The mess that is the Washington Commanders’ front office got even messier on Wednesday, as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testified before the House Oversight Committee on the “toxic workplace culture” that has characterized the Dan Snyder era of Washington football[1]. The hearing was part of a larger investigation into the NFL’s refusal to publicize the findings of their own internal investigation into the Washington Commanders’ workplace, and their “failure to take meaningful steps to address and prevent” the misconduct[2]. Wednesday’s hearings came after a February roundtable, in which former employees of Snyder’s discussed the “sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and other misconduct” they had to endure during their employment[3]. The House Oversight Committee’s involvement in the workplace practices and misconduct of an NFL owner may seem bizarre to the average football fan, but it is not without just cause. Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), emphasized the NFL’s popularity and nationwide prominence as reasons to introduce new legislation which would “rein in the abuse of non-disclosure, confidentiality, and non-disparagement agreements in the workplace” in order to create new protections for employees[4]. Essentially, this proposal would prevent misconduct from being silenced by NDAs, a practice that Snyder has made quite the use of during his time as owner[5]. Goodell’s testimony on Wednesday defended the NFL’s decision to hire an independent investigator to look into the claims of workplace harassment, and claimed that the League had “imposed unprecedented discipline” on the club, amounting to $10 million in fines and restrictions on participating in League circles[6]. In the midst of all this turmoil, the Committee announced late Wednesday night that they will subpoena owner Dan Snyder after he declined the invitation to appear before the Committee. Chairwoman Maloney said in a statement Wednesday night that she is prepared to hold Snyder accountable if the NFL isn’t willing to do so[7]. The big question that looms over the hearings is what could actually happen to Snyder, and could he be removed as owner? Certainly, any removal of an NFL owner would be unprecedented. In recent years, sports fans have seen the removal of Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and investigation into Suns owner Robert Sarver, but nothing has shaken the NFL ownership ranks like the years-long saga that has been the Snyder-led Commanders. Rumors have been swirling that other NFL owners are counting votes for an ousting of Snyder, but they would need a super-majority of 24 out of 32 owners to vote in favor[8]. Whether such a vote would actually take place remains to be seen, but the prospect of such a vote is incredibly interesting. Goodell downplayed his power to remove an owner, saying that he does not have the authority to force a removal, but forgetting to mention the fact he can recommend a vote[9]. The fallout and procedure for the removal of an owner would be an enormous story for the law and for sports, and with the upcoming testimony of Snyder, it is very possible that such a process is on the table. Any vote to remove Snyder would likely be after his testimony for the H.O.C., as owners would see how he appears to the public and how forthcoming he is about the misconduct before making a final decision. Greg Moretto is a Pre-Law Student at Boston College ‘23. He is a member of the BC Sports Business Society E-Board. He can be found on Twitter @grejmoretto. [1] https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/tackling-toxic-workplaces-examining-the-nfl-s-handling-of-workplace-misconduct [2] House Oversight Committee [3] House Oversight Committee [4] House Oversight Committee [5] https://wtop.com/washington-commanders/2020/09/lawyers-for-former-washington-football-team-employees-call-for-release-from-ndas/ [6] https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/22/roger-goodells-testimony-to-house-committee-on-oversight-and-reform/ [7] https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/u-s-house-oversight-committee-will-subpoena-commanders-owner-daniel-snyder-to-testify-before-congress/ [8] https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/roger-goodell-authority-remove-daniel-snyder-owner-washington/story?id=85565365 [9] ABC News

