Commissioner’s Discretion The Commissioner of the PGA Tour, Jay Monahan, has the power via the PGA Tour Handbook to utilize four factors to grant a player a conditional release for a non-PGA Tour sanctioned event: The overall makeup of the field from which the member seeks to be released; The member’s standing on the current and previous season’s FedExCup Points List; The number of tournaments that the member has played in, or committed to play in, for the current season; The member’s record of participation in the tournament from which he seeks to be released. Commissioner Monahan used these factors to grant releases to PGA Tour players for the Saudi International, an Asian Tour event backed by the same group as the new LIV Tour. The talk of the golf industry in terms of the new LIV tour seemed to focus on the implications of the upcoming July 1st LIV tournament in Oregon because of a specific rule in the PGA Tour Handbook stating that no conflicting event releases will be approved for tournaments held in North America. There is no rule for the equivalent events in the rest of the world. It was assumed the LIV’s Centurion first tournament in London would not be an issue because it was not being held in North America and would be similar to the Asian Tour’s Saudi Invitational tournament. Commissioner Monahan, however, announced on May 10th that out of the 15 players that applied, 0 would be granted the release to play in the Centurion tournament in London. The former European Tour, now the DP World Tour followed suit stating its members were also not allowed to play in the Centurion event. Both events bring out new information that needs to be analyzed relevant to the inevitable antitrust legislation. Sherman Act Section 1 Claims First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prevents collective action deemed to be an unreasonable restraint on trade. An important defense to Section 1 liability is the single entity defense meaning the PGA would argue they are one entity, and thus could not have possibly conspired to restraint trade with itself. Now, there is evidence this might not be the case. The DP World Tour announced its decision to bar its players from the upcoming event immediately after the PGA Tour did. At the least, this is possible evidence of a conspiracy to restrain trade that could amount to a group boycott against the players restraining their ability to market their services and restricting the worldwide golf market. The Court would then go to a rule of reason analysis to determine the effects of both tours restricting its players where the relevant market would be expanded to global professional golf This would allow the DP World Tour players to have standing and bring claims against the PGA Tour. There are obvious anticompetitive restraints in both the product and labor market. The restraint directly restricts a player’s ability to use their services and thus, limits the global golf market available to consumers. The PGA and DP Would Tour would first argue they are restricting players to participate in the LIV tour because of the questionable finances of its backing group, LIV Investments. The PGA and DP Tours would argue their product would be hurt because consumer interest would deter if the players in its tour were allowed to play in events backed by this group. The LIV would counter stating that both leagues granted all exemptions to its players for the Saudi Invitational, and consumer interest has not been deterred because of this. Next, the PGA and DP World Tour would argue they are restricting their players to maintain their product and without the restriction their product would not be able to survive. This argument is null. Under National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, antitrust law exists to protect competition, not competitors, so it is illegal to restrict competition to enable the league or leagues to compete. If the Court found the pro-competitive benefit of maintaining its product image and survival is reasonably related to the restraint on the players and there are no less restrictive alternatives available to achieve the benefit, then the restraint will be deemed legal under the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. At the least, the actions of the PGA Tour and DP World Tour open the door to new claims of anticompetitive practices between them. Sherman Act Section 2 Claims Section 2 of the Sherman Act provides it is illegal to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nation. The requirements for monopolization are (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. Previously, the PGA Tour dealt with a lawsuit similar to facts present today. In Toscano, the court ruled against the player because of the lack of market and the speculative nature of the claim. The player argued he would not be able to join a league if a new one emerged. However, there must actually be an anticompetitive harm and when a new league had not been formed there is no injury. A Section 2 claim could be brought against the PGA Tour and the DP World Tour or either individually. Previously in Toscano, there was an issue defining the market. Now the market is clear, global professional golf services. The PGA would argue that it does not have complete market power because there are reasonable substitutes the players could go play in, such as the DP World Tour. However, the Court may determine that one substitute is not enough to rule out the PGA having market power. Further, the LIV’s purse for the upcoming Centurion tournament is $20,000,000 with first place guaranteed $4,000,000 and last place guaranteed to make $120,000. This is different from the cutthroat nature of the PGA and DP World Tour where players have to make the cut to win any money at all. The LIV is a substitute that allows guaranteed money for players who can still provide value in terms of consumer interest. For example, Martin Kaymer and Robert Garrigus are two of many that were denied conditional release to play in the Centurion tournament. In the last three seasons combined, a former world number 1, Kaymer has earned around $100,000 playing on the DP World Tour and PGA Tour while Garrigus has earned $250,000. One tournament in the LIV would be more earnings than Kaymer made in all of the last three seasons. It would take Garrgius a whopping three tournaments to reach this feat. If the court determines the PGA does in fact have market power, they will then analyze if the PGA used that power to maintain their superior product or business acumen. Here, the LIV has a strong case that the PGA and DP World Tours are denying access to their league to prevent its entry to the market and to force its product from competing against there’s. The LIV will argue the tour’s together and individually are conspiring and attempting to monopolize the world professional golf player services market to hurt the LIV’s brand not to help the PGA or DP World Tour’s brand. There is evidence of this preferential treatment when the DP World Tour and Commissioner Monahan of the PGA Tour as well allowed their players to play in an Asian Tour event backed by the same group as the new LIV league. This shows the PGA is blackballing the LIV not because of the ethical issues surrounding the financing, rather they are afraid of the competition to their monopoly on golf. As the Sherman Act is designed to protect competition, direct restriction of competition to maintain power or promote a product is generally illegal, especially when the restriction harms the worker’s monetary ability concurrently with harming the consumer interest. The first LIV tournament scheduled for North America is July 1st at Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club in North Plains, Oregon. The Tour players must apply for a conditional release by May 15th and the Commissioner will notify those players by June 1st of his decision. The Commissioner is likely to deny these releases based on the denial of releases for the Centurion Tournament and the direct rule restricting players from playing in a different tour event in North America while a PGA Tour event is occurring at the same time. Time will duly tell, but this gives the player’s a perfect opportunity to bring suit and potentially win a challenge the PGA’s rule restricting their services. Robert Alston is a rising 3L at Tulane Law and is the Articles Editor for Article 30 of the Sports Lawyer's Journal. He can be reached via email at [email protected] or on LinkedIn .

