In October, I wrote about Ben Simmons’ decision to holdout from the 76ers. The NBA season was underway, and Simmons wasn’t suiting up for Philadelphia. Since then we’ve had media leaks, cryptic tweets, passive aggressive press conferences, and much more NBA influenced drama. After not playing a single game for the 76ers this season, in February Simmons was shipped out of Philadelphia to Brooklyn officially signaling the end of this tumultuous relationship. Ben Simmons and the 76ers are no longer together – but they’re still fighting like they are. Simmons joined the Brooklyn Nets where he has still yet to play in a game this season. He’s currently rehabbing a back injury with hopes to join the Nets sometime during the playoffs. But in addition to working on his back, Simmons is still entrenched in a financial feud with his former employer. Until the trade to Brooklyn, even though you couldn’t tell by simply watching 76ers games, according to his contract Simmons was still a member of Philadelphia. Despite being worth millions of dollars, an NBA contract works like any other employment contract where consideration is provided by both sides. Under these circumstances, Simmons plays basketball for the 76ers and in return gets paid $33 million a year. The contract broke down when Simmons refused to play citing mental health reasons. The 76ers countered by withholding paychecks which they felt was in their right because Simmons was in breach of contract for “failing to render services” under Article VI Section I of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To further complicate matters, Simmons was issued a $16 million advance on his 2021/2022 salary last August before the situation between the two sides became radioactive. So during this season, the 76ers actually claimed that Simmons owed them money to recoup the advance. They withheld $360,000 game checks for every game that Simmons missed as a member of the 76ers this season to make them whole. Fast forward to present day, now this divorce involves a third party. When Simmons was traded to the Nets, as part of the deal it was agreed upon that the Nets wouldn’t pay Simmons either. Instead, the Nets would wire the 76ers paychecks that were meant for Simmons to recoup the aforementioned losses. Simmons no longer plays for Philadelphia, but his former employer is still receiving his paychecks they feel they are owed due to breach of contract. Only in the NBA. Simmons wasn’t going to go down quietly. He filed a grievance against the 76ers under Article XXXI of the CBA to acquire $20 million in salary from his former team. According to the CBA, the grievance now moves to the arbitration process where both sides will make their case.[1] Before even getting to the substance of the grievance, the first point the 76ers legal team will likely jump on involves timing. Article XXXI Section 2(c) of the CBA lays out procedure requirements for a grievance to be filed: The 76ers have been withholding payment from Simmons all season. Also, it’s been more than 30 days since Simmons’ new employer, the Nets, began sending the 76ers their former player’s checks. The 76ers have a good case Simmons didn’t file a timely grievance under the CBA. Simmons will likely respond that the “occurrence for which the grievance is based” remains ongoing. Simmons will make the case that he should be granted 30 days from when his last paycheck enters the 76ers pockets instead of his. Therefore, hie grievance was filed well within the procedure requirements under the CBA. Shifting to the substance, the Simmons vs. 76ers battle will be precedent-setting for an NBA player’s ability to holdout and demand trades when their situation grows unfavorable. In the recent decade, it’s become a common trend for NBA players to exert power over their teams to demand trades and pick their next destination. Usually, after a minor recoil, the team complies to their superstar’s demands and trades them. Finally, a team has fought back in the form of withholding salary. This situation also gets more complicated because at the heart of Simmons’ case is his mental health. Simmons has claimed that the reason he avoided joining the 76ers this season was because he was battling mental health issues that began when the 76ers lost in the playoffs the year before. The 76ers now find themselves in the difficult spot of arguing against a player’s legitimate right to seek mental health treatment. As mental health awareness has become more significant, the 76ers will have to tread lightly. Exhibit A of what the 76ers can point to is the shift in how Simmons has acted since joining the Nets. Although Simmons hasn’t played yet for Brooklyn, he’s cited back problems, not mental health, as the reason he remains sidelined. However, he’s joined his teammates on the bench, something he didn’t do in Philadelphia this season. Simmons will likely claim that the way he was treated in Philadelphia was the main source of his mental anguish. Once that burden was lifted and he joined a new team, he became ready mentally to join his new teammates and work towards getting back on the court. The NBA arbitration process isn’t usually in the business of evaluating the validity of mental distress claims, so it’s unpredictable where all of this ends up. Make no mistake, the NBA is a player’s league. NBA commissioner Adam Silver rarely tries to ruffle feathers amongst the league’s elite talent. Simmons’ hope is that this trend continues. But the other 29 teams are monitoring this situation very closely. Ownership and team front offices have felt that the power balance has shifted too far in favor of the players. Their hope is that the Simmons situation will determine that no longer should a player be able to hold out of his contract, refuse to play, demand a trade, and still get paid. The divorce between the 76ers and Ben Simmons is official, the papers are signed, and they’ve begun seeing other people. But the fallout from this breakup will lay the foundation of player-team relationships in the NBA moving forward. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] Bobby Marks, Sources: Brooklyn Nets' Ben Simmons files grievance to challenge nearly $20 million withheld by Philadelphia 76ers, ESPN (last visited Apr. 7, 2022) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33652726/sources-brooklyn-nets-ben-simmons-files-grievance-nearly-20-million-withheld-philadelphia-76ers.