Wednesday, June 22, was a busy day for North Carolina’s two sports wagering bills, Senate Bills 38 and 688, which are considered companion bills. In the end, SB 38 passed on its second reading 51-50 and wound up being sent back to the House Rules Committee due to SB 688 failing to pass with a vote of 49-52. North Carolina House Finance Committee After passing through the North Carolina House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, both bills made their way to the House Finance Committee Wednesday morning. The House Finance Committee adopted multiple amendments to SB 38, including reducing the percentage of tax revenue to special events to 30% and apportioning 10% of tax revenues to athletic departments at North Carolina Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Both bills passed through the House Finance Committee via votes of 14-2 and 13-3, respectively. North Carolina House Rules Committee In the afternoon, the bills moved to the House Rules Committee. The House Rules Committee adopted one additional amendment—to phase out sportsbook operators’ ability to claim deductions on promotional credits to 3 years from 5 years. Subsequently, both bills passed via voice vote. North Carolina House Floor Finally, the bills ended the day on the North Carolina House Floor. Lawmakers offered multiple amendments to SB 38, including guaranteeing each of the seven lowest-funding athletic departments at least $300K, which ultimately was adopted. Perhaps the most surprising amendment of the day came from Representative Autry. Representative Autry moved to strike all college sports betting from SB 38. Despite strong opposition to the motion, the House adopted the amendment. Importantly, the amendment is not limited to betting on North Carolina colleges and universities. Instead, the amendment applies to betting on all colleges and universities. In a state that loves college sports, the amendment is a shocker for fans all over the state. Ultimately, SB 38 narrowly passed the House at 51-50. It was originally placed on the House calendar for a final reading on Thursday. Later, it was taken off the calendar and moved to the Rules Committee. The day ended with the House taking up SB 688. While lawmakers offered a couple of amendments, the House did not adopt either. In another shocker, SB 688 failed by a vote of 49-52. This is notable considering that SB 688 served as the big structure for sports wagering and SB 38 is an amendment to portions of SB 688. Thus, SB 38 is dependent on SB 688. Next Steps With SB 688 failing, SB 38 is now the standalone bill on sports wagering. For now, proponents of SB 38 could strip the portions that rely on SB 688. However, with the session set to end no later than June 30, time is running out to get the bill through both chambers. Thus, in a surprising turn of events, it appears that North Carolina will end the session without mobile sports wagering. 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.

Tuesday at the Travelers, Koepka walked up to Mickelson on the driving range and gave him a fist bump while exchanging a few words. This was enough to send the rumor mill into full swing, as everyone suspected this action preceded an announcement that Koepka would be jumping ship—and these speculations were quickly confirmed Wednesday, with LIV issuing a press release confirming the switch. On the one hand, this move is not surprising—Koepka, like many of the other golfers who have made the switch is battling injuries that cast doubt on his ability to compete at the top level in the PGA. This paired with older players like Mickelson who are “past their prime” are enticed by the money available to them and the ability to continue to do well against slightly less skilled competition. BUT What makes this move in particular so interesting is that Koepka is on the record condemning the LIV tour and the other golfers who “left” the PGA to join LIV as recently as a week and a half ago. This can only mean one thing—LIV gave Koepka a payment he couldn’t logically refuse to change his tune. This will be a bit of an embarrassment for Koepka because of his public comments around LIV in the past, but when you get down to brass tacks, money talks—which is exactly what the PGA is so afraid of. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

On March 13, 2022, Josh Donaldson was traded to the New York Yankees from the Minnesota Twins. The blockbuster trade seems to be working well for both sides as involved players are succeeding. However, there is a side to player transactions that fans don't see. The athletes are forced to abruptly move and find a new place to live with their families, among other fresh challenges. Donaldson, his partner (who was six months pregnant at the time), and their 17-month-old daughter needed to quickly find a residence in the New York metropolitan area in advance of the Yankees’ Opening Day on April 7, 2022. On April 1, 2022, Donaldson did find a place, located in Greenwich, Connecticut. He entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Bill Grous to lease the residential property. Pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff Donaldson agreed to pay Defendant rent in the amount of $55,000 per month and a security deposit in the amount of $110,000. Despite contractual language requiring the lessor to maintain the leasehold “in a fit and livable condition," Donaldson and his partner noticed a host of issues. Those issues included, but are not limited to, ant infestation, non-working showers, water damage, broken toilets, and squirrels infiltrating the house. Defendant called workmen to attempt to rectify the issues. However, Donaldson says in the complaint that this was "a hopeless attempt." "Defendant had workmen constantly coming to the Premises often without notice." "Not only did these workmen not resolve many of the issues, but they interrupted Plaintiff’s sleep (a priority for a professional athlete)." In addition, shortly after moving in, Donaldson's partner and their daughter both developed lung congestion and a lingering cough. Per the complaint, an inspection conducted by a professional environmental testing company on April 19, 2022 revealed an extensive and widespread infestation of Chaetomium mold and Aspergillus mold throughout several key rooms in the house. On May 17, 2022, after defendant failed to cure the mold, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a formal notice confirming that the lease had terminated and that the premises were being vacated and demanding an immediate return of the security deposit. Up to June 24, 2022, the date of filing of this lawsuit, Defendant has still not returned the $110,000 deposit. Thus, Donaldson filed this suit for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Jason Morrin is a recent graduate of Hofstra Law School. He was the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He will be a Law Clerk at Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok after taking the July, 2022 Bar Exam. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

