Is Shohei Ohtani on the path to becoming a billionaire? Time will tell as the young Japanese mega-star and reigning unanimous AL MVP tackles free agency this offseason. Outside of baseball, we have already seen billionaire athletes like LeBron James, Tiger Woods, and Lionel Messi. However, achieving billionaire status as an athlete requires business acumen, savvy investments, and a marketable persona. Such status comes from a combination of endorsements, financial ventures, and salary. Never before has the world of sports witnessed a ten-digit contract. In other sports such as soccer and football, we have seen significant milestones. Lionel Messi's previous 4-year deal with FC Barcelona was capped at $674,000,000 (that’s $168,000,000/year!), and Patrick Mahomes signed a 10-year deal with the Kansas City Chiefs in 2020 worth $450,000,000. Ohtani’s former teammate and fellow once-in-a-lifetime talent Mike Trout holds the richest MLB contract to date, a 12-year deal for $426,500,000 agreed upon in 2019. Pundits wonder if Ohtani, a never-before-seen 6-tool athlete at only 29 years old, could be on the verge of surpassing the billion-dollar mark. But how did these massive contracts come to be? Let’s dive into a bit of history. With the establishment of the National League in the late 1800s, organized baseball truly came to fruition. Yet, with no union representation, players were, in the words of Monte Ward, the Hall of Fame 19th-century pitcher-shortstop and Columbia-educated lawyer, "bought, sold, and exchanged as though they were sheep." At a time when a player's salary ranged from $1,500 to $2,500 (roughly $60,000 today), athletes were compensated for their time but had little to no say in the whereabouts and the tangibles of their situation. The "Reserve Clause" allowed a team to reserve a player for as long as they liked, leaving players with limited options for negotiation. If a player wanted an increase in salary, his only leverage was to threaten retirement, as it was prohibited for any other team to sign him. Players were at the mercy of team ownership, unable to leave, refuse a trade, or negotiate for a raise. Finally, in 1969, the situation boiled over with the situation of Curt Flood. Flood, an all-star caliber centerfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals for 12 years, was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after requesting a raise. Citing frustration and other concerns, Flood wrote a letter to then baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, requesting to be declared a free agent. Kuhn denied the request, leading to a lawsuit against Kuhn and Major League Baseball, alleging the reserve clause violated antitrust laws as a collusive measure that reduced competition. The case made its way all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Flood v. Kuhn was not the first baseball case granted certiorari. In the 1922 case of Federal Baseball v. National League, the Court decided that professional organized baseball was not interstate commerce, exempting it from federal antitrust law under the Sherman Act. Despite the subsequent rulings of United States v. International Boxing Club and Radovich v. National Football League declaring boxing and football, respectively, as interstate commerce, in Flood, SCOTUS upheld the antitrust exemption carved out by Federal Baseball some 50 years prior on stare decisis grounds, ruling in favor of the league. Flood’s efforts were not in vain, as the Curt Flood Act of 1998 ended baseball's antitrust exemption in player-owner interactions, though it didn’t fully strike it down, preserving the exemption in other areas like franchise relocation. The exemption faced a recent challenge from minor league teams, but the case settled before reaching the Supreme Court earlier this November. It wasn’t until after the brief lockout of 1976 that the reserve clause was finally abolished, marking the beginning of the era of free agency in baseball and a surge in player salaries. Nolan Ryan's four-year, $4.5 million free-agent contract with the Houston Astros in 1979 made headlines, not just for being the largest baseball salary at the time but also for its rapid growth—from $3,600 in 1966 to $100,000 in 1974 and then $200,000 in 1977. Alas, here we find ourselves in 2023, speculating whether Sho-time Ohtani will secure that elusive billion-dollar deal. Not to be anticlimactic, but due to injury concerns, the answer will likely be no. However, don’t be surprised to see the first 10-digit deal occur in the world of soccer within the next couple of years (*cough cough* Saudi Arabia), with the NBA and NFL likely following suit within a decade from the time of this writing. Aaron Polonsky is a 3L at the Boyd School of Law @ UNLV. He can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaron-polonsky/. Sources Roger Abrams, Legal Bases Baseball and the Law, 1998. Robert Goldman, One Man Out, 2008. John Minan, Kevin Cole, The Little White Book of Baseball Law, 2009. https://www.expensivity.com/baseball-inflation-huge-increase-mlb-salaries/

Overview Matthew and Ryan Bewley are 19-year-old twin brothers from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The Bewleys were 5-star basketball prospects in the class of 2023, receiving scholarship offers from several major programs. They spent two seasons at Overtime Elite Academy (“OTE”) in Atlanta, GA before accepting scholarships from Chicago State University in June. The Bewleys have sued the NCAA in federal court alleging they were ruled ineligible due to compensation they received for the use of their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) while they were playing for OTE. Less than a week prior to their first scheduled game, the NCAA issued a decision determining that the Bewleys were ineligible to play. This decision was made several months after it reached the opposite decision for some of the Bewleys’ former classmates and teammates at OTE. On Tuesday, November 14th, a judge denied the Bewleys’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). If granted, this relief would have reinstated the NCAA eligibility for a minimum of 14 days or until a hearing for preliminary injunction is ruled upon. The Bewleys are seeking injunctive relief to prevent further irreparable harm as a result of being excluded from intercollegiate athletics which includes: the inability to participate in the team’s upcoming games, the loss of NIL income and scholarships, and other educational benefits and aid. The Contracts with OTE: The Bewley brothers agreed to athletic scholarships to cover education-based expenses throughout their high school careers with OTE. They also assigned their NIL rights to OTE for the term of their contracts in exchange for monetary compensation. The assignment of their NIL rights is permitted, like any other US citizen who has ownership over their NIL. The Bewley’s contracts are not prohibited by Georgia law, and they align with NCAA’s