The current NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is set to expire after the 2023/2024 season but both sides have an opt out exercise as early as this December. After observing the labor strike that delayed the start of the MLB season, progress is already being made between the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and the league to ensure basketball isn’t affected.[1] Let’s examine three major sticking points for the upcoming CBA: Tying Compensation to Games Played The biggest issue between the NBPA and the league during this latest round of negotiations could define the next decade.[2] If you examine the history of the NBA, it was a league largely controlled by ownership. However, the balance of power began to tilt towards the players sometime in the early 2010s. Many mark the official start of the “player empowerment era” as July 8, 2010, when Lebron James made The Decision to leave Cleveland and join the Miami Heat. The last decade plus in the NBA has revolved around superstars taking unprecedented action to control their own destiny. Stars have hopped franchises to team up with each other, signed shorter contracts to constantly put pressure on their teams, and in some rare instances, simply refused to play until their demands like a trade request are answered. It’s become a viable teambuilding strategy for front offices to simply stay patient because the next disgruntled superstar is waiting just around the corner. And when that happens, teams must be ready to pounce. Longtime NBA fans aren’t accustomed to players exerting this much power. On the other side of the fence, modern fans view it as players recognizing their value and acting accordingly. You can’t put a price on what superstars mean to the league, so why shouldn’t they call the shots? This tug of war for power between players and franchises may soon be coming to a head. I previously outlined the grievance filed by Ben Simmons against the Philadelphia 76ers as a major event for the future of the NBA. Simmons demanded a trade away from the 76ers because he was unhappy with the franchise. To gain leverage, Simmons refused to play citing various injuries including mental health. The 76ers responded by not paying Simmons for the time he was away from the team. Some want to analyze this battle between Simmons and the 76ers as any other employment contract – simply put Simmons didn’t show up for work, so he shouldn’t be paid. But Simmons isn’t your typical employee involved in a dispute with his employer. There’s very few on Earth that can do what Simmons can on a basketball court. Because of that, NBA players are afforded leeway in their job duties that’s unique to their status as a professional athlete. The harsh reality is they are treated differently because they deserve to be – they are irreplaceable in every sense of the world. But is there a tipping point? In negotiations for the next CBA, the league will argue that the pendulum has swung too far. To be compensated the handsome amounts they are, the players must be on the court. This is where matters get complicated because players missing time for injury shouldn’t be penalized. Stars have missed games due to injury at an alarming clip over the past several years so the NBPA would never entertain talks that put those players at risk of losing money they already signed for. Currently, the league doesn’t have a process that stops players from sitting out and unethically claiming injury when they aren’t satisfied with their team. A solution for disputes similar to the Simmons situation is that the league employs a neutral third party to immediately make a ruling. If Simmons was made aware from the onset that he wouldn’t be paid for missing games, maybe he’s given extra incentive for him to report to the 76ers and put their differences aside. It paints a grim picture of the status of players and their teams that the dynamic has gotten so hostile that the leagues needs an arbitrator on standby. But this may be the new reality. An additional fix could be harbored within contracts themselves. The league may look to formalize bonus structures that can be achieved based on games played. If a player appears in 80% of his team’s games, he would be eligible for an additional payday. Incentives are already commonplace among NBA contracts, but the league may want to tie more money to them to prevent players from holding out. For example, the league may opt for a player only being eligible for a supermax if they meet a specific games played quota in the previous three seasons. NBA contracts are guaranteed and that’s not changing. But expect to see creative ways to push back to get star players on the court. Reducing the Number of Games This sticking point also relates to the amount of time superstars are missing on the court. The NBA has played an 82-game season since 1967. But the rise of load management where players sit out for rest purposes has continued to trend upwards since the last CBA was signed. The NBA attempted to curtail load management by disallowing resting healthy players on nationally televised games. But it’s an easy hurdle for teams to get by, as they can just place a player on the injury report with “back soreness” and the league then finds themselves in a dicey spot questioning the legitimacy of injury designations. A solution to the load management issue is decreasing the amount of games. Rumors are that the NBA is eying 72 or 68 as a possible number. As with any decision the league makes, the ultimate question is how this will affect the pockets of both ownership and players. The drawbacks against decreasing the amount of games are obvious – less money for everyone. But the NBA is set to sign a new television deal in 2025, with their sights set on a deal worth $8 billion annually.[3] That new television deal money could more than offset the lost revenue by losing ten regular season games. The one additional factor at play is the impact this will have on the record books. With the opposite effect of football increasing the regular season game total, it will be more difficult for modern basketball players to accumulate the stat totals to join players of the past on all-time record lists. The NBA may ultimately not care about this, but if the change happens don’t expect anybody to catch the all-time greats anytime soon. All-NBA Voting It’s difficult for the general public to feel bad for NBA players when it comes to their financial situation. But the one example where a player may be unfairly hurt by the compensation structure under the current CBA is how it relates to All-NBA voting. Each year a group of NBA media members vote on their first, second, and third All-NBA teams to showcase the top 15 players in the league. Historically, the All-NBA teams provide a clear snapshot of the best players in the league in a given year. It’s an accurate benchmark. But the recent CBA signed in 2017 started tying financials to All-NBA. To qualify for a supermax contract extension a player must have spent 7 years in the NBA, still be with his original team (or a team that acquired him via trade) and meet one of the following conditions: Named to All-NBA first, second or third team in immediately preceding season or in two of last three years Named Defensive Player of the Year in immediately preceding season or in two of last three years Named NBA MVP during one of last three seasons Suddenly, media members voting on All-NBA directly controlled the earning capacity of NBA superstars. Predictably, some players have spoken out against this. Draymond Green, via his Instagram story, criticized the process in which media members take personal shots at players and then later control what contracts they qualify for. The modern NBA superstar seems to constantly be at war with certain media members, and the NBA may look to alleviate the tension by lowering the stakes of media-given awards. Not tying these awards to compensation or changing who votes on All-NBA could be a solution explored in the latest negotiations. 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] Sam Quinn, NBA unlikely to follow MLB's lead with a lockout when current CBA expires after 2023-24 season, per report, CBS Sports (last visited May 11, 2022) https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-unlikely-to-follow-mlbs-lead-with-a-lockout-when-current-cba-expires-after-2023-24-season-per-report/. [2] Jake Fischer, Sources: Kyrie Irving, Ben Simmons Sagas Could Lead to NBA Rule Changes, Bleacher Report (last visited May 11, 2022) https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2949384-sources-kyrie-irving-ben-simmons-sagas-could-lead-to-nba-rule-changes. [3] Michael Kaskey-Blomain, NBA aiming for new TV deal worth $75 billion which could lead to large increase in salary cap, per report, CBS Sports (last visited May 11, 2022) https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-aiming-for-new-tv-deal-worth-75-billion-which-could-lead-to-large-increase-in-salary-cap-per-report/.

The NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors issued new name, image, and likeness ("NIL") guidance on Monday to clarify the NCAA's existing rules on the involvement of boosters in recruiting. The guidance was developed by an NIL working group of athletic directors and conference commissioners. The key takeaways of the guidance are the following: The NCAA clarified its definition of "booster" to include collectives. Boosters are not permitted to engage in the recruiting process for prospective student‑athletes, which includes high school athletes and college athletes in the transfer portal. Coaches and institutional staff cannot communicate with prospective student-athletes on behalf of boosters. NIL deals cannot be contingent on initial or continuing enrollment at a school. The NCAA has given its enforcement staff the green light to investigate violations of the NCAA's interim NIL policy and guidance and its existing rules on recruiting, including retroactively. Per the NCAA, it has directed its staff to focus on the "most severe violations," and has emphasized that the investigations are not intended to impact the eligibility of student-athletes. The guidance is subject to state NIL laws, which presumably means that the applicable state NIL law preempts the guidance if there is a conflict. Overall, the new NIL guidance does not create any new rules, but instead clarifies the NCAA's existing rules that prohibit boosters from recruiting and/or providing benefits to prospective student-athletes. While the NCAA has taken a step in cracking down on booster-led NIL collectives, it remains to be seen whether the NCAA's enforcement staff will enforce the new guidance. In recent months, coaches and administrators have publicly called on the NCAA for increased regulation on NIL as NIL deals have started to blur the line between legitimate commercial deals and improper recruiting inducements or pay-for-play. To this point, the NCAA is all bark, no bite, when enforcing its NIL rules, despite calls from coaches and administrators for more help in enforcing and interpreting such rules. 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 start-up 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 Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.

In February, California State Senator Steven Bradford introduced the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act. The bill currently sits with the California Senate Appropriations Committee, and a decision on whether it will move forward will be announced on Thursday, May 19. In 2019, California Governor Gavin Newson signed into law Senate Bill 206, a bill also led by Senator Steven Bradford along with Senator Nancy Skinner, which made California the first state in the nation to enact a bill allowing college athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Now, with the NCAA in a period of transforming itself after enacting a new constitution and utilizing the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston, California is seizing the opportunity to shape the future through the College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act. The College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act The act begins by declaring certain findings, including: College athletes of color in football and men’s basketball graduate at lower rates than other students; Black athletes experience educational neglect due to a range of issues; and California Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football players and Division I men and women basketball players are predominantly black and do not receive at least 50 percent of the revenue they produce. Therefore, to combat the findings, the act requires California colleges and universities to establish a degree completion fund for its athletes. To finance the fund, California colleges and universities must split 50% of each sport’s revenue with the athletes for that sport. Thus, the act is a major win for college athletes in California. On the surface, the act flips the NCAA model on its head by forcing programs to pay their players for their performance, which is not allowed under NCAA rules. As previously noted, the NCAA has been hands-off in enforcing its policies, including its interim NIL policy. If the California act were to pass, it would force the NCAA to decide whether to enforce its policy and risk exposing itself to antitrust lawsuits (Alston held that NCAA rules restricting certain compensation provided by schools to athletes could be antitrust violations) or allow California’s pay-for-play system and risk other pay-for-play systems popping up in other states. The act demonstrates how the state of California, led by Senator Steven Bradford, is willing to lead the way in changing laws to compensate college athletes. If The College Athlete Race and Gender Equity Act is signed into law, California will be testing the expanse of the Alston holding and the willpower of the NCAA. 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.

Both the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT), through the U.S. Women’s National Team Players Association, and the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team (USMNT), through the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association, have reached agreements with the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) on new collective bargaining agreements (CBA). Importantly, the CBAs accomplish what prior CBAs have not—an equal split of FIFA prize money. Prior CBAs – Disparity in Pay Rate The USMNT’s CBA expired in 2018 (although the USMNT has continued to operate under the expired CBA), and the USWNT’s CBA expired on March 31, 2022. For over a year, the teams and the USSF have been negotiating over new CBAs, with the sticking point being how to equally split FIFA prize money. After the USWNT’s 2019 World Cup victory, “Equal Pay!” chants rang throughout the stadium. In 2018, FIFA awarded $400 million in prize money for the 32 teams at the 2018 Men’s World Cup, compared to awarding $30 million to the 24 teams at the 2019 Women’s World Cup, including the $4 million awarded to the USWNT. Not only was FIFA prize money unevenly distributed, but the teams operated under different pay structures. Specifically, the USWNT mainly operated under a year-round salary structure, with players earning $100,000 per year. Non-salary players (players called up to the team throughout the year) earned between $3,250 and $4,500 per game. On the other hand, players for the USMNT were non-salary, earning $5,000 per game played. New Structure – Equal Pay Rate Now, the players associations will receive 90% of the FIFA bonuses paid at the 2022 and 2023 World Cups and 80% of the bonuses at the 2026 and 2027 World Cups. In turn, the national teams will receive an even split. FIFA previously announced that the bonus pool for the 2022 men’s World Cup in Qatar is $400 million, and the bonus pool for the 2023 women’s World Cup in Australia is $60 million. In addition, the USWNT’s new CBA changes the pay structure. Now, the USWNT will join the USMNT with a non-salary model. For USSF-controlled games against opponents ranked in the top 25 of FIFA rankings, players will receive between $8,000 and $18,000, depending on whether the game is a win, loss, or draw. For all other games, the players will receive between $8,000 and $13,000. For World Cup matches, each player automatically earns $10,000 per game, plus $14,000 for a win or $10,000 for a tie. As a result of the new structure, the average annual payout for men’s and women’s players is expected to be $450,000. Other gains for USWNT include parental leave and child care. Further, the USWNT’s CBA will also finalize the settlement of the USWNT’s class-action lawsuit against the USSF, which was contingent on the USWNT ratifying a new CBA. As a part of the settlement, the USSF agreed to pay out $24 million to the class of players and an additional $2 million for the benefit of USWNT players in their post-career pursuits. A New Future With an equal pay rate, the United States carves a new future for its national teams. While previous countries have either committed or achieved equal pay exclusive of FIFA prize money, including England, Australia, Brazil, Norway, New Zealand, and Sierra Leone, the United States appears to be the first country to achieve equal pay that includes FIFA prize money. Other countries may take a similar approach in the future. 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.

There were 31 players who submitted filing numbers at the conclusion of the exchange date in mid-March. Despite the thought that many teams employ a “file and trial” strategy and wouldn’t negotiate after the exchange date, after two months, more than half the cases have been resolved, with only 5 of those going to an actual hearing. Sometimes when two cases relate substantially to one another, the arbitration panel may wait to release the first case’s results until all the related cases have been heard, which appears to be what is going on with Adrian Houser. The results of four hearings are publicly available, with players and clubs splitting with two victories each. Seven players have settled with their teams, with three of those settlements including an additional mutual option for the 2023 season. Four players have agreed to multi-year extensions with the clubs thus far. HEARINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED (5): 2 CLUB Wins 2 PLAYER Wins 1 To Be Announced SETTLEMENTS (7): 2 ABOVE MIDPOINT 1 BELOW MIDPOINT 1 AT MIDPOINT 3 MUTUAL OPTION FOR 2023 EXTENSIONS (4) NO UPDATES YET (15): Dean Rosenberg is a rising 3L student at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City and President of the Cardozo Sports Law Society. He can be found on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dean-rosenberg-4a1507a1/ and on Twitter @deanrosen7. For all of Dean’s Conduct Detrimental Articles, click here.