This past week in Luxembourg, Europe's highest judicial body, the European Union Court of Justice, heard legal arguments surrounding the legality of the formation of the European "Super League." In April of 2021, many prominent first-division European soccer clubs across Europe's top leagues banded together to form a loose coalition to tentatively form a Super League that would feature renewed yearly competition among league members without fear of relegation. Initially, the newly-founded concept of a European Super League boasted behind-the-scenes support from twelve noteworthy clubs, including AC Milan (Italy), Arsenal (England), and Atletico Madrid (Spain). However, in the months since the Super League concept became public knowledge, widespread disapproval from smaller clubs, fans, and other vital stakeholders played a significant role in causing most of the original founding clubs to distance themselves from the concept altogether. Across the globe, the ideas surrounding the creation of the European Super League remain unpopular. Despite the near collapse of the European Super League idea, three holdout clubs, including Juventus (Italy), Real Madrid (Spain), and FC Barcelona (Spain), remain keen on having their day in court against FIFA and UEFA. Both FIFA and UEFA are set on stopping the European Super League from forming altogether. On one hand, the breakaway clubs argued before the EU Court of Justice that due to UEFA's endorsement of their own European championship, known as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA would never approve of a similar tournament that would effectively act as a competitor league to the Champions League. In addition, Super League attorney Miguel Odriozola Alen argued that UEFA has governed such matters with an "iron fist and beaten away any alternative project that could threaten its monopoly." On the other hand, UEFA's attorney, Donald Slater, countered by asserting that if the Super League is permitted to take form, the league's existence would fracture the European soccer sporting model and consequently cause a "systemic collapse." Moreover, Slater argues, "Competition should be open to all, and merit, not money, must determine the outcome." During the proceedings, representatives from 21 countries issued their respective opinions to the court. For instance, Denmark's representative relayed that the creation of the European Super League should be restricted because of "sporting integrity" concerns. Now that the proceedings have concluded, the global soccer community must wait for the EU Court of Justice to issue a final opinion on the matter. A decision from Europe's highest court could be released at the end of 2022 or the beginning of 2023. The Argument for the European Super League From the perspective of the breakaway clubs, Juventus, Real Madrid, and FC Barcelona, I can understand why these clubs are set on establishing a European Super League under the proposed model. With the current UEFA Champions League model, member clubs are required to qualify for a Champions League bid regularly based on domestic league performance that year. In essence, qualifying for the UEFA Champions League in one given year ensures no guarantee that the same club will remain in the Champions League the following year. For example, in the English Premier League (England), four spots are up for grabs each year for a chance to win Champions League glory the following year. However, due to the vast competitiveness of the EPL from the top of the table to the bottom of the table, England's Champions League members often rotate from one club to the next. As a result, not qualifying for the UCL could mean the difference between millions and the invaluable television exposure that the tournament offers from a broadcast perspective. If the European Super League is formed, the already strong clubs that become members of such a league will secure a long-term position of European Super League television/broadcast rights payouts without fear of losing such payouts due to not qualifying on a yearly basis, as is a hallmark of the current UEFA Champions League model. The Argument Against the Super League In contrast, I could see how implementing a European Super League may disproportionately benefit large clubs at the expense of smaller clubs and players. Moreover, the implementation of a super league may even go as far as creating even more of a financial gap between the blue chip clubs, and smaller clubs who could greatly benefit from the valuable television exposure and earnings that are accrued as a result of participating in the UEFA Champions League in a given year. Although the Champions League routinely features several repeat names, such as Paris St. Germain (France), the qualifying and subsequent group stage rounds provide up-and-coming players with a unique opportunity to be noticed by more prominent clubs and allows scouts to evaluate how such players would match up against the best of the best. Additionally, under the current UEFA Champions League model, participation in this tournament allows member teams from more minor European first-division leagues to earn a proportionally large amount of money from television/broadcast rights. If a European Super League is formed, many of the top clubs that attract high levels of viewership would no longer be featured in the Champions League, which would exponentially lower the amount of money that UEFA Champions League teams earn on a yearly basis. Final Remarks In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the legal proceedings surrounding the European Super League concept affect the future of European soccer as we know it. Soccer is one of, if not, the most popular sport in the world. Consequently, any significant changes to its underlying structure would surely garner worldwide attention. References "UEFA Battles Super League at EU's Top Court" by Ali Walker https://www.politico.eu/article/super-league-uefa-begin-battle-at-eus-top-court/#:~:text=Judgment%20expected%20by%20early%202023%20in%20key%20case%20for%20future%20of%20football.&text=LUXEMBOURG%20%E2%80%94%20European%20football's%20governing%20body,upend%20football%20governance%20for%20decades. "How Super League Teams Have Performed in European Competition" by Luke Bosher https://theathletic.com/news/european-super-league-clubs-teams/qqMVCmtsh3b7/ Mel is a rising 2L sports law school student at the University of Miami School of Law. Mel is a member of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society at Miami Law and is the founding "Miami Law" Chair of the newly-created National Sports Legal & Business Society. Mel can be reached at [email protected]. Connect with Mel on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/melvinstack/