interim policy which permits NIL deals in accordance with the laws of each respective state. The Cause of Action: The NCAA alleged: (1) the Bewley’s OTE compensation exceeded “actual and necessary” expenses; (2) The Bewleys competed for a team that considered itself professional; and (3) the Bewleys competed with and against professionals. Count 1: Violation of Illinois Statute 110 ILCS 190/15(a) a) NCAA Bylaws regarding student-athletes playing professionally: NCAA Bylaw 12.2.3.2 permits prospective student-athletes to play for professional teams against other professionals prior to enrolling in a member institution and may be compensated as long as the student does not receive more than “actual and necessary expenses." The Bewleys argue that based on NCAA bylaws, they were allowed to play for a professional team prior to collegiate enrollment. They further argue that because their contract is not prohibited by Georgia law, it aligns with the NCAA’s interim policy which permits NIL deals in accordance with the laws of each respective state. The only limitation rests on their compensation which is discussed below. b) The Bewley’s Compensation and Eligibility The suit provided that the allegations stated above are completely inconsistent with the NCAA rulings regarding former OTE athletes who competed on the same teams, against the same competition, and received the same compensation. The suit alleged that the ruling is a direct violation of Section 15 (a) of Illinois’ Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act which states: “Compensation from the use of a student-athlete’s name, image, likeness, or voice may not affect the student-athlete’s scholarship eligibility, grant-in-aid, or other financial aid, awards or benefits, or the student-athlete’s intercollegiate athletic eligibility." The Bewleys allege that they are entitled to a permanent injunction preventing the NCAA from enforcing its regulations that completely contradict Illinois’s Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. Furthering their claim, the brothers allege NCAA Bylaw 12.2.3.2 permits student-athletes to be compensated by a professional team as long as the student does not receive more than “actual and necessary expenses.” The above NCAA bylaw (12.2.3.2.1) specifically limits the compensation a prospective student-athlete may receive from their participation on a “professional team” to “actual and necessary expenses." If the NCAA decides that if the student-athlete received any amount above what they deem to be “actual and necessary," they reserve the right to permanently exclude the prospective student-athlete from competition. While the NCAA has determined that the Bewleys' compensation was above their threshold, the Bewleys' complaint alleges that the NCAA failed to recognize the portion of their compensation that was received in exchange for their NIL rights. The Bewleys' contract provided compensation for educationally related “actual and necessary expenses," but under NCAA bylaws and Illinois law, the Bewleys are also lawfully permitted to receive compensation in exchange for the use of their NIL separately, prior to enrolling in an NCAA member institution. In all, the Bewleys argue that under Illinois state law, compensation based on their NIL rights cannot affect their athletic eligibility. Count 2: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act – 15 U.S.C §1 Unreasonable Restraint of Trade The Bewley’s complaint also proposes that the allegations above are in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §1) which states: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." The suit alleges that the NCAA has entered into a continuing contract “in restraint of trade in the relevant markets to artificially depress, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices paid to prospective student-athletes like the Bewleys for their participation in athletics and the use of their NIL.” The complaint further alleges that NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 unlawfully restricts the compensation a prospective student-athlete may receive for his or her participation on a professional team or other league prior to enrolling in an NCAA member institution. The Bewleys allege that the anticompetitive and illegal scheme has unreasonably restrained trade and that they are entitled to a permanent injunction that prevents the violations of law. Count 3: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1 Unreasonable Restraint of Trade – Group Boycott / Refusal to Deal The Bewley brothers also allege that the NCAA has further violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C §1) because their group boycott/refusal to deal consists of “(1) Defendant’s acts to prevent prospective student-athletes from being freely compensated for their participation in athletics and use of their images, likeness and/or names and/or (2) Defendant’s exclusion of prospective student-athletes that have received compensation above its “actual and necessary” threshold from intercollegiate athletics." The Bewleys argue that the NCAA is imposing limitations on a student-athlete's right to be compensated for their labor, and limit their rights related to the use of their NIL. It is alleged that this forecloses them from full access to the marketplace, and the “eligibility rules are used as a threat of boycott to force prospective student-athletes to abide by their rules, even before they have enrolled in a member institution." Claims of Irreparable Harm: The Bewleys are claiming that the NCAA’s decision to bar the brothers from intercollegiate athletics has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm including: a) Loss of scholarships and related benefits including tuition, room and board, coaching, training, and the use of education services, tutoring, etc.; b) Inability to compete at the highest level of competition for basketball prospects in their age bracket; c) Loss of access to NIL endorsement opportunities reserved for collegiate athletes; d) Damage to reputation; and e) Damage to their NBA draft stock. My Take: The Bewley twins' legal battle against the NCAA highlights the complex and inconsistent landscape of eligibility rules concerning the use of NIL rights. The NCAA's decision to declare the Bewleys ineligible just days before their first scheduled game has left them on the sidelines for four missed games so far, likely contributing to Chicago State's 1-3 start. With an additional nine games slated to be missed before the case is heard, the brothers are grappling with the tangible consequences of their legal pursuit. The heart of the matter lies in the Bewleys' contracts with OTE, where they assigned their NIL rights in exchange for compensation—a practice permitted both by Georgia law and by the NCAA's interim policy. The discrepancy arises as the NCAA contends that the compensation exceeded "actual and necessary" expenses, while the Bewleys argue that their contract aligns with state laws and with NCAA guidelines. The Bewleys' situation underscores the inconsistencies between state laws and NCAA regulations, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive approach to avoid such disputes in the future. As the brothers seek injunctive relief, including the restoration of their NCAA eligibility, the case prompts reflection on the broader issue of student-athlete rights and fair treatment. Madison Greco is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. She can be found on Twitter @mtgreco_ and LinkedIn (Madison Greco). Sources: Lawsuit:https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/bewley-v-ncaa-complaint-us-northern-district-illinois.pdf Sherman Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1 NCAA Bylaws: https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=8740