Yesterday, May 18, 2022, R. Montgomery Sports Group filed a lawsuit against veteran NBA agent Derrick Powell. Roger Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery Sports Group, has been an NBA agent for over 20 years and spent 3 years at Roc Nation. In the complaint, Montgomery claims he hired Powell in August of 2020 to work as an NBA agent at Montgomery Sports. He says Powell resigned from that position, effective November 3, 2020. Powell's biggest NBA client was then-Brooklyn Net Center Jarret Allen. After leaving Montgomery Sports, Powell continued his representation of Allen, helping the rising star reach a massive $100,000,000 agreement with the Cleveland Cavaliers. However, Montgomery claims his company should be paid a fee from that contract, even though Powell had resigned and moved on before it was signed. Montgomery alleges Powell’s employment agreement with Montgomery Sports Group contained a fee tail provision that provided for Powell to pay Montgomery 70% of the fees for contracts that Montgomery otherwise would have been entitled to had Powell remained employed with Montgomery. He claims the Allen contract falls under said provision. Often in sports agency, there are major, negative ripple effects for an agency when an agent leaves (and takes his or her clients). With that, agencies draft fee tails into employment agreements. A “Fee Tail” boils down to an obligation by an individual to make payments to a former employer based on revenues received after termination/expiration of the employment agreement. The purpose of a fee tail provision is to protect an agency in light of the NBPA policy that gives players full discretion to choose their agent. Montgomery claims he has made multiple demands of the commission fees from Powell he feels he is entitled to. He says Powell ignored him and won't pay, sparking this lawsuit. In connection with the Allen Contract, Powell will be splitting the agent fees with Jim Tanner and Tandem Sports + Entertainment. Pursuant to Powell’s split with Tandem, Powell will receive 50% of the agent fees received by Tandem. As Powell will receive agent fees pursuant to Allen's Contract, Montgomery claims such agent fees should fall under the fee tail provision Powell had in his employment agreement with Montgomery and thus entitles Montgomery to a portion of this commission. As a result of Powell’s alleged breach of the employment agreement, Montgomery brings this suit to collect damages in excess of $1,000,000. Jason Morrin is a soon-graduate of Hofstra Law School. He was the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Currently, he is a Law Clerk at Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin. Image via News 5 Cleveland

On Wednesday, Alabama Coach Nick Saban ruffled some feathers in the college football world when he accused Jimbo Fisher of buying his #1 ranked recruiting class. For context, Texas A&M finished atop of both Alabama and reigning national champion Georgia’s respective recruiting classes. Almost immediately, Saban was accused of being a hypocrite as there’s been an abundance of circulating rumors that Saban and Alabama have been paying players for years and that they were the NIL before NIL. In terms of evaluating the impact these comments will have on the landscape of NIL, it could cause the NCAA to investigate possible violations or retroactively enforce their recent guidelines against A&M. Colleges in states that don’t have an NIL law are at an advantage because they only have to comply with the looser NCAA guidelines compared to those in states with NIL laws that tend to be stricter than the ones put forth by the NCAA. If federal legislation governing NIL ever comes to fruition (which is a big if especially in the near future), it would preempt any state law on the matter. The issue of an NIL bill at the federal level is that it would most likely have to originate in the Senate and it seems there are more pressing matters in this country than regulating how much a college athlete can be compensated. The lack of uniformity and lack of enforcement of booster-funded deals by the NCAA seems to be what many, and Saban particularly, seem to be taking issue with. If you’re looking at the initial goals of NIL, to allow college athletes and not just their respected universities, to be able to profit off their own name, the current landscape and massive endorsement deals seem to go too far. There has to be a fine line established between enticing a recruit or highly sought after transfer player to attend a university, (See Nijel Pack, 4-Star guard averaging 17 PPG paid $800,000 to attend Miami) and an athlete endorsing a company. As Colorado AD recently pointed out, what’s been going on recently is not NIL and just a modified pay-for-play system. If the NCAA continues to allow wealthy donors and established collectives to run rampant, college football, and college athletics, in general, will be a pure free agency and the wealthiest fan base will attract the most talent. Of course, in response to that, one can make an argument that that’s what was already going on, as Tua Tagovalia’s entire family moved from Hawaii to Alabaster, Alabama possibly promised more than just a spot on the Alabama football team. Or the stories of the University of Tennessee handing out wads of cash in McDonald’s bags. Jimbo Fisher wasn’t the only target of Saban’s tirade, as he called out both Jackson State and Miami’s billionaire booster, John Ruiz. The solution to the madness would appear to be one uniform law that is enforced either by the NCAA or at the federal level that applies to each state and includes a provision regarding university collectives and possibly a cap on the amount an NIL can be, like topping out at 6 figures. To avoid the booster-plagued era epitomized by SMU, the NCAA might require a return on investment showing so that the athlete isn’t just paid to attend the university or paid to play and it might actually make sense, from an economic standpoint, for that company to want to pay the athlete to endorse it or act as a brand ambassador. Ruiz is likely the NCAA’s next target if the NCAA chooses to act, although he’d likely be protected by his legit company Life Wallet. Duncan can be found on Twitter @dunkun

In April, the city of Anaheim and the state of California reached a settlement agreement that would resolve their dispute over the city’s 2019 land sale of Angel Stadium to SRB Management LLC, a land-holding company owned by Angels owner Arte Moreno. Now, Orange County Superior Court Judge Glenn Salter has granted the California Attorney General’s office’s request to halt the sale of the stadium in light of the ongoing federal corruption probe of now-former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu. The Ongoing Issues In October 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law certain amendments to the California Surplus Land Act, which requires the city to first offer public land to developers that can build homes for low-income families. The amendments include requiring cities to take a formal action in a regular public meeting to declare land “surplus land,” and the city must support the declaration through written findings. Importantly, the amendments carve out an exception to the application of the amendments. Section 54234 of the Land Surplus Act states, “if a local agency, as of September 30, 2019, has entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement . . . the provisions of this article as it existed on December 31, 2019, shall apply . . . .” In December 2019, SRB agreed to purchase Angel Stadium and an additional 153 acres of Anaheim-owned land for $320 million. As a part of the purchase, the Angels agreed to remain in Anaheim until at least 2050. In April 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a warning letter to the city warning Anaheim that the city may have violated California’s Surplus Land Act. Specifically, the city failed to declare the land as either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” as required by the amendments. In December 2021, the HCD sent a Notice of Violation to the city. In turn, the city responded by denying that the Surplus Land Act applied to the sale of the property. Specifically, the city has maintained the position that the exception applied to the city’s deal with the SRB. The city entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with SRB prior to September 30, 2019. Thus, the city did not need to issue any declaration as to the property. Settlement Agreement As a part of the settlement between the city and state of California, the city would put 30% of the full purchase price (roughly $96 million) into a trust fund to fund affordable housing in the city within five years. In turn, the city would not admit to a violation of the Surplus Land Act, and the funds could be used to build up to 1,000 additional units. Corruption Probe Mayor Harry Sidhu resigned this past Monday, May 23, amidst the federal investigation. Although Mayor Sidhu is not currently charged with a crime, in the Attorney General’s office’s request to halt the settlement, the Attorney General’s office included FBI search warrant affidavits that detailed the investigation. The federal investigation includes accusations of bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. Among the investigation is a December 2021 recorded conversation between Sidhu and Todd Ament, who is also under federal investigation as the former leader of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, where Sidhu revealed a plan to elicit a large donation from the Angels due to the land sale. What is Next On May 20, Representatives for SRB Management, LLC and Angels Baseball LP sent a letter to the city manager, James Vanderpool, reiterating that SRB Management, LLC and Angels Baseball LP “acted in good faith throughout their dealings with the City of Anaheim.” Additionally, they reminded the city of the benefits of the land sale deal, including keeping Angels Baseball in Anaheim. Today, May 24, the Anaheim City Council is meeting to discuss the letter and the path ahead. Despite SRB Management, LLC’s assurances, serious questions remain about whether the city acted in good faith. Additionally, the federal investigation may reveal more inappropriate conduct. Thus, for now, the city’s settlement with the state of California is halted, and the land sale is in jeopardy. SRB Management, LLC has asked the city of Anaheim to move forward by June 14. If the city fails to move forward, Angels Baseball may be finding a new home. 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.