Since the NCAA adopted its interim name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) policy last July, college athletes had the opportunity in 2021 to profit from their NIL rights for the first time. As the 2022 tax season is quickly coming to end, college athletes who have earned income from NIL activities in 2021 should be aware of the tax consequences. This article highlights several frequently asked tax questions to help college athletes who have earned income from NIL activities prepare for their tax filings. What forms of NIL compensation are taxable income? College athletes can earn various forms of compensation through NIL activities, such as: Cash payments for services (e.g., endorsements, social medial posts, autographs, appearances, teaching camps or lessons) Car lease or use of car Merchandise (e.g., clothing, equipment, electronics) Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) Gift cards Any net income from NIL activities—including non-cash compensation—is considered taxable income. For example, if a business pays a college athlete in the form of products endorsed for the business (e.g., clothes, shoes), the athlete should include the fair market value of those products in their taxable income. Are college athletes paid as independent contractors for NIL activities? A college athlete who earned income from NIL activities was likely paid as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. While there is no exact definition, an independent contractor is generally defined as an individual or entity contracted to perform services for another person or entity. The key difference between an independent contractor and an employee is that the employer has the ability to control the result of the work performed by an independent contractor, but the independent contractor generally has right to direct and control when and how the work will be performed. A company that hires a college athlete as an independent contractor for NIL activities does not withhold income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. As independent contractors, college athletes are responsible for making their own estimated federal and state tax payments, which includes both the employer and employee portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes. How is NIL income reported? Form 1099-NEC: If a college athlete was hired as an independent contractor for NIL activities and received $600 or more, their income will be reported on Form 1099-NEC. If the college athlete did NIL deals with more than one company, they should receive a Form 1099-NEC from each company. Form 1099-K: If a college athlete was paid for NIL activities through a third-party payment service, like Venmo, PayPal, Cash App, or credit cards, their income will be reported on a Form 1099-K by that third-party payment service, so long as that service paid them more than $20,000 in payments and processed at least 200 transactions for them in 2021. Beginning in 2022, the payment threshold for Form 1099-K will be reduced from $20,000 to $600 or more and the transaction requirement of 200 transactions will be eliminated entirely. 1099 Deadlines: Form 1099-NEC or Form 1099-K must be filed with the IRS, and the deadline to send a copy of either 1099 form to the college athlete is by January 31 of each tax year. Even if the college athlete does not receive a Form 1099-NEC or Form 1099-K, the IRS still requires them to report all self-employed income, even if it is less than $600. What taxes are required for NIL income? Any net income (gross income minus expenses) from NIL activities is considered taxable income. The following are potential taxes a college athlete will have to pay for net income earned from NIL activities: Self-Employment Tax: The income generated from NIL activities is considered self-employed income, meaning the college athlete must pay “self-employment tax.” Self-employment tax is a tax consisting of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The self-employment tax rate is 15.3% (the sum of a 12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare). State Tax: Generally, in any state a college athlete earns income from NIL activities, the athlete will owe state income taxes (unless that state does not have individual income taxes). The college athlete could also owe income taxes on NIL earnings in their state of residency, regardless of the income being earned in that state. The income tax rates and deductions vary substantially from state to state, so college athletes should consult a tax professional to help them navigate various state income tax rules. Federal Tax: The standard deduction for 2021 is $12,550 for single filers (or $25,100 if married and filing taxes jointly), meaning that if the college athlete’s income is below that amount they will generally not owe federal income taxes or be required to file a federal income tax return (note: the college athlete will still have to file an income tax return if their net earnings from self-employment were $400 or more). The standard deduction for 2022 increases to $12,950 for single filers (or $25,900 if married and filing taxes jointly). Should a college athlete pay quarterly estimated taxes for NIL earnings? If the college athlete expects to owe more than $1,000 in federal taxes for any NIL income for that tax year, they may need to make estimated quarterly tax payments using Form 1040-ES, or else face a penalty for underpayment. This “pay-as-you-go” approach can help college athletes, who earn big NIL pay days, avoid a large tax bill at the end of the year. Is a tax return required for NIL income? If a college athlete’s net earnings from NIL activities are $400 or more, they need to file a Schedule C (Form 1040) and pay self-employment taxes. Even if the college athlete’s net earnings from NIL activities are less than $400, they still have to file an income tax return if they meet any of the other requirements listed in Form 1040. What is the deadline to file a tax return for NIL activities? The filing deadline to submit 2021 tax returns or an extension to file and pay tax owed is April 18, 2022 (typically, the tax deadline is April 15 each year). What tax deductions are available for NIL activities? A tax deduction is an item that can be subtracted from taxable income to lower the amount of taxes owed. If a qualifying expense is related to NIL activities, the college athlete can use that expense to lower their taxable NIL income. A few examples of possible tax deductions related to NIL activities include: Travel expenses (e.g., hotel, baggage fees) Meal expenses Mileage Internet and phone expenses Advertising expenses If the college athlete elects to deduct any NIL related expenses for taxes, they should keep receipts of all deductions in the event they are audited by the IRS. In addition, college athletes should track all tax deductions for record keeping purposes, which can be done through a monthly spreadsheet or an expense tracker app. Can parents claim a college athlete that earns NIL income as a dependent? If the college athlete is a full-time college student under the age of 24, their parents may be able to claim them as a dependent and be eligible for education tax credits like the American Opportunity Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit. However, if the college athlete’s NIL income (and any other income they earn) provides at least half of their own financial support, their parents generally cannot claim them as a tax dependent. Does NIL income affect financial aid? Because income from NIL activities is taxable, it will be reportable on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which could affect a college athlete’s “need-based” aid. If a college athlete receives financial aid or a grant, such as a Pell Grant, they should contact their college’s financial aid office or athletics department before engaging in any NIL activities to determine whether any potential NIL income would affect their financial aid. Conclusion While the ability to earn compensation from NIL activities is a win for college athletes, NIL earnings for college athletes come with tax consequences. Given the many complexities and nuances in filing and paying taxes, this article does not cover all the potential tax implications associated with NIL earnings. Therefore, college athletes should consult with tax, legal, or accounting advisors to help them navigate taxes applicable to NIL earnings. THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE, AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED ON FOR, TAX, LEGAL, OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE. YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR OWN TAX, LEGAL, AND ACCOUNTING ADVISORS FOR TAX, LEGAL, OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for startup and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via LinkedIn.