As a small-town girl from the middle of nowhere Tennessee, lacrosse was not a household sport. To be honest, the only lacrosse knowledge I had pertained to the Duke Lacrosse 30 for 30 on ESPN. On July 14th, 2023, when I watched my first lacrosse game with Mike Rabil, the CEO and Co-Founder of the Premier Lacrosse League (PLL), I found out what the hype is all about. After getting a full PLL experience, I became obsessed and wanted to know everything about the sport, especially the setup of the League and strategies for future growth. Luckily, I had the amazing opportunity to speak with the PLL’s General Counsel, Jessica Evans, to get most of my answers. The PLL is unlike other professional sports leagues. Because the league is only five years old, it functions differently. With no “home base,” the eight different teams, in past seasons, traveled to multiple locations throughout the United States, leased stadiums from different colleges and arenas, and played at least two games every weekend during the summer. The purpose of this “touring” structure is to spread the sensation to parts of the nation where the knowledge of lacrosse was similar to mine. The league also functions differently in that it is investor-backed and uses a single-entity ownership structure. Typically, leagues are made up of teams owned by multiple people, whereas the PLL itself actually owns its teams and employs its players and staff. Ms. Evans explains that this type of ownership is advantageous at this stage of growth for several reasons. A particular legal benefit of single-entity ownership is that the League is not subject to the anti-competitive restrictions set forth under the Sherman Act, which involves antitrust laws and competitive market practices and limitations. A more practical reason is that, unlike teams that require multiple owners to come together to vote when making decisions, the PLL can make decisions quickly and efficiently because ownership is centralized. By way of example, the league’s teams have historically been city agnostic. The league recently announced that it is transitioning geographically affiliated teams– a large shift in its business model that it could execute quickly due to its single-entity structure. The League announced eight new “home bases" this past Wednesday. For the 2024 season, teams will be stationed in California, Colorado, Utah, Pennsylvania, North Carolina & South Carolina (base borders both states), New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland. The teams will be divided into East and West Divisions, adding division finals during the playoff season. Even with the new home bases and single-entity ownership and leasing venues. Using essentially a “crawl-walk-run” method, this is a natural evolution for the League, according to Ms. Evans. She states that this decision was the obvious next step for the league and a big investment. According to Co-Founder, Paul Rabil, the teams will continue using the touring method like prior seasons. The teams at “home” will have double headers to allow more opportunity for home fans to watch their favorite team. The biggest question is: Why did the PLL add home teams when the previous structure worked successfully? The main reason: growth. Anchoring teams to a “home base” will produce more fan engagement and introduce more sports lovers to America’s original pastime - the game of Lacrosse. I mean, who doesn’t want to cheer on the home team? The cities chosen were curated using several different methods including fan vote and live stream attendance, ticket sales from previous seasons, commercial opportunity through sponsorships, and overall sports market performance. Needless to say, the people in the chosen “home bases” are die-hard fanatics for any team representing their city. The 2024 PLL season schedule will be released on January 1. Clearly, I am excited for the 2024 PLL season! The new home base structure and continued touring method are exactly what the League needs to create a spark that spreads like wildfire nationwide. Paul, Mike, and Jessica are taking the necessary steps to really maximize the potential for the PLL. I cannot wait to cheer on my closest home city team (GO CHAOS!) this coming season and see how the PLL continues to grow. Abbigail Buck is a third-year law student at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia. She can be found on X @abbibuckets and LinkedIn (Abbi Buck).

First reported by Amanda Christovich of Front Office Sports, a Washington state court judge has made a new ruling in Washington State University (WSU) and Oregon State University’s (OSU) litigation against the Pac-12 conference and the University of Washington (on behalf of the nine departing schools). For now, WSU and OSU are the only voting members on the conference’s board. WSU and OSU are fighting to prevent the outgoing schools from disbanding the conference. The two schools would like to keep the conference together and distribute the millions in exit fees the schools would retain if the Pac-12 remains. In September, the schools filed for a temporary restraining order, which a Washington state court judge subsequently granted and prevented the conference from holding their September board meeting. Later, WSU and OSU filed for a preliminary injunction, which was the subject of Tuesday’s hearing. The remaining Pac-12 schools have been leaning on the conference’s constitution and bylaws, which summarily state that when a member withdraws from the conference, the withdrawing member ceases to be a member of the Pac-12’s Board of Directors. As a part of their motion, WSU and OSU presented documents evidencing that the conference has previously taken voting power from departing schools. Tuesday’s ruling gives WSU and OSU control of the board (and money) as sole voting members. However, the ruling is stayed pending the University of Washington’s appeal of the decision. Given that the National Collegiate Athletic Association is in a constant state of realignment, the ruling will likely impact how schools change conferences 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.