In what is arguably the biggest transfer saga of all time, French star Kylian Mbappé has decided to stay in the capital of his home country instead of joining the most decorated club in European soccer history, Real Madrid. This was a colossal deal for Paris Saint-Germain to be able to extend one of the biggest talents in the world until 2025 after Mbappé had requested a transfer to Madrid towards the end of last summer’s transfer window. Mbappé staying in France gives Ligue 1 a much stronger chance of bringing a Champions League back to France for the first time in almost 30 years since Marseille won the Champions League back in 1993. La Liga and Real Madrid were very disappointed to not bring Mbappé to the capital of Spain. A player like Mbappé can help the league tremendously both on and off the pitch, although it doesn’t seem like Madrid needs Mbappé at the moment as they are preparing to play in the Champions League final this weekend. Nevertheless, a player of Mbappé’s stature would have elevated La Liga on and off the pitch. At only 23 years old, Mbappé has already become one of the best players in the world and it seems like he’s only getting better after bringing home the top goalscorer and most assists in Ligue 1 this past season. Along with that, he carries with him a large social media presence, which is extremely important to help connect players and clubs with fans all over the world. As a result of missing out on Mbappé, La Liga has decided to take legal action and file a complaint against UEFA, the governing body of European soccer, against PSG. Javier Tebas, president of La Liga, has tweeted out his opposition to the renewal, “What PSG is going to do by renewing Mbappé with large amounts of money (to know where and how he pays them) after losing €700M in recent seasons and having more than €600M in wages, is an INSULT to football. [PSG president] Al-Khelafi is as dangerous as the Super League.” What is a bit ironic in all of this is that Tebas and Al-Khelaifi were allies when the Super League was announced. PSG had refused to enter the Super League and of course, Tebas was against the Super League since this would hurt La Liga. Not to mention, had Real Madrid signed Mbappé, I’m sure Tebas wouldn’t care about the losses that Madrid has sustained over the past few years due to the pandemic. These same losses prompted Madrid president Florentino Perez to try to create a super league with other clubs across Europe, which was short-lived. Although the details of Mbappé’s contract have not been announced yet, numbers are floating around that if true, will make him the highest paid player in the world and potentially the highest paid player in all of sports on an annual basis. UEFA has recently approved new financial regulations after the first iteration of financial regulations, Financial Fair Play (FFP), was a failure. These new financial regulations are called the Financial Sustainability and Club Licensing Regulations (FSCLR). These new rules are similar to La Liga’s financial fair play system, where a club’s total expenditures on transfers, wages, and agent fees cannot exceed 70% of its revenue. Under this, breaching teams will potentially face financial penalties and sporting measures. Whether or not it will be successful is to be determined, as FFP saw a few fines and penalties but nothing drastic enough to stop teams from breaching it. PSG was fined 60 million euros ($63 million) and a squad reduction in UEFA competition in 2014 for FFP breaches. Since then, PSG has spent over 400 million euros on just the signings of Neymar and Mbappé, which does not include the wages they paid the two players. It is unclear what kind of consequences PSG will face if the complaint is successful, but this will be the first test of the new financial regulations. This would set a large precedent as we see more and more clubs becoming state-owned like Newcastle’s most recent takeover by a state sovereign fund earlier this year. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and will generate a large amount of revenue due to the global following these clubs have, but we also have to be realistic when it comes to transferring fees and wages some of these clubs are paying if we want to look at the long-term sustainability of the sport. Greg Termolle is a 3L at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. You can follow him on Twitter at @GregTerm.

