USA in Cabell County Circuit Court in the hopes of leaving the conference early. The lawsuit comes in response to the conference’s demand for arbitration filed on February 15. How We Got Here On November 3, 2021, in response to a new round of conference realignment, Marshall University announced its intention to join the Sun Belt Conference no later than July 1, 2023. On February 11, Marshall announced that the university would be joining the Sun Belt effective July 1, 2022. In response, the conference filed a demand for arbitration arguing that, pursuant to conference § 3.06, Marshall could not withdraw without giving the conference 14 months written notice, among other arguments. In turn, Marshall’s lawsuit argues that the bylaw provision requiring arbitration should not apply to Marshall because it violates the Eleventh Amendment and the West Virginia Constitution, because the arbitration provision was not included in the bylaws when Marshall signed its New Member Agreement in October 2003, and because the arbitration provision does not apply to “withdrawing members.” Potential Precedent This is not the first time a state university in West Virginia has been in this position. In 2011, West Virginia University (WVU) sought to leave the Big East Conference and join the Big 12 Conference. Therefore, WVU filed a lawsuit in West Virginia state courts. WVU’s lawsuit contained similar issues, including WVU not complying with the notice requirements for withdrawal. In turn, the Big East filed its own lawsuit in Rhode Island. When WVU made a motion to stay or dismiss the lawsuit in Rhode Island due to WVU’s lawsuit in West Virginia, the court denied WVU’s motion. Ultimately, WVU and the Big East conference settled for an unreported amount, and WVU joined the Big 12 in time for the fall season. Validity of Marshall’s Arguments Marshall’s lawsuit is slightly different in that a West Virginia court will now be interpreting the university’s sovereign immunity claim. In the Big East’s case against WVU, the Rhode Island court found strong support in Nevada v. Hall, specifically states: “no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts.” 440 U.S. 410, 416 (1979). With that support, among other reasoning, the court found that the Big East’s case could move forward in Rhode Island. Now, the state court in West Virginia could rule differently. Marshall’s second argument appears to be grasping at straws. Marshall entered into an agreement with Conference USA to which Marshall agreed to the following: “The terms and conditions of Marshall’s participation in the Conference as a member shall be governed by the Conference Bylaws, as such Bylaws may be amended from time to time. As a condition of becoming and remaining a Conference Member, Marshall agrees fully and completely to abide by and comply with all provisions and conditions of the Bylaws, as such Bylaws may be amended from time to time.” (Emphasis added). Even though the arbitration provision was not included in the original bylaws, the New Member Agreement Marshall signed recognized that the bylaws may be amended, and Marshall agreed to be bound by the bylaws, as amended. Similarly, Marshall’s claim that it was unaware of the revision to the bylaws seems unavailing. According to § 5.01, as a member of the conference, the President of the university is a member of the board of directors, and the university covenants that the president has “full authority to speak and act for [Marshall] on all matters involving or affecting the Conference.” Thus, the conference should be able to prove that Marshall knew or should’ve known of the amendment to the bylaws and the inclusion of the arbitration provision via meeting minutes. Third, Marshall attempts to creatively argue that the arbitration provision does not apply to it because it is a “withdrawing member” and § 14.01 only applies to disputes between “members, former members, suspended members, or expelled members.” While § 3.06 does refer to “withdrawing members,” the argument is likely to fail because of Marshall’s failure to comply with the notice requirements for withdrawal, and thus, Marshall remains a member. Even so, Marshall remains a member until they have withdrawn. Taking West Virginia University’s example, Marshall University’s lawsuit is an attempt to resolve this issue in its home state. Either way, this lawsuit is likely to end in a similar fashion as WVU’s lawsuit against the Big East. Most likely, Marshall’s lawsuit will settle, and Marshall will join the Sun Belt Conference in time for football in the fall. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com.