Former Lafayette Men's Basketball coach Michael Jordan has sued the college for more than $5 million for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wrongful termination, and breach of contract. Jordan was originally hired to coach the Leopards on March 29, 2022. He became Layfette College’s 19th Men’s Basketball head coach under a 5-year contact following the retirement of Fran O’Hanlon, who coached the Leopards for 27 seasons. Jordan didn't last very long in his position, though, as he was placed on paid leave by the University in February, 2023, before ultimately being terminated in March, 2023, one year after the initial hire. When Jordan was placed on paid leave, the school released a cryptic statement that it had received "a complaint . . . about [Jordan's] work as head coach." In his lawsuit, Jordan refutes the validity of that complaint and says that he "inherited a struggling basketball program with a team that finished in 8th place in the Patriot League" before he changed the narrative and fostered a "culture of accountability, trust, openness, honesty and hard work to Lafayette." Yet, on February 15, 2023, with only a few games left in the season and the Patriot League tournament only 2 weeks away, Jordan was suspended by Lafayette . Per the complaint, Jordan was told "that the suspension was done because a former member of the Men’s Basketball team had written a letter to the school complaining about Coach Jordan." However, Jordan believes that this was merely an opportunity for the University to fire Jordan without paying him the entirety of his contract. Jordan says the school "used the letter as pretext to discriminate." In the letter, the student complained that Jordan was too harsh on players and used foul language often. The University interviewed Jordan and he denied the claim. Jordan even had 45 witnesses prepared to speak on his character and refute the claims in the letter. Jordan does not know whether the school actually followed up with his offered witnesses. On March 29, 2023, Coach Jordan was terminated by Lafayette College. In the letter firing Michael Jordan from the head coach position, the school claimed that Jordan was terminated for “gross misconduct and/or insubordination” based on the alleged findings of the school's investigation. Jordan argues that his "predecessor [Fran O’Hanlon], a white male, was the subject of repeated and severe complaints to the College for many years and was never suspended or terminated." "The allegations against the former coach spanned decades and ranged from the mistreatment of Black athletes because of their race to specifically targeting individual players for harsh treatment." Jordan says that over $980,000 remained on his 5-year contract and he wants all of it. Further, Jordan demands $5 million for alleged pain and suffering, damage to his reputation, and loss of future earnings. Jason Morrin is a Workers’ Compensation and Employment attorney in New York. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report, and more. He may be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

The Ball family finds themselves back in the legal world against a familiar face. Alan Foster, a former business partner and advisee to the Ball family and their brand, Big Baller Brand LLC (hereinafter “BBB LLC”) has filed suit against Charlotte Hornets star and youngest Ball brother, LaMelo Ball for trademark infringement. Back in March of 2019, Lonzo Ball filed a suit against Foster alleging that Foster “Conspired to embezzle millions of dollars and then divert those funds for his personal use, including to acquire assets in Ethiopia.” Lonzo requested damages in excess of $2 million and this case is still pending in Los Angeles. While waiting for the outcome of this case, Foster decided to file his own suit against LaMelo and the Ball family. Below is a summary of the facts and requested relief from Foster. It is important to note this summary comes based off of the complaint for damages from Foster and should not be taken as legal or factual conclusions. In 2016, LaVar Ball, the Ball family father, asked Foster for his business guidance regarding his sons’ careers in basketball. LaVar and Foster agreed that marketing the “Ball” name was a unique and highly profitable opportunity. LaVar agreed that, in exchange for Foster providing loans to start the business and his business consulting, LaVar would grant Foster at least a 33% ownership in the new businesses and that Foster would hold officer and director positions in these companies. This was documented in the Proposed Terms-Ball Sports Group, Inc. (hereinafter the “BSG Agreement”). The Ball Sports Group would be constructed of a professional basketball sports agency, a media company, a merchandising company, and additional Ball Family Companies. The BSG Bylaws were created and shares were split up with 670,000 going to LaVar and Tina Ball, and 330,000 going to Foster. In 2017, LaMelo, LaVar, and Tina agreed that Foster should create a brand for LaMelo similar to the Zo2 brand created of Lonzo. Foster created the name and design for LaMelo’s brand, MB1, and told LaVar this brand would be owned and operated by BBB. They registered three trademarks related to MB1 including footwear, apparel, and sportswear. On August 22, 2017, BBB released the MB1 signature shoe for LaMelo to wear and sell. The complaint alleges that LaVar conspired with his family members to remove Foster after repeated confrontations about loans and shares by creating Big Baller Brand Inc. (hereinafter “BBB Inc.”) separate from BBB LLC, and not include Foster in the creation. BBB LLC was dissolved and LaVar transferred the BBB LLC trademarks to BBB Inc. Now that the Ball family had ownership over the MB1 trademark, they sought to find a partner to create products. With LaMelo’s sudden rise to stardom, PUMA jumped on the opportunity in 2020 after LaMelo was drafted 3rd overall in the NBA draft and signed him to a $100 million shoe deal. Puma released the Puma MB1 LO and MB1 BCA shoes, which Foster alleges violates the MB1 trademark originally filed by Foster due to the likelihood of consumer confusion. Foster is suing LaMelo and PUMA for trademark infringement alleging damages of over $200 million each. Foster is also filing a variety charges against LaVar, LaMelo, and PUMA including illegal conversion of property, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. Seeing as how the original Lonzo v. Foster lawsuit is still pending, I do not see this getting resolved any time soon. The response from the Ball family and PUMA should shed more light on the facts of the case. However, what is clear is the animosity between the Ball family and Alan Foster has spanned half of a decade and at the moment, has no end in sight. Evan Mattel is a 3L at Hofstra Law, President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Founder of Hofstra Law’s NIL Program. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-mattel-93a871182/.