On May 13, 2022, the St. Louis Post Dispatch released an article entitled “Under Cover of Darkness.” Joel Currier, Ben Frederickson, and other writers co-wrote this article to explain what truly happened between the NFL and Stan Kroenke after he became a minority owner to help move the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995, and when he became their owner in 2010. Kroenke became owner by using his right of first refusal after current Jaguars owner Shaad Khan made an offer to purchase the Rams. After he bought the club, Kroenke registered the Rams as a California company, although they were based in St. Louis. The article explains Jeff Fisher’s hiring in 2012 and its significance in helping Kroenke to set his plan in motion. In 2013, Kroenke began exploring Hollywood Park as a potential stadium site since his wife, Anne Walton, is an heiress to Walmart. Walmart planned to build a franchise in that area; however, they conceded that land to Kroenke after he negotiated an agreement with them. During training camp in 2013, Rams COO Kevin Demoff received a call from Kroenke. Kroenke wanted Demoff to come out to the land to see the area, and he wanted to inform Demoff about his master plan. Years prior, according to Ben Frederickson and Randy Karraker from 101 ESPN, Kroenke, as a minority owner, was on the NFL’s Back to Los Angeles committee. He removed himself from this committee due to a “conflict of interests.” According to the emails that were sealed as evidence, after Demoff visited the site, Kroenke made a conference call to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Steelers owner Art Rooney II, and then Texans owner Bob McNair, telling them Hollywood Park is a fantastic area for an NFL stadium, and he asked Goodell to keep the information “confidential.” Prior to Super Bowl XLVIII, at the NFL’s “State of the Union” press conference, Commissioner Goodell denied that he had knowledge about teams possibly relocating to Los Angeles. He denied that he knew about any land that is viable for an NFL stadium in the Los Angeles area. The evidence that was brought to light last week by the St. Louis Post Dispatch details the events prior to the Rams’ relocation to Los Angeles. An email expands upon the 2013 Hollywood Park visit Stan Kroenke made to seek land for an NFL stadium. Thank you to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the email states: In the following year, 2014, the Rams went to arbitration against the City and Visitor’s Commission and the Regional Stadium Authority, the Dome’s owners. The Rams demanded $700 million, in city funds, for the renovations to the Edward Jones Dome. They included a retractable roof and other renovations that satisfied the top twenty-five percent of the league’s stadiums clause in the lease the Rams accepted from the RSA. The CVC and the RSA offered a $125 million renovation plan to the Edward Jones Dome. The arbitrator ruled in the Rams’ favor, giving Kroenke and Demoff further momentum to force the league’s hand to allow them to leave St. Louis and move to Los Angeles. In 2014, starting quarterback Sam Bradford tore his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in a preseason game. Following that game, at 7:15 am central time, Rams Chief Operating Officer and Stan Kroenke’s right-hand man, Kevin Demoff, received a call from Kroenke, asking him if he wanted to see the development that occurred at Hollywood Park. Demoff was quoted as saying in the Rams’ relocation article presented before the owners a year later: “If you receive a phone call from your boss early in the morning, it’s either one of two things, you are being fired or they need your help or input on a project.” This news first leaked to the public, and Demoff went on St. Louis’ flagship station, 101ESPN, saying the land was too small for a football stadium, and how everyone knows Stan is a real estate man, he is always looking for properties to expand his empire.” That season, Roger Goodell stated no teams were relocating during or after the 2014 season, as mentioned by Jim Thomas, beat writer for the Rams for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The following year, Roger Goodell told the league that teams could seek to relocate, and the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders filed for relocation following the 2015 season. This was Stan’s opportunity since the lease from the RSA stated that if the Dome was not in the NFL stadium’s top tier, 25%, following twenty years, the Rams could break the lease and seek relocation. The Rams announced that they sought to move to Inglewood, California to the land Kroenke bought in 2013. The Raiders and Chargers announced a collaborative project in Carson, California. The NFL wanted two teams in Los Angeles, and the Rams project wanted them to be by themselves in the Inglewood area. The NFL assembled a relocation committee, and the committee voted for the Carson project 5-1. The Cincinnati Bengals owner, Mike Brown, felt bad for all three franchises because he believed the home markets should not lose their franchises due to monetary opportunities in Los Angeles, per Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk and the St. Louis Post Dispatch. St. Louis Mayor, Jay Nixon, assembled a task force in 2014 to keep the Rams in St. Louis, headed by former Anheuser-Busch president Dave Peacock and local attorney Bob Blitz. The city and the task force followed the NFL relocation bylaws and guidelines that were assembled in 1984 by Pete Rozelle when there was an influx of teams leaving their home markets for cities that offered more money. They include, but are not limited to: The extent to which the club has satisfied its “principal obligation” of “serving the fans in its current community. The Rams satisfied this guideline by serving their fans through the players’ charities, and by having season ticket holders and general fan events throughout the year. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club have been demonstrated in the current community. Rams fans in St. Louis were loyal to the club. The task force went through the records and showed the Rams sold out every home game from 1995 to 2007. The willingness of the stadium authority or community to replace a deficient current stadium. The RSA was willing to replace the Edward Jones Dome, and the task force came up with a new open-air stadium proposal along the Mississippi River, National Car Rental Field. The extent the club received direct or indirect public support for its current facility. The public was still paying off the bonds to fund the Edward Jones Dome. The plaintiffs’ brief also stated that under the Relocation Policy, teams must work with diligence and in good faith to remain in their home community and cannot relocate unless the Policy is satisfied. With the Relocation Policy in place, the plaintiffs made substantial investments in the Dome. The plaintiffs paid expenses and interest on 30-year bonds used to finance the construction. The City and County both paid 25% of the bond obligations, including millions in maintenance expenses. The City and County each incurred bond cost obligations of $180 million. The City and County collected hotel taxes to service their obligations and paid these obligations out of general revenue funds. As shown in this paragraph, the Rams never worked with St. Louis. The degree to which the club has engaged in good faith negotiations with the stadium authority and others concerning terms and conditions under which the club would remain in its current home territory. Arbitration is not good faith negotiations with the stadium authority. Kroenke never met with Governor Nixon or the task force to discuss good faith negotiations with the RSA and the task force and others concerning the terms and conditions under which the Rams would remain in St. Louis. Lastly, the extent to which the owners or managers of the club contributed to circumstances that might demonstrate a need for relocation. Stan Kroenke contributed to circumstances that might demonstrate a need for relocation by filing the relocation report, in which he and the other supporters bashed St. Louis. They made St. Louis sound like crime took over the town. They said St. Louis could only support two professional clubs. The crime rate and violence were only growing higher, and the move to Los Angeles would put the club in a safer town, among other reasons why the Rams should relocate. If one googles “Rams relocation report,” there is a pdf that explains more than what is included in this article. The city followed these guidelines, but the NFL did not. Multiple media outlets, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 101ESPN, Pro Football Talk, among others reported that the NFL did not follow their own bylaws, although they were supposed to, through Roger Goodell’s deposition. This set up the plaintiffs for success, should the case have gone to trial. Former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle and the owners created these guidelines two years after he lost the antitrust suit to Al Davis after Davis sued Rozelle for monopolization. Davis moved