When you hear the phrase “toxic workplace” in relation to a Washington D.C. sports team, your brain may immediately go to the Washington Commanders. While maybe rightfully so, that overshadows another D.C. team fighting to remove that label. The 2021 NWSL season was tumultuous, to say the least. Partly because in 2021, allegations of abuse were made against the Washington Spirit head coach. The league had an outside firm conduct an investigation into the allegations, which eventually expanded to investigate the entire organization’s workplace culture under the CEO. When the investigation concluded that the Washington Spirit had a “toxic workplace.” The league stated, “The NWSL’s board of governors has determined that the Spirit and its ownership have failed to act in the best interests of the League.” Ultimately the head coach was fired, and the league suspended the organization from involvement in league business and its board of governors. In the aftermath of the investigation, players made a statement requesting the CEO Steve Baldwin to step down. At the same time, Michelle Kang was working to try and buy Baldwin’s shares from him. The players would then express their support for Michelle Kang, requesting Steve Baldwin sell the team to her. And on March 30, 2022, the players got what they wanted, and the sale was made official. Yet, initial calls for Baldwin to sell the team occurred on October 5, 2021. So why did the sale take so long? Once the allegations arose, Michelle Kang began working with other Spirit investors to try and buy the team from Baldwin. In September 2021, he had agreed to sell the team to Kang but then rescinded. Refusing to sell to her, he publicly Baldwin went so far as to pen an email to Spirit investors accusing Kang of organizing a “coup” against him and spreading misinformation in an attempt to wrestle control of the club away. After turning down Kang’s offer of $35 million, Baldwin entered “exclusive negotiations” with Todd Boehly for an offer of $25 million. This obviously led to the ire of the other investors, including former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Tom and other investors threatened legal action if Baldwin. A letter from seventeen investors to Steve Baldwin said, “It is our collective position that the $35 million bid is so far superior that there is but one option worth pursuing.” The letter also said the investors “reserve all of their rights and remedies under the governing documentation and applicable state and federal law. Please consider this a collective notice and reservation of rights.” But now, the players and investors have gotten what they wanted, and the sale has been approved and finalized by the league. The league is looking to improve and make forward progress in the shadow of the 2021 season. This is the third major move that shows the league’s hopes and intentions moving forward. The first was the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the second was the appointment of Jessica Berman as the new Commissioner. Both of which are moves that have been met with hopeful positivity. Hopefully, with the sale of the Washington Spirit, the league had an opportunity to look at their approval processes for areas of improvement to provide a safer and abuse-free environment for the players. Emlyn Goodman is a 3L at University of Baltimore School of Law where she is a current student attorney in the Community Development Clinic. She can be found on Twitter @emlyngoodman and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/emlyn-goodman-b46113113/

Previously, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) released its decisions on the Football Union of Russia’s (FUR) requests to stay the execution of UEFA and FIFA’s suspensions of all Russian teams and clubs from the respective leagues’ competitions. Now, the CAS has released its full order, which provides the reasoning behind the CAS’ decision. Citing R37 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Ms. Corinne Schmidhauser, President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, identified the following factors when deciding whether a stay of execution should be granted: Whether the stay requested is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm; Whether the applicant has reasonable chances to succeed on the merits; and Whether the interests of the applicant outweigh those of the opposite parties and of third parties. Irreparable Harm In a lengthy discussion of the arguments, the Division President found that the Football Union of Russia would suffer irreparable harm if the stay of execution was not granted. The Division President turned to previous CAS opinions in finding that a suspension “can cause irreparable harm . . . if the athlete is unable to compete in qualifying events necessary to compete in [a] major event[].” Reasoning that the World Cup and Women’s World Cup are the biggest football tournaments that take place only every four years, the Division President found that the respective tournaments constitute major events. Thus, the FUR would suffer irreparable harm. However, the Division President left it open because the Division President gave more weight to the balance of interests factor. Likelihood of Success The Division President punted on this factor refusing to take a position on the likelihood of success. “the [Football Union of Russia’s] likelihood of success on the merits cannot be definitely discounted.” Therefore, the decision turned on the balance of interests. Balance of Interests The Division President found that the FUR’s teams have an interest in participating in competitions. However, FIFA has a legitimate interest in maintaining and ensuring smooth competitions and the integrity of its competitions. If the FUR was allowed to continue in the competition, opponents would forfeit the game, which would damage the integrity of FIFA competitions. Similar damage would occur if the FUR were allowed to play, then be removed later in the competition. The Division President also noted that additional security measures would be necessary for a safe competition. With those interests in mind, the Division President found that the balance of interests weighed “decisively” in favor of FIFA, UEFA, and the other Respondents. Therefore, the Division President denied the FUR’s requests. Takeaway For future organizations lodging requests for provisional measures to the CAS, note that even when irreparable harm is apparent, safety and integrity weigh heavily in the decision on whether to grant a stay of execution. Therefore, when an organizations actions lead to multiple opponents refusing to play, it is unlikely that a stay of execution will be granted.