The city of Boston arguably has one of the best sports fanbases in the country. While their beloved Red Sox, Celtics, Patriots, and Bruins are the powerhouses in the city, there is another sport thriving in this market: soccer. The New England Revolution, a Major League Soccer franchise, has distinctively carved out its niche in New England’s sports culture. While the Revs have not always grabbed the headlines in the city dominated by the other successful franchises, the team’s persistence and resilience have contributed to the growth of teams that find themselves lower in the landscape. However, it’s not just the men’s game that captures the hearts of Bostonians; the city’s sports culture is embracing change with the exciting rebirth of the National Women’s Soccer League ("NWSL") in Boston. The Boston Breakers women’s soccer team was founded in 2000 and was one of eight original women’s professional soccer teams in the United States. The team began their venture in the Women’s United Soccer Association and went on to be original members of two more startup leagues. Over the years, the franchise had struggled with its marketing and business model, and despite their relentless efforts to save the team, the franchise folded in January 2018. [1] The closure of the Boston Breakers raised questions about the challenges that women’s professional sports teams often face, including financial sustainability, stadium issues, and a competitive landscape that demanded consistent success to thrive. When franchises as such initially fold, several legal considerations come in to play. These include addressing contractual obligations with players, coaches, and staff, and the termination or modification of existing leases, sponsorships, and intellectual property rights associated with the team's branding. League-specific rules and approval would also be essential, as any intent to rejoin a soccer league would require adhering to league regulations, demonstrating financial stability, and potentially negotiating a new franchise agreement. Legal matters related to a new venue would also play a crucial role in navigating the complex legal waters to ensure a successful revival of the team. According to the “Expansion Team Player Acquisition Rules” through the NWSL, the Expansion Teams are subject to a specific set of guidelines to build their initial season rosters. The expansion teams have timelines for activities such as discovering and transferring players and guidelines for the asset selection process, including priority selection in the Expansion Draft and the next season’s NWSL Draft, and waiver wire, distribution, and discovery priority. [2] The popularity of women’s professional soccer in the United States has seen a remarkable surge in the wake of the U.S. Women’s National Team’s World Cup championships. The dominant victories and spirit displayed by the team have inspired a new generation of female athletes and captured the hearts of fans across the nation. The surge in popularity has led to greater television viewership, larger attendance at women’s games, and heightened recognition of women’s soccer players as influential figures both on and off the field. The team’s achievements have not only elevated the sport but have also advanced the conversation of gender equity and equal opportunities in sports, fostering a brighter future for women’s soccer in the United States. This foundation was just the beginning of the rebirth of NWSL in Boston. The city was awarded expansion rights for the league’s 15th team in September 2023 which is set to kick off in the 2026 season. The team is owned by Boston Unity Soccer Partners (BUSC), which represents a significant development in the world of professional sports. BUSC is led by a diverse all-female ownership group that was founded to promote women’s sports at all levels. The owners include Jennifer Epstein, Juno Equity Founder, and Boston Celtics Minority owner; Stephanie Connaughton, marketer and brand builder; Ami Danoff, Women’s Foundation of Boston Co-Founder and CFO; and Anna Palmer, Flybridge Capital General Partner. All women have deep ties to New England and share the passion for creating and maintaining opportunities for women in sports. The ownership represents a powerful symbol of the enduring strength and potential of women in the sports world. [3] The franchise has ambitions to partner with the City of Boston and the Boston Public Schools to modernize George R. White Stadium in the heart of the historic Franklin Park. This is not only a testament to their commitment to the growth of women’s soccer, but also a symbol of their dedication to community development. The modernization initiative not only prepares the venue for NWSL play but also brings significant benefits to the students and surrounding communities in Boston. The project will provide access to high-quality athletic facilities while preserving the heritage of the beloved Franklin Park – showcasing the impact of the game in the heart of Boston. BUSC plans to unveil the club’s brand as it moves closer to play in 2026. [4] The history of women’s soccer in Boston has been both challenging and inspiring. With the dedicated support of Boston’s passionate sports community and the commitment of an all-female ownership team, the NWSL’s return to Boston stands as a beacon of opportunity, equality, and empowerment, exemplifying the ever-evolving landscape of women’s sports. Sources: [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/09/18/sports/nwsl-boston-breakers/ [2] https://nwslboston.com [3] Id. [4] Id. Madison Greco is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. She can be found on Twitter @mtgreco_ and LinkedIn (Madison Greco).