the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles to improve the team’s finances, and other owners followed his lead. Rozelle established these bylaws and guidelines to protect the home markets. They, the local media and national outlets mentioned above found that from 2010 to 2015, Kroenke and Demoff lied when asked about relocation possibilities, both men stated they were doing everything to keep the team in St. Louis. Kroenke is on the record after he was interviewed in 2010 by the local media that he is a “Missourian and he had no plans to relocate the Rams.” He is named after two St. Louis Cardinals legends, Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial. As mentioned above, he helped former owner Georgia Frontiere to move the Rams to St. Louis from Los Angeles in 1995. However, the task force found out that after the arbitration process, Kroenke planned to move the Rams without the city and the league knowing. However, this turned out to be false after the emails were released that Kroenke told fellow owners and Commissioner Goodell about the land at Hollywood Park. Owners and the Commissioner knew Kroenke wanted to move to Los Angeles, and they believed he was the man to do it since his net worth is in the billions, as his wife is an heiress to the Walmart stores. The Rams were worth around $600 million in St. Louis, in Los Angeles, they are worth north of $1 billion. This made financial sense to the NFL to “help” Kroenke move the Rams to Los Angeles, as they could maximize the revenues between the owners and the tv revenue. The task force still fought its battle. They found a piece of land along the Mississippi River to build a stadium, and the St Louis Board of Alderman voted for the plan. They secured naming rights from National Car Rental. Their plan was to build an open riverfront stadium and revitalize the area. They poured $17 million into their efforts. However, on January 12th, 2016, the owners voted on these projects. The Relocation Committee still favored the Carson plan. The first two votes among the owners did not reach the 24-vote minimum for either project. Seth Wickersham from ESPN reported that Jerry Jones, the Dallas Cowboys owner and Stan Kroenke’s number one supporter, as told by owners, such as John Mara, the New York Giants owner, threatened the owners that they would not host Super Bowls, they would lose their piece of the pie on revenue sharing areas, and other penalties if they did not vote for the Inglewood project. The Bidwill family, the Cardinals owners, voted that the Rams should stay in St. Louis. Jones countered, asking him that didn’t his father, Bill Bidwill leave St. Louis for Phoenix because of city disputes and monetary issues in 1988. Bill Bidwill negotiated with St. Louis in good faith, but could not agree to build a new stadium in either downtown St. Louis or in the surrounding area. Jerry Richardson, then owner of the Carolina Panthers, tried to convince the owners that the Rams’ relocation is only one team, but the Carson project is more stable with the Chargers and the Raiders returning “home.” He argued St. Louis was the only city that put a viable plan together to keep its franchise. However, the owners, through a blind vote, voted 30-2 in Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood project’s favor. The two that did not vote for this project, as reported by Randy Karraker of 101ESPN and other sources were Bidwill and Richardson. Wickersham also reported at an owners meeting earlier this year that in order to move to Los Angeles, Kroenke had to sign an indemnification clause, where all fees fell upon him. He argued that each club had to pay the settlement fees as well. Owners, like John Mara, were quoted as saying: “If we knew that you were not going to pay all fees, we would not have voted for your proposal.” As reported last night by CBS Sports, Kroenke agreed to pay all legal fees, and each club contributed $7.5 million to the settlement fee. The Chargers, due to Dean Spanos’ reputation, had the first option to move to Los Angeles following the 2016 season. They exercised that option, and they are a tenant at SOFI Stadium. They only pay $1 to play their home games there. Jerry Jones’ Legends Company built the seating and the concessions at SOFI Stadium. Construction on the stadium was delayed due to the roof’s height and compliance with the FAA since it is near Los Angeles International Airport. The Rams “miraculously” became better after Fisher was fired in 2016 after he helped move the team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. The Rams finished that campaign 4-12. They played at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum until 2020 for home games until SOFI Stadium was constructed. Every year since 2016, the Rams have made the playoffs. Aaron Donald is one of the few remaining Rams that played in St. Louis. Appropriately, the Rams won their first Super Bowl as a Los Angeles franchise at SOFI Stadium when they defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 23-20. They lost three years earlier to the Patriots in Super Bowl LIII. A few weeks ago, records were released, such as depositions, emails, and other sealed evidence that could have given St. Louis a $1 billion damage award, or possibly the Raiders relocating to St. Louis if they went to trial, as reported by Dan Lust and Dan Wallach, the “Conduct Detrimental” hosts. These records include the NFL Meeting Minutes from the Relocation Vote, Emails between Kevin Demoff and Greg Aiello, emails from Kevin Demoff and Tomago Collins, and an email with call notes between Commissioner Goodell and Kroenke. These were brought to light, thanks to the hard-working staff at the St. Louis Post Dispatch. These were evidence records the plaintiffs, the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) were likely to use at trial against the NFL and its 32 clubs, had it commenced on January 10, 2022. The lawsuit, which was initially brought forth on April 17, 2017, included claims for breach of contract against all defendants. They argued the RSA, the City, and the County are third-party beneficiaries of that contract. The NFL and the owners/franchises, including the Rams, intended to benefit the RSA, the City, and the County via the Constitution and Bylaws. Their second claim was for unjust enrichment against all defendants. The Rams’ relocation to Los Angeles increased the value of that franchise considerably and also benefitted the NFL by relocating an NFL team into the Los Angeles market with no cost to the NFL for a new stadium in Los Angeles. The increase in value of the Rams exceeds $700 million. By virtue of allowing the Rams to relocate, but without enforcing the Relocation Policy, Defendants received the benefit of the relocation/transfer fee. The Rams franchise also has received the benefit of an increase in the value of the franchise. The relocation fee and increase in value benefitted Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs. Defendants received those benefits only by wrongfully depriving Plaintiffs of the opportunity to retain the Rams in St. Louis. The third count, against the Rams and E. Stanley Kroenke was for fraudulent misrepresentation. the Rams and Mr. Kroenke made repeated statements that were intended to induce the Plaintiffs into continuing to support and finance the Dome and to spend money to create a new stadium for the Rams. In a January 2016 interview, Mr. Demoff admitted that Mr. Kroenke, who inspected the California property in the summer of 2013, called him before he bought the site and told him that the location was “an unbelievable site” for a football stadium. Mr. Demoff stated that this call from Mr. Kroenke was one of the “moments in your life you never forget.” All of the following statements by Rams representatives were knowingly false: On April 21, 2010, Rams owner Mr. Kroenke stated, “I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis,” and added “I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I’m stepping up one more time. I’m born and raised in Missouri.” He further stated, “People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy.” In 2011, Kevin Demoff, Rams Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Football Operations, said, “Our entire focus is on building a winner in and for St. Louis. The lease issue isn’t what we are focused on.” “We are proud of our … commitment to St. Louis and passionate about building a winner right here.” In 2012, Mr. Demoff stated in an interview posted on the Rams' official website that Mr. Kroenke “has been emphatic on this point: He didn’t lead the charge to bring the Rams back to St. Louis to lead the charge out of St. Louis. . .. Our goal is to build a winner in St. Louis not only in 2012, but in 2022, 2032, and beyond. This city deserves better NFL football and that is what we are focused on every day.” In 2012 at a news conference, Mr. Demoff stated: “Our goal is to build a winning organization on and off the field in St. Louis, and that continues to be the goal for the next year, three years, 10 years, 20 years. Believe me, nobody would be happier than me to announce a