Daniel Kaplan, writer for The Athletic, wrote about the NFL creating an ad hoc ownership group to determine who must pay the $790 million settlement tab to St. Louis. Owners, at their annual meetings in March, tried to determine whether the $790 million bill should fall solely on Rams owner Stan Kroenke or be spread across the other clubs. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, several months ago, appointed a five-owner ad hoc committee to try to resolve the issue. Advocates for Kroenke to fully pay the tab and advocates for all owners to pay the tab are on the ad hoc committee. These owners were not disclosed, but one thing is for sure, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is not on the ad hoc committee. Jerry Jones could be seen as Kroenke’s right hand man, or even the leader that pushed the owners to vote for Kroenke’s plan when the owners voted in Houston to approve the Rams’ relocation to Los Angeles on January 12, 2016. He is seen as the owner that pushed for the blind vote, even threatening revenue losses from the TV contracts and they would lose their ability to host a Super Bowl, according to Ben Frederickson from the St. Louis Post Dispatch. For those owners saying Kroenke should pay the entire $790 million settlement fee, they argue that Kroenke signed an indemnification agreement when he won the right to relocate the Rams in 2016, meaning he would cover all costs associated with the move. Seth Wickersham, senior writer for ESPN, wrote about an owners meeting earlier this year where New York Giants owner John Mara Jr. stated he would not have voted for Kroenke’s plan if Kroenke did not cover the entire payment, and he would not stick to the indemnification agreement. Kroenke has several arguments for why he should not cover the full settlement, which the NFL paid in December. The competing project at the 2016 owners’ vote for the L.A. market was led by the Chargers and Raiders. Those two clubs sent material to then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s office that laid out how, arguably, the Rams did not follow the relocation bylaws. Kroenke argues if not for this information, St. Louis would not have had a case against the NFL. Kroenke argues this insight from the Raiders and Chargers formed the backbone of the St. Louis legal case and made it more difficult to get the case dismissed. The Chargers and Raiders gave St. Louis the blueprint to successfully sue the Rams and the NFL over the relocation process, and how the Rams had plans to relocate well before they filed for it in late 2015. Kroenke also argues that his billions of dollars reclaimed L.A. for the NFL, topped off by the well-received SoFi Stadium, and he should get some credit for that. This argument is invalid. His stadium may be making money for the NFL, capped off by Super Bowl LVI. However, this is not a valid argument. He relocated the team, and he did not follow the relocation guidelines. He had no plans to keep the Rams in St. Louis, he was on the Los Angeles committee as a minority owner. Kroenke looked out for himself, and himself only. These reasons are why his argument is invalid, and he should pay the $790 million settlement by himself. The other side argues Kroenke agreed to indemnify the other owners, without which they would have never agreed to the Rams relocation. His franchise value has soared by billions of dollars, and he has a tremendous real estate opportunity in Hollywood Park. When the NFL in December agreed to settle the St. Louis case, the resolution called for the issue of who pays to go to the finance committee. That has changed. A source familiar with the NFL’s working stated the actual resolution and to settle a financial issue is the commissioner, with consultation with the finance committee determines who pays what. The finance committee did not want to take part in this issue, so they set up a special committee to determine who pays the $790 million settlement. The 31 club owners (the Green Bay Packers are owned by shareholders) are a highly exclusive and powerful group, so typically they take great pains not to air their dirty laundry, but Kroenke clearly hit a sensitive spot for many owners. They believe he has exhibited bad faith by appearing to backtrack on his indemnification commitment. Kroenke exercised his right to first refusal when he purchased the Rams from previous owner, Georgia Frontierre’s, heirs, her children. He is willing to spend cash to flex their muscle in a league run on a sharing philosophy (roughly 80 percent of revenues are shared). Kaplan states the owners’ beliefs are being tested on the ad hoc committee on the St. Louis settlement money. The NFL team owner source on the committee appeared to concede the commissioner in the end would have to make a decision. Kaplan concludes that the decision is unclear. From a money angle, there is no real pressure to decide: the league tapped a low-interest rate line of credit to pay St. Louis. But given the contentious voices behind closed doors at the annual meeting, the issue is far more than a minor accounting issue, but is one that speaks to how owners navigate their commitments to one another. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the American-owned Haas Formula One team cut ties with its title sponsor Uralkali. The team also cut the Russian-born Nikita Mazepin from the team, replacing him with Kevin Magnussen. Following the dissolution of the relationship, Uralkali released statements hinting at the possibility of litigation related to the funding the company provided to Haas F1. One particular statement read: “As most of the sponsorship funding for the 2022 season has already been transferred to Haas and given that the team terminated the sponsorship agreement before the first race of the 2022 season, Haas has thus failed to perform its obligations to Uralkali for this year's season. Uralkali shall request the immediate reimbursement of the amounts received by Haas.” Uralkali formally wrote to Haas F1 regarding these compensation claims setting forth the demands of the former sponsor. Haas, it has been reported, has formally responded to the demand outright rejecting the compensation claims and even demanding compensation of lost profits of their own. So, what is the potential legal argument from each side? Uralkali’s main argument is the most basic contract argument that can be made: Haas F1 breached the contract by removing Uralkali as a sponsor of the team when Uralkali had already performed their side of the contract by providing around $13 million in funding. They will