The United States Women’s National Soccer Team’s (USWNT) ongoing litigation over pay equity and unfair working conditions against the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) has been dominating headlines since the initial filing of the suit in March of 2019. On Tuesday, the USSF and the USWNT Players Association released a joint statement announcing settlement of the equal pay dispute. US Soccer has agreed to a $24 million back payment, with current and former players involved in the case receiving $22 million and an additional $2 million allocated to benefit USWNT players in their post career goals and other charitable efforts related to the advancement of girl’s and women’s soccer. The sum is set to be paid over four years with the players to propose how the $22 million will be distributed among themselves and subject to final court approval. The tenuous relationship between the women’s senior team and the Federation started long before the 2019 lawsuit. Allegations of inequality and gender discrimination date back to the 1990s when stars like Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy boycotted training camp prior to the 1996 Atlanta Olympics citing low pay and poor working conditions. In 2016, Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo filed a wage discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the USSF of paying the men’s senior team nearly four times more than the women’s team. The five athletes originally sought $66 million in damages under the Equal Pay Act. The settlement is contingent upon the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties before the current agreement’s March 31st expiration date. Upon ratification and court approval, the litigation will be resolved. The Federation has promised the agreement will provide equal pay for the men’s and women’s teams for all competitions, including friendlies, tournament appearances and World Cups. USSF president and former USWNT player Cindy Parlow Cone says the Federation is committed to moving towards one contract structure for both the men’s and women’s teams. However, the USWNT and USMNT have separate unions, and as such, are under no legal obligation to bargain jointly or agree to identical terms. Additionally, there is great discrepancy between the men’s and women’s prior CBAs, with the men’s team operating under a pay-to-play structure and the women’s union negotiating for greater base salaries and additional benefits. While this is touted as a moment to celebrate, described by USWNT Forward Alex Morgan as a “monumental step forward in feeling valued, feeling respected” and Cone as a “great transition moment,” there are still key issues to consider moving forward. UCLA law professor Steven Bank describes the settlement as a “nondeal deal” due its contingency on CBA approval that is reliant on several moving parts aligning prior to the March 31st deadline. He also expressed concern towards how this future CBA will define “equal pay” and emphasized that the key issue will be the FIFA World Cup prize money. Notably, the USSF still faces an individual equal pay suit filed against it in California by former USWNT goalkeeper Hope Solo. Solo blasted the announced settlement, calling it “heartbreaking and infuriating” because the contingency clause is centered around a CBA that “doesn’t exist yet and is not guaranteed.” Regardless, the parties say they are now committed to moving forward. In an interview at halftime of the Thursday night SheBelieves Cup finale between the USWNT and Iceland, Cone said that the focus is now on repairing the damaged relationship between USWNT players and the Federation so they can concentrate on working together to advance women’s soccer. She said that they are dedicated to growing the game commercially while encouraging FIFA to equalize World Cup prize money. With the USSF’s March 5th Presidential election quickly approaching and Cone’s looming re-election bid, the settlement agreement gives her and the Federation some much needed breathing room and time to refocus on the upcoming World Cup and Olympic qualifiers. References: https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2022/02/us-soccer-uswnt-players-reach-agreement-to-resolve-longstanding-equal-pay-dispute https://www.si.com/soccer/2016/03/31/uswnt-eeoc-wage-discrimination-equal-pay https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/us-soccer-federation-pay-22m-uswnt-players-gender-83036251 https://twitter.com/ProfBank https://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/1467356 https://www.instagram.com/p/CaU-bdMJNLA/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8ee3bc07-c0c3-482a-b766-b02da5ba273d Julie Chambers is a 2L at New England Law, where she is President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Organization. She can be reached at LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-chambers-38a3401b8/.

Yesterday, February 24, 2022, the Haas Formula One racing team announced that they would be running an all-white livery, stripping the previously present blue and red stripe from the car. Haas has also announced that the most prominent sponsor, Uralkali (Russian-based potash fertilizer producer and exporter), will be removed from the car. Haas also seems to be scrubbing any equipment, buildings, or trailers of the Uralkali name as well. These actions come as the world watches what many feared as Russia’s armed forces began their invasion of neighboring Ukraine. As this invasion began on Thursday morning, much of the world voiced a response and Haas was no different. Haas stated the team “will present its VF-22 in a plain white livery, minus Uralkali branding, for the third and final day of track running at Circuit de Barcelona ­– Catalunya on Friday 25 February.” The team went on to state that testing would resume as normal which means that Russian-born driver Nikita Mazepin will continue testing in the morning with his teammate Mick Schumacher taking over for the afternoon stint. However, they made no further comments and have pulled team principal Guenther Steiner out of Thursday press conferences. While these actions by the Haas team are seen by many to be taking the moral high ground, the contractual