As much as the NCAA or athletic administrators want to deny it, television revenue controls college sports. I believe that deep down, the leaders of college athletics ultimately do want to “maximize the student-athlete experience” and “offer tremendous access to education through sports.” However, I also believe that those honorable and virtuous goals are taking a back seat to maximizing television revenue. The best evidence of this is undoubtedly the latest round of conference realignment, but there are plenty of other examples. The latest is a recent change in a long-standing postseason basketball tournament. Last week, the NCAA announced changes to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT) format. Up until now, regular-season conference champions who failed to reach the NCAA Tournament received an automatic bid to the NIT. But starting in the 2023-2024 season, this will no longer be the case. Instead, the top two teams in the NET rankings from each of the major six conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC) that did not qualify for the NCAA Tournament will earn the first 12 NIT automatic bids and have the right to host first-round games. This change will inevitably have a negative effect on low- and mid-major programs who have ultra-successful regular seasons but come up short in their conference tournaments, where their league’s auto bid to the 68-team NCAA Tournament is earned. For example, the 2013 Robert Morris basketball team won the NEC regular season title with an impressive 14-4 league record. While they came up short in the NEC Tournaments, they earned an auto-bid to the NIT, where they defeated Kentucky. This was undoubtedly a monumental moment for the program and the university itself. However, these stories likely won’t be as prevalent under this new format. The Robert Morris’ of the world will not be guaranteed a national showcase opportunity through the NIT anymore. In its announcement of changes to the NIT for 2024, the NCAA said that it will "select the 20 best teams available to complete the tournament's 32-team field" after the 12 automatic bids are handed out to power conference schools. The other four hosting schools will be the "best" of the 20 at-large teams. Non-power conference commissioners have understandably expressed their distaste for the move. "I was surprised and disappointed in the action announced today by the NIT Board of Managers, approximately one week prior to the start of the 2023-24 season," said MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher. "To make such a substantive change to the NIT structure without providing a satisfactory explanation or building the foundation for such a change is troubling and leaves student-athletes, coaches, and fans in a state of uncertainty. Today's announcement is leading me to focus even more on the discussion around the possible expansion of the NCAA Tournament and I will marshal our membership's attention to that issue." From a legal standpoint, what allows the NCAA to do this without approval from many stakeholders in college basketball? The NIT, which the NCAA bought from ESPN in 2005, is technically under a separate LLC from the NCAA governance structure. This enabled NCAA higher ups to avoid going through the proper channels (AKA: low- and mid-major administrators) to get clearance on the significant format change less than two weeks before the season tips off. The change in format is likely a direct response to a new postseason tournament expected to begin as early as 2025. Recently, Fox Sports announced it's working on putting together a postseason men's college basketball tournament that would feature power conference schools that did not qualify for the NCAA Tournament. In a world where television revenue is king, the NCAA apparently feels that maintaining a tournament with low to mid-major programs with small fan and alumni is not feasible anymore. As deserving and motivated teams like a 24-11 Robert Morris or a 26-7 North Texas might be to play postseason basketball, the unfortunate reality is that an underachieving 17-15 Michigan or a 16-16 Florida will generate more television ratings. The NCAA Tournament itself currently has an uncertain future. Rumors of further expansion have certainly been floated over the years and how those additional bids could be divvied up will be a large point of contention. As the power conference schools continually consolidate, could low and mid-majors be boxed out of March Madness like they are being boxed out of the NIT? Hopefully not, but it’s certainly on the table. In all of this, it will be interesting to see how the NIT fits into the college basketball ecosphere moving forward. For years, the tournament had played its semifinals and final at Madison Square Garden in New York. However, the tournament has shifted its finals to Las Vegas and Indianapolis in recent years. The NCAA Tournament will obviously always be the most popular postseason college basketball tournament, but will the NIT continue to be second in line? That remains to be seen.

Denver Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick is suing the NFL, the Los Angeles Chargers, and ESPN for an injury he sustained on the sidelines during a Monday Night Football game between the Broncos and the Los Angeles Chargers at SoFi Stadium. The injury occurred immediately after Patrick attempted to tackle Chargers punt returner, DeAndre Carter, near the 21-yard line. During that play, Patrick's momentum carried him off the field and onto the sideline, where his cleats became lodged in the cords and cables connected to the NFL's instant replay monitor. Despite attempting to avoid contact, he collided with the NFL's TV Liaison and suffered a torn ACL, ending his season. He is a member of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), and thus, the conditions of his employment are set by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFLPA and the NFL. Patrick then filed various claims of negligence and premises liability against the NFL, ESPN, the Los Angeles Rams, and the Chargers. He contends that the League and Chargers negligently permitted and maintained a dangerous condition in SoFi Stadium, creating an unreasonable risk of injury. Premises liability is a type of negligence claim that arises from a breach of landowner's duty to maintain their land in a reasonably safe condition. He demands compensation for pain and suffering; emotional distress; loss of income, including salary and forgone bonuses; and continued economic loss given the injury's destructive impact on his NFL career. The NFL and Chargers petitioned for removal from state court to federal court to focus on fighting the case on the grounds of the league's CBA with the players. They later asked to have the case dismissed, arguing that Mr. Patrick's claims are preempted by the CBA between the NFL and the NFLPA. Article 39 of the CBA requires "every stadium in which an NFL game is to be played" to comply with the mandatory practices delineated in the Field Surfaces Manual. The NFL and the Chargers contend that the court cannot evaluate whether they were negligent without evaluating whether they complied with the mandatory practices. Thus, they argue that Mr. Patrick's claim is really a breach of contract claim masquerading as a tort claim. According to Defendants, their potential liability to Patrick in these claims solely arises from the CBA because, under California law, "there is no duty of care to protect a sports participant against risks of injury that are inherent in the sport itself." The risk of injury arising from a collision with the objects on the sidelines is an inherent risk of professional football, whether those objects are other players or team staff, benches, coolers, camera equipment, or audiovisual equipment with their attendant cables and cords. Whenever the NFL or one of its clubs is sued by a player in court, they argue that the claims (usually state common law tort claims) are "preempted" by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Under well-established and controlling Supreme Court precedent, any claim whose resolution is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of a CBA is preempted. In other words, claims that are inextricably intertwined with the terms and provisions of the agreement cannot proceed in court. The intended and frequent result is the dismissal of the claims. Notwithstanding, preemption doesn't always lead to NFL players losing lawsuits. In 2018, a St. Louis jury awarded Reggie Bush $12.5 million in damages for injuries he incurred while playing for the San Francisco 49ers in 2015 when he slipped on an uncovered concrete surface in the Edward Jones Dome. The NFL-NFLPA CBA contains grievance arbitration procedures that Patrick did not pursue. Consequently, his claims against the NFL and Chargers were dismissed in their entirety on September 21, 2023. He cannot litigate the negligence and liability claims against the NFL and Chargers. Instead, he must follow the stipulated grievance procedure outlined in the CBA before seeking further court intervention. Madelyn Feyko is a 2L at the Hofstra Law and is the Vice President of Sports for the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. She can be found on LinkedIn at the following link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/madelyn-feyko-8942b520a/ or on Twitter @madelyn_feyko.