long-term agreement to keep the team in St. Louis. We want this team to be successful and win for our fan base that has been loyal to us for so long, including some terrible stretches of football.” He further stated, “We want to build a winner in St. Louis for our great fans who have stuck with us through tough times, and you have my pledge we will do everything we can to be successful in St. Louis,” and “the last thing we want to do is let our fans down who have been so loyal to us.” Prior to the 2012 season, Mr. Demoff stated: “There is a lot of noise about the stadium situation, but it’s just that, noise. Our focus is on improving the football team and bringing our long-suffering fans the joy you deserve…. I can’t even fathom letting down our loyal fan base.” After the 2012 lease arbitration, Mr. Demoff stated: “I think the one thing that is important for fans to know is that if the arbitration does not solve the issue, it’s not all gloom and doom from that point. We still have two years left on the lease before it goes year to year and then you’ll get to the point where most cities are when a lease is expiring. Then we just have to sit down and figure out how to get a new lease.” In a 2014 season ticket holder event after Mr. Kroenke’s purchase of the site in Inglewood, California became public, Mr. Demoff stated that the California land was “not a piece of land that’s any good for a football stadium. The size and the shape aren’t good for a football stadium.” At a 2014 fan forum, Mr. Demoff stated there was a “one-in-a-million chance” the Rams would move. After Mr. Kroenke’s purchase of the California site, he stated, “We have yet to decide what we are going to do with the property but we will look at all options[.]” On or about February 11, 2014, after Mr. Kroenke purchased 60 acres of land for a stadium project in Inglewood, California, Mr. Demoff, when asked if the land was for a new stadium in Inglewood, stated “I promise you. Stan is looking at lots of pieces of land around the world right now and none of them are for football stadiums.” Mr. Demoff made these statements on behalf of the Rams and on behalf of Mr. Kroenke. The fourth count was for fraudulent misrepresentation against all defendants. On about January 30, 2015, prior to the relocation of the Rams, Roger Goodell stated that the NFL “want[s] all of our franchises to stay in their current markets.” On about January 16, 2015, Mr. Grubman stated that the NFL has an “obligation, which we take very seriously” to do whatever it takes to keep NFL teams strong in their existing markets. The acquisition of the Los Angeles property was announced on January 5, 2015. At that time, Mr. Goodell stated that the NFL was not aware of any plans to relocate the Rams to Los Angeles, but also admitted that Mr. Kroenke had kept him and the NFL informed of the acquisition. At this time, the NFL was in fact aware of Mr. Kroenke’s plans or was recklessly indifferent to the truth of the statement by Mr. Goodell. The fifth count was for tortious interference with business expectancy against all defendants, except the Rams. The plaintiffs had a valid business expectancy in an ongoing relationship with the Rams based on the existing established relationship and prior experience between the Rams and the plaintiffs and on the fact that the Relocation Policy imposed on the Rams a duty of diligence and good faith negotiations. There was a probable future business relationship between the Rams and plaintiffs that created a reasonable expectation of economic benefit to the plaintiffs based on the regular course of prior dealings between the parties. The defendants knew of the plaintiffs’ business relationship with the Rams and of the plaintiffs’ expectancy of an ongoing and future relationship with the Rams. The defendants intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ reasonable business expectancy by approving the Rams' relocation petition. The move was approved by all the non-Rams Defendants collectively through their association, the NFL, and in the vote that was taken to permit the move. Lastly, Ben Frederickson, writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported yesterday that Commissioner Goodell denies that anyone was misled about Stan Kroenke’s plan to move the Rams after he bought the land in Inglewood, and the team and the league insisted Kroenke did not buy it to build a new stadium. Attached is the link to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to the exhibits released by the St. Louis Circuit Court and obtained through the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Main Story: https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/under-cover-of-darkness-the-inside-story-of-how-the-rams-worked-the-nfl-and/article_0df390b8-40d5-5ead-b78b-779cb5187f9e.html Exhibits: https://www.stltoday.com/read-them-yourself-emails-documents-show-how-the-nfl-helped-the-rams-leave-st-louis/collection_c0b0186c-46c1-53e4-8ebc-e8f406128655.html#tracking-source=in-article 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.

When Roman Abramovich became the owner of Chelsea in 2003, they had only won one Premier League title and zero Champions League or Europa League titles. Since then, Chelsea has won five Premier League titles as well as two Champions League titles and two Europa League titles. There is a very good argument to be made that Abramovich has been the best owner in European soccer since the turn of the century. Turning a middling club into a team that is regularly competing for Premier League and European titles is an immense achievement. This leaves Todd Boehly and his consortium some big shoes to fill as they take over Chelsea after the deal has been officially completed for 2.5 billion pounds ($3.2 billion). There is an additional 1.75 billion pounds ($2.2 billion) which is a future investment in the club they are promising. This brings it to a grand total of 4.25 billion pounds ($5.3 billion). Even though the club needed to be sold and the bidders knew this, the huge number goes to show just how much money is involved when it comes to soccer and specifically the Premier League. It also shows that more and more Americans are becoming involved in the ownership of English clubs, Chelsea becomes the ninth club to be partly or wholly owned by Americans. The promise to spend is key because Chelsea has been a big spender under Abramovich. This isn’t Todd Boehly’s first endeavor in sports as he’s also a part owner of the Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Dodgers. The deal was completed relatively quickly after the UK government announced sanctions against Russian oligarchs that had ties to Putin, which involved Abramovich. Normally, a deal like this can take from nine months to a year, this deal was done in under three months. Boehly beat out 250 initial proposed buyers which were then narrowed down to 12 credible bids and then a shortlist of three bids. As highlighted in a Conduct Detrimental article by Ben Shrader, the UK decided to freeze Abramovich’s assets as well as not allow him to enter the UK under the sanctions. Abramovich then decided to sell Chelsea as he likely realized these would not be the last of the sanctions and being the owner of Chelsea would be much more difficult going forward. Having his assets frozen along with having financial troubles made running the club extremely difficult and hampered the club. The government was essentially in control of the club and it looked like it was going to be like that for the time being. Part of the government’s agreement to the deal is that Roman Abramovich would not profit from it, so the proceeds of the sale will be used for humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. With Chelsea playing in the Champions League again next season and hoping to challenge for the Premier League title, Boehly will have a big summer ahead of him. With rumors of players leaving like Lukaku, Pulisic, Rudiger, Marcos Alonso, and captain Azpilicueta amongst others, Chelsea will have to look to spend to replace these players as well as bolster the depth of the squad with so many players potentially leaving. The situation with Abramovich certainly hindered their ability to enter into contract negotiations with players and allowed other teams to get a leg up with players whose contracts are expiring this summer. An example of this is defender Antonio Rudiger reportedly came to an agreement with Champions League winners Real Madrid while Chelsea were unable to enter into contract negotiations. Boehly and his consortium will certainly have their work cut out for them between the money needed to be spent on transfers in addition to living up to the legacy that Roman Abramovich left. With more and more money being spent by Premier League clubs every summer, Chelsea will need to continue to spend as they have over the past two decades. Chelsea fans have come to expect success under Abramovich and they will continue to expect that as they’ve become one of the largest clubs in Europe. Greg Termolle is a 3L at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. You can follow him on Twitter at @GregTerm.