also argue that Haas had no basis to terminate the contract and therefore Haas is responsible for repaying Uralkali the money that was provided to the team. Haas articulated in a reply letter to Uralkali their argument as to why the contract was rightfully terminated. Haas also said that Uralkali’s actions caused a loss of profits for the team. Haas based these statements on a clause in the sponsorship agreement stating Uralkali shall not “injure, bring into dispute, ridicule, or lessen the public reputation, goodwill of favourable image of Haas”. Haas claims that, Uralkali’s owner, Dmitry Mazepin’s ties to the Kremlin along with numerous EU sanctions against the company triggered this reputation clause. Haas went on to cite case law stating that the party that terminates the contract based on a breach by the other party is under no obligation to return what the party received. Using this argument, they stated they were under no obligation to return the $13 million. The team adds that it is entitled to profits lost that the team says it would have made if the agreement with Uralkali had not been breached and subsequently terminated. Haas demanded $8 million dollars, which should be paid in a matter of about a week. Haas went on to bolster the demand by stating that it would not provide Uralkali with one of Mazepin’s 2021 Formula One car, another provision in the agreement, if the sum was not paid. Haas has also reportedly refused to pay out the salary of Nikita Mazepin following his termination. Uralkali has been left in disbelief by the response from Haas F1 and has stated of Haas “they seem to be fine with spending Russian money - and even are asking for more - but don’t want to have any Russians around. It's a truly shocking treatment toward a title sponsor who stepped up last season when [Haas] badly needed resources and who had offered to go above and beyond the contracted amounts to provide additional bonuses to team staff to achieve better results for all involved.” With both parties at odds, it seems to forecast impending litigation finalizing the tumultuous relationship between the two parties. Haas F1 has started off their 2022 campaign strong on the track, but impending litigation could bring unneeded distractions throughout the season. 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: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

As first reported today by Todd Archer of ESPN, police are seeking to speak with Dallas Cowboys Kelvin Joseph in connection to a fatal shooting on March 18th. Cameron Ray was 20 years old when he was fatally shot and killed after a March 18 altercation with a group of individuals that appeared to include Joseph. That is because there is allegedly video evidence of an individual wearing a YKDV necklace. Kelvin Joseph goes by the rap name “YKDV Bossman Fat.” Aspiring attorneys are taught day 1 of law school to never speak to law enforcement without their attorney present. In this case, law enforcement likely has a strong suspicion at a minimum Mr. Joseph has information regarding the incident. They may believe that he may be the shooter himself. If Mr. Joseph is to speak to law enforcement, my advice would be to have your attorney present. The optics do not matter (i.e. I look guilty getting an attorney). Even if you did know you did nothing at all, always have an attorney present when speaking to law enforcement. The number of Defendants in the country whom have had false confessions coerced in the last hundred years is staggering. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement especially as a former felony prosecutor who saw first-hand all the good they do for the community. That being said, law enforcement officers are human and they do make mistakes and they do cut corners. Unfortunately, there are situations where law enforcement develop theories right at the crime scene and they only see the evidence that supports their initial theory. It doesn’t matter how smart you think you are, they will lie to you and trick you during an interrogation. Why? That is because it is perfectly legal for law enforcement to lie to a suspect. They will also do good cop, bad cop to get you give you a confession. That is because with a confession, they know a conviction is very, very likely. That is because with a confession, the suspect’s criminal defense attorney will try to suppress it but if they can’t, they know a conviction is all but assured. That is because juries are always weighing the idea of whether the Defendant committed the act. With a confession, they did not need to think about the case long. They will vote to convict and move on. It doesn’t matter who you are, if law enforcement asks to speak with you, politely respond that you would like your attorney present. An individual need only say the word “attorney” or “lawyer” and all questioning must cease immediately. Law enforcement is supposed to read you Miranda if the conversation turns from investigatory to accusatory, but they rarely do. The prosecution will then fight to keep the likely unconstitutional statements in because it gives them leverage in plea negotiations. Prosecutors LOVE to try cases where the evidence is overwhelming. They expect to win and they will be serenading by their office when they do. They will very unlikely give a favorable plea recommendation if they think they have you dead to right. Many prosecutors fight to get significant trials. When I was a prosecutor, I observed many prosecutors who just pushed paper all day wondering why they are not getting trials. That is because very strong cases (murder cases excluded) rarely go to trial. They usually end in pleas. It is the weaker cases that usually go to trial. Those prosecutors who are clamoring for trials do not want to try a weak case and lose. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