relationship between the Haas team and its Uralkali sponsor may be tested. As one of the most prominent sponsors on the team, Uralkali has undoubtedly spent millions of dollars to ensure their name is used all over the team merchandise and car. In a sport where money drives the ultimate success of the team, sponsors fight to have their logo displayed for the international world to see. During these talks between teams and sponsors, everything is negotiated including the color, size, and location of the logo. The most important of these being the location of the logo as certain parts of the car are more easily visible during live television broadcasts. The most popular being the direct side of the car or the back side of the rear wing. Given the nature of most sponsorship contracts, it is easy to assume that this contract included a morals clause. This clause could ensure that the Haas team can strip a sponsor of their right to be shown on its car for any morally reprehensible reasons. Many would agree that the recent actions seen in Ukraine amount to that level. However, Uralkali may have an argument that its company was not responsible for the actions of Russia’s armed forces. Another issue arises when one looks at how much Uralkali provides to the team financially. With this break-up, the Haas team could be facing hardships financially. This could be remedied if Haas included a clause stating that if Haas was to cut off Uralkali due to a morals issue, it is to keep the financial proceeds from the company. This decision by Haas may also have possible future ramifications for Formula One as their driver Nikita Mazepin is the son of one of the directors of Uralkali, Dmitry Mazepin. The signing of Nikita to the F1 grid started with bad optics as many voiced that the only reason he was being signed was the money his father was bringing to the Haas team. While Haas has made no further comments, one can wonder what dominos will fall next as we enter the pre-season of Formula One. Justin Mader is a 3L at the University of New Hampshire School of Law where he serves as Lead Articles Editor for IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property. He can be reached on Twitter: @jmader19 and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

Formula 1 released a statement during its final day of testing at Circuit de Barcelona regarding the running of the 2022 Russian Grand Prix. Formula 1 stated, “We are watching the developments in Ukraine with sadness and shock and hope for a swift and peaceful resolution to the present situation. On Thursday evening Formula 1, the FIA, and the teams discussed the position of our sport, and the conclusion is, including the view of all relevant stakeholders, that it is impossible to hold the Russian Grand Prix in the current circumstances.” Formula 1 also stated their position that the races are meant to unite people and bring nations together. This statement was supported by multiple Formula 1 drivers including Aston Martin driver and four-time world champion Sebastian Vettel who stated he would boycott the Sochi race if it was to go ahead. Formula 1 seems to be following the lead of many other major sporting events. The International Tennis Federation released a statement that its Ukraine event this April is postponed, and its Russian events are cancelled indefinitely. UEFA announced that its Champions League final at the end of May would be moved from St. Petersburg to Paris. In response to Formula 1’s statement, the official Russian Grand Prix promoter ANO "ROSGONKI" released its own statement to address fan concerns. The statement reads as follows. “According to the official statement released by FORMULA 1 on 25/02/2022, due to the current political situation in the world, the FIA has decided to suspend preparations for the Formula 1 World Championship round in Russia previously scheduled to be held in Sochi in September 2022 because it is impossible to hold it in the current circumstances.” Rosgonki continued, “The agreement between the official Russian Grand Prix promoter ANO ‘ROSGONKI’ and FORMULA 1 is suspended due to force majeure events.” This statement by the Russian promoter indicates the contractual reasons allowing for Formula 1 to cancel the Russian Grand Prix without a breach of contract claim being brought by Rosgonki. So that begs the question, what is a force majeure clause? A force majeure clause is a provision in a contract that allows for the allocation of risk of certain events that are out of the control of the parties. Courts have articulated these acts to include acts of God, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters, epidemics, quarantines, terrorism, government acts, embargos, labor strikes and lock-outs, as well as other extreme events beyond the control of the parties. This clause acts to limit the duties of the parties when these majeure events prevent the party from performing the contract. Majeure events excuses one or both parties from performing their obligations under the contract. This decision by Formula 1 to cite this provision in their contract with Rosgonki is a good lesson in contract law and proper drafting. Formula 1 seems to have properly relied on this clause citing Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine on the morning of Thursday February 24, 2022. Rosgonki concluded its statement by ensuring fans that the purchased tickets to the 2022 Russian Grand Prix are not cancelled. Rosgonki stated their opinion that there is a continuing possibility that the race will still take place as previously scheduled. This statement is little comfort to those who have purchased seats for the Russian Grand Prix. In the end, both statements by Formula 1 and Rosgonki leave the possibility of the race being restored and ran at the original place and time. Discussions will continue over the coming weeks as world conflicts affect professional sports events set to be hosted in Russia and Ukraine. Justin Mader is a 3L at the University of New Hampshire School of Law where he serves as Lead Articles Editor for IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property. He can be reached on Twitter: @jmader19 and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.