Head Coach Liability Under NCAA Rules and the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine In the business world, CEOs and other corporate officers generally may be held personally responsible criminally or civilly only for actions in which they have personally engaged. But that’s not always the case. In some circumstances, corporate officers may be held strictly liable for a civil or even criminal violation. For example, under the controversial responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine, a corporate officer may be held criminally liable for corporate violations that affect public health and well-being simply because the officer had the authority to prevent the unlawful conduct and failed to do so. Whether the officer participated in the unlawful activity, knew about it, or even prohibited it is irrelevant. The mere fact that the officer had, “by reason of his position within the organization, responsibility and authority either to prevent . . ., or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so” is sufficient to establish personal liability for the crime.[1] Though controversial and fairly draconian, the RCO doctrine seeks to incentivize—by the threat of criminal liability—corporate officers to implement and actively oversee effective compliance measures within his or her organization. College football head coaches are often referred to as the “CEO” of their school’s football program. And when it comes to a head coach’s responsibility for NCAA violations, the NCAA now applies a strict liability theory similar to the RCO doctrine, whereby a coach’s knowledge of, or participation in, conduct that violates NCAA regulations is completely irrelevant. A review of several changes to the NCAA bylaws reveals how the NCAA has steadily moved toward adopting this harsh standard. In 2005, the NCAA first adopted a bylaw titled “Responsibility of Head Coach,” which stated: It shall be the responsibility of an institution’s head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.[2] In October 2012, the relevant bylaw was amended to read: An institution’s head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all assistant coaches and administrators who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institution’s head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and administrators involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.[3] Nearly two years later, in August 2014, the NCAA amended this bylaw again, broadening it by making the head coach responsible for the actions of not only “all assistant coaches and administrators . . .” but “all institutional staff members . . . .”[4] Finally, the NCAA amended this bylaw last August, which took effect on January 1, 2023. In its current form, bylaw 11.1.1.1 states: An institution's head coach shall be held responsible for the head coach's actions and the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. In order to assist the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions in penalty deliberations, the enforcement staff will gather information regarding whether the head coach promoted an atmosphere of compliance within the program and monitored the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.[5] Over time, the NCAA’s changes have clearly broadened the liability that may be imposed upon a head coach for actions of third parties within his or her program. But the NCAA’s latest amendment in particular includes two significant changes. First, under the pre-2023 version, a head coach was only “presumed to be responsible” for the actions of staff members that report to him or her. This language left open the possibility that the “presumption” of responsibility could be rebutted by evidence demonstrating why the head coach should not be held responsible for a staff member’s misconduct. The 2023 version of the bylaw, however, leaves no room for rebuttal, stating clearly that a head coach “shall be held responsible” for the actions of all staff members that report to him or her. In effect, the new bylaw imposes strict liability on a head coach for the actions of all institutional staff members that report to him or her. Second, the updated bylaw arguably modifies (or clarifies) the purpose for which a head coach’s efforts to create an atmosphere of compliance will be considered. Under the previous version, the language in the bylaw created a separate duty for a head coach to promote an atmosphere of compliance and to monitor staff members within the program (“head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance” and “shall monitor the activities . . . .”). The amended language, however, appears to limit the consideration of whether or not a head coach promoted compliance and/or monitored his program to penalty determinations only. This interpretation is consistent with the 2023 bylaw’s imposition of strict liability on head coaches—after all, if a head coach is strictly liable for the actions of his or her staff members, then any efforts taken by the coach to implement compliance measures would be completely irrelevant to a determination of liability. Those efforts would, however, be relevant to any penalty imposed by the Committee, as the updated language makes clear. This change by the NCAA does not come as welcome news to Jim Harbaugh, head coach of the Michigan Wolverines football team, which is currently under investigation for allegations relating to sign-stealing. Michigan is accused of violating two rules: (1) NCAA bylaw 11.6.1, which prohibits “off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season)” and (2) Section 4.11(h) of the NCAA Football Rulebook, which prohibits “any attempt to record, either through audio or video means, any signals given by an opposing player, coach or other team personnel.” Harbaugh has maintained that he had no knowledge of the alleged sign stealing, nor has he directed anyone on his staff to engage in such activity. But based on the strict liability standard imposed by NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1, Harbaugh could be held accountable regardless of whether he was involved in the alleged wrongdoing. So, for everyone wondering whether Harbaugh was involved or how much he knew about the alleged sign-stealing operation—the reality is, it doesn’t matter whether he knew anything at all, at least from an NCAA violation standpoint. If Michigan goes down, Harbaugh does too. Alec McNiff (Twitter: @Alec_McNiff) is currently completing a federal district court clerkship after spending a year as a litigation associate at a major law firm. Alec earned his J.D. from University of Michigan Law School and holds a business degree from University of Southern California. [1] United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-74 (1975). [2] NCAA Division I Manual, 11.1.2.1 (2005-06). [3] NCAA Division I Manual, 11.1.1.1 (2013-14) (emphasis added). [4] NCAA Division I Manual, 11.1.1.1 (2015-16) (emphasis added). [5] NCAA Division I Manual, 11.1.1.1 (2023-24) (emphasis added).