Daniel Wallach, Conduct Detrimental’s co-host, reported that Judge Christopher McGraugh, who presided over every motion from St. Louis and the NFL before the matter settled in November, agreed to hear the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s motion to unseal the court records from that lawsuit. The motion is scheduled for May 13, 2022. Most of the court records, including depositions from Stan Kroenke, Kevin Demoff, among others, are sealed from the public view. Since the St. Louis Post Dispatch motioned for the records to be unsealed, they must convince Judge McGraugh why these records must be unsealed. The NFL and the Rams must convince Judge McGraugh that the records should remained sealed. The NFL and the Rams may feel like they are at a disadvantage since Judge McGraugh is a circuit court judge in St. Louis, and he dismissed all but one motion the NFL brought forth in his courtroom before they eventually settled the lawsuit with St. Louis. This process is going to be intriguing because if this motion is granted, the public could view the depositions and other sealed documents that could reveal the NFL’s “dirty laundry.” An example is Commissioner Goodell stating the NFL Relocation Guidelines must be followed and are binding; however, he and the Rams did not follow those guidelines when the Rams played their last season in St. Louis in 2015. According to Ben Frederickson, writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and Randy Karraker, 101 ESPN’s Karraker and Smallmon cohost, Kroenke had this plan from the very moment he took over as owner in 2010. His plan took action when he hired Jeff Fisher as the head coach in 2012. Fisher had experience relocating a club, the Houston Oilers to Tennessee, where they were rebranded as the Tennessee Titans. This was the first sign Kroenke had no intentions to remain in St. Louis, although he told the media in 2010 that he was a loyal Missourian and would do everything in his power to keep the Rams in St. Louis. In 2014, after Rams quarterback Sam Bradford tore his ACL in a preseason game, he called COO Kevin Demoff to see the Los Angeles site that eventually became SOFI Stadium to see how marvelous the site was, and how he had dreams to bring football back to Los Angeles. The attorneys for St. Louis’ legal team discovered Kroenke made a conference call to Roger Goodell and other owners about his Los Angeles plans as early as 2013. Kroenke did not care about winning in St. Louis, the only thing he won there was the arbitration battle for renovations to the then named Edward Jones Dome. He and the Rams asked for a $700 million renovation, but St. Louis asked for a $125 million renovation. The Rams’ lease with the Regional Stadium Authority, who owns and operates the now named Dome at America’s Center, could be broken after twenty years if the Dome was not in the NFL stadiums’ top tier. Top tier means the top twenty-five percent. The Dome was among the worst stadiums in the NFL. This clause allowed Kroenke to break the lease and file for relocation. With help from Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, on January 12, 2016, he and the Rams could move to Los Angeles after thirty owners voted in favor for Kroenke’s stadium plan. Should Judge McGraugh grant the motion, this could show what truly occurred leading up to the relocation. This motion is a tremendous deal for St. Louis, and it could reveal evidence that may have been revealed had this case gone to trial.

A few weeks ago here at Conduct Detrimental, we highlighted Fordham Law’s tremendous success at the Tulane Baseball Arbitration Competition. While that particular competition might be regarded as the most regarded and widely known at the moment, it is not the only sports law competition out there. There is a growing number of well-run competitions across the country centered around various different sports. If you’re a law school student who’s passionate about hockey, the newly formed New England Hockey Arbitration Competition (NEHAC) hosted by Western New England University School of Law is exactly what you’re looking for. To learn more about it, I had the pleasure of talking with Scott DeCaupa, a 2L at Western New England Law School, who provided great information about the inaugural competition that will take place this summer on July 2nd & 3rd. Seeing the success of the numerous baseball, football, and basketball competitions hosted by various law schools across the country, the Sports and Entertainment Law Society and Western New England felt like there was an opportunity to put on a fun and unique competition in a different sport: hockey. In preparation for the inaugural July competition, WNE Law went above and beyond to ensure the competition will be viewed as one of the premier sports law competitions out there. Like most law school moot court competitions, the NEHAC's main goal is to provide participants with the opportunity to sharpen their oral and written advocacy skills. The competition is a unique opportunity because it allows law students to sharpen these skills within the specialized context of NHL salary arbitration proceedings in front of professional hockey executives. Some of the executives that will be in attendance will be Scott Howson (AHL President), Daniel Milstein (Player Agent and CEO of Gold Star Sports Management), Aaron Schwartz (Director of Hockey Affairs, Carolina Hurricanes), Brad Andrews (Sr. Director of Hockey and Business Ops, Winnipeg Jets AHL affiliate Manitoba Moose), and others. While analyzing, formulating, and presenting about a topic of interest is definitely a valuable experience, one of the aspects that make a sports law competition great is the caliber of experienced professionals that help moderate it. With no shortage of esteemed executives listed above, it’s clear that the NEHAC is certainly in good hands. For any law student aspiring to work in hockey one day, the opportunity of hearing feedback from some of the most respected individuals in the game could prove to be an invaluable experience. In the competition, competing JD students don’t need to be affiliated with an internal society or association to participate in this event, but teams do need to be made up of 2-3 students who go to the same law school. Located in Springfield, Massachusetts, Western New England University School of Law already has a great tie-in with the hockey community. The AHL’s headquarters are located just miles from campus, so the Sports and Entertainment Law Society at Western New England wants to lean into that local connection with the game. This competition should be a great forum for passionate hockey fans to engage in competition. Sports law competitions highlight the growing popularity of sports law as a whole. Conduct Detrimental’s growth over the past year certainly shows this as well. The Tulane Baseball Competition used to be the only heralded sports law competition nationwide, but now that is not the case. Sports law has extended beyond just one sport, one law school, or one region. The newly founded New England Hockey Arbitration Competition at Western New England University School of Law is just another example of this. It will be fascinating to see the results here in a few months! You can follow the competition’s official Twiiter page at @nehac_2022.