A lawsuit was filed against United Airlines yesterday, October 25, 2023, by two United Airlines employees with over 30 years of combined service time for the company. Plaintiff Dawn Todd is a 50-year-old Black woman and Plaintiff Darby Quezada is a 44-year-old woman of Mexican, Black, and Jewish descent. The lawsuit centers on United’s staffing of its Los Angeles Dodger Charter Program. Per their complaint, plaintiffs say a team charter crew member is a highly coveted position because members can “earn more money, receive premium accommodations and higher per diem compensation, and often receive valuable sporting event tickets, field passes, and rare sports merchandise.” In fact, plaintiffs say that former Dodger Justin Turner gave staff “manilla envelopes of cash . . . at the end of the 2021 season.” However, plaintiffs say they were denied this role for more than a decade, despite having the necessary experience and qualifications, because of their race. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that United staffed the program “with virtually all white crews.” Finally, after “extensive interviews,” plaintiffs were selected to serve as members of the dedicated crew for the Dodgers Inflight Charter Program. However, in 2022, after several White United flight attendants in their 20s or 30s were added to the crew without interviews, Todd and Quezada claim they were told that interviews were not required for those women because the new additions “fit a ‘certain look’ that the Dodgers players liked.” Quezada claims that her supervisor told Quezada that she was shocked the Dodgers’ Senior Director of Team Travel said, “hi” to Quezada “since he only prefers white and Asian flight attendants.” Todd and Quezada say they began receiving far fewer flight assignments before Todd was demoted from the crew around the beginning of the 2023 MLB season. Todd alleges she was “replaced by white female flight attendants . . . who leapfrogged the minority flight attendants who had seniority but were pushed to the bottom.” Todd says this caused her financial harm. Per the complaint, in September of 2023, Todd submitted a formal complaint to United but the defendant “took no meaningful action to investigate Todd’s complaints, address the widespread discrimination, or protect her from retaliation.” Further, Todd says she and Quezada have been retaliated against after no longer getting selected for any charter flights and hostile and unfair treatment in the workplace. Quezada, a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, says that when she once ordered a kosher meal on one of the Dodger flights, coworkers belittled her and said, “you know Jesus died for you even if you don’t believe” and “you don’t look Jewish.” Quezada and Todd also allege that minority flight attendants have not received a cut or any of the tips, gifts, and merchandise provided by the players. With that, the plaintiffs filed an 11-count complaint in LA County Court. This is not the first time United Airlines has been accused of favoring young, white, blonde attendants for sports flights. Jason Morrin is a Workers’ Compensation and Employment attorney at Morrin & Sands. He graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School where he was president of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. His reporting for Conduct Detrimental has been cited by ESPN, The New York Post, USA Today, Bleacher Report, and more.

Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), PAC-12 Conference, and University of Southern California’s (USC) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by the National College Players Association (NCPA). Based on the scheduling order, the parties will move forward with a hearing on November 7th, addressing pretrial motions and subpoenas. Last year, the NCPA filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board—later filing a Complaint that USC, the PAC-12 Conference, and the NCAA, as joint employers, unlawfully violated the National Labor Relations Act by misclassifying college football and basketball players as non-employees. In response, the NCAA, conference, and university denied the NCPA’s allegations, responding that the NLRB lacks jurisdiction over the NCAA and should decline jurisdiction over the responding parties, among other defenses. After all parties agreed on a scheduling order on October 13th, the responding parties filed a Motion to Dismiss the NCPA’s Complaint. Without a response, the Office of the Executive Secretary of the NLRB summarily denied the Motion to Dismiss, citing section 102.24(b) of the Board’s Rules, which states, “[a]ll motions for summary judgment or dismissal must be filed with the Board no later than 28 days prior to the scheduled hearing.” Per the scheduling order, the parties scheduled a hearing to address pretrial motions on November 7th. Therefore, the responding parties filed the motion less than 28 days prior to the hearing. Thus, the parties will proceed to the hearing without addressing the Motion to Dismiss, and the path to joint employee status just got a bit easier for the NCPA. 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.