As a part of the deal to move the Carolina Panthers’ headquarters to South Carolina, South Carolina agreed to $115 million in tax credits. Now, South Carolina State Senator Wes Climer argues that the tax credits will go away if the team does not move its payroll to South Carolina by 2024. Initially, the Carolina Panthers, through its real estate holding company GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC, agreed to a Fee In Lieu of Tax and Incentive (FILOT) Agreement with York County, South Carolina, which included $225 million in pre-approved infrastructure bonds from the City of Rock Hill. The infrastructure provided by the bonds would include roads, sewage, water, and electricity. However, the City never issued the bonds, maintaining the position that the Panthers did not submit enough details to issue the bonds. In March, the Panthers paused construction on the new facility after having spent over $170 million on the project due to concerns over the lack of funding from the city, including the failure to furnish the $225 million in infrastructure bonds. On March 21, in an effort to restart construction on the Project, York County passed a resolution to amend the FILOT agreement with GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC by allowing the Panthers to pay for the $225 million in infrastructure and offering to reimburse GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC through property tax credits over a 30-year period. On March 28, Rock Hill passed a resolution supporting York County’s resolution. To date, the Panthers have not responded to York County’s alternative fee arrangement, which has upset lawmakers and led to Senator Climer’s comments. The Carolina Panthers are now in a curious position. They could accept the new fee arrangement from the county. The problem—beyond it not being the original agreement—is that, for the Panthers to get fully reimbursed, the Panthers are bound to the property for 30 years. While Panthers fans would like to ensure the team sticks around forever, the Panthers may want more flexibility in the future. Another option is to sue York County or the City of Rock Hill for breaching their agreements. But litigation takes a lot of time, and the Panthers would rather get the facility up and running to recoup the costs of construction and ensure that they receive the tax credits from the state. Thus, the time (and the costs) it would take to reach a resolution likely does not appeal to the organization. Now, the Panthers are likely working behind the scenes to try and work out a deal that can resume construction on the project. According to Governor Henry McMaster, Panthers owner David Tepper has assured him that it is only a pause. Until a resolution is finally worked out, the construction will remain paused, and the Carolina Panthers will not be moving to South Carolina. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Two trainers for the Philadelphia Flyers have sued the team following cancer diagnoses they allege are the result of exposure to chemicals from the Zamboni machine. On April 12th, Salvatore Raffa and James McCrossin filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against 11 defendants, including Comcast and its holding companies, which own the Flyers. They are represented by the Law Firm of Kline & Specter, which litigated an $8 Billion product liability case against Johnson and Johnson in 2019. Raffa and McCrossin are suing in consortium with their wives. In the complaint, which Crossing Broad first reported, the Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. They allege that the Flyers used gasoline or other fuel that contained carcinogens for the Flyers’ Zamboni machine while other comparable devices do not require carcinogen-emitting fuel. Additionally, they allege that the defendants kept the Zamboni in a room with improper ventilation for machinery emitting carcinogens. The Zamboni storage room was near the training room where Raffa and McCrossin primarily work. This proximity, combined with the extensive hours both trainers worked, led to exposure to the carcinogens. According to the allegations, this exposure proximately caused the two trainers to develop rare medical conditions, two of which are incurable. The Flyers have responded with a statement claiming the allegations are without merit but reserving further comments due to the upcoming litigation. McCrossin began working for the Flyers in 1998, where he served as the Head Athletic Trainer until being promoted to his current role, the Director of Conditioning, in 2014. Salvatore Raffa has worked as an Assistant Athletic Trainer for the Flyers since 2006. Source: https://www.crossingbroad.com/2022/04/flyers-trainers-sue-comcast-others-after-cancer-diagnoses-allegedly-resulting-from-zamboni-chemicals-in-voorhees-practice-facility.html Lawrence Kurtz is a first-year law student at Fordham University School of Law. He can be reached by email at [email protected], on Linkedin, or on Twitter @kurtz_lawrence.