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, only 13 cases went to a hearing, with more than half (18) reaching negotiated agreements. The results of all 13 hearings are publicly available, with Clubs maintaining a 9 - 4 advantage over the Players. Twelve players settled with their teams, with five of those settlements including an additional mutual option for the 2023 season. Six players agreed to multi-year extensions with their Clubs. HEARINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED (13): 9 CLUB Wins 4 PLAYER Wins SETTLEMENTS (12): 2 ABOVE MIDPOINT 3 AT MIDPOINT 1 BELOW MIDPOINT 5 MUTUAL OPTION FOR 2023 EXTENSIONS (6) 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.

ESPN is reportedly reached a new broadcasting rights deal with F1 to continue their exclusive right to broadcast races in the United States through the 2025 season. While this deal doesn't come as that big of a surprise, what was surprising was the amount of money ESPN reportedly had to pay to retain this right. Previously, ESPN had a three-year deal with Formula One and Sky Sports (a UK-based sports channel) to use their broadcast on ESPN as the exclusive way to view a race in the United States and was worth approximately 15 million dollars. This new deal, also for three years, is rumored to be worth 85 to 90 million. This substantial jump comes as no surprise to anyone who follows Formula One, or has seen the Netflix docu-series Drive to Survive, which follows a Formula One season for each “season” of the show. This, paired with increasing the number of events held in North America and a brilliant marketing campaign led by Liberty Media who owns Formula One, has led to this massive increase in viewership, causing them to have much more bargaining power when negotiating this contract with ESPN that it had three seasons ago. This is further proof that Formula One has solidified its hold in North America where it has many opportunities to continue to grow, showing that Liberty Media has made Formula One into a much more profitable organization and asset than it was when they purchased it. This contract again highlights the dichotomy between formula one's growing popularity in the United States despite being a “primarily European" motorsport up until recently, and the decline of the truly homegrown motorsport of NASCAR shrinking in popularity within the U.S. It will certainly be interesting to see how much more Formula One grows in the coming years within the U.S., and I hope for the sake of NASCAR as an organization they're taking notes on how to properly increase the popularity of a sport outside of the United States traditional “big four” of football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

Last week, THE Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio trademarked the word “THE” for use on all university and athletic apparel. This trend started in 1986, according to CNN. This occurred because Ohio State wanted to stop or move away from the “OSU” symbol. There are two other schools that use the “OSU” logo: Oklahoma State University and Oregon State University respectively. During Sunday Night Football games, the starters say their names and which universities or high schools they attended. Any former Buckeye usually states their name and THE Ohio State University. Trademarks protect their owner and consumers. Trademarks include articles used or intended to use in commerce to distinguish goods. Trademark protection prohibits competitors from using marks where confusion could occur. A mark can be arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, or generic. Arbitrary bears no relation to the goods’ characteristics. Suggestive suggests the article’s characteristics. Descriptive describes its characteristics. Generic is the product’s common name. Descriptive terms are protected if they acquire secondary meaning. Secondary meaning exists when the public interprets it as a representation origin. Factors determine secondary meaning, and there are eleven non-exhaustive factors. The factors that apply are name, exclusivity, and confusion. Ohio State wants to protect its university and goods because the trademark “THE” is descriptive. The public interprets it as a representation origin. The factors that apply in their case are the name of the university and apparel, exclusivity to Ohio State, and it avoids confusion because by trademarking the word “THE," it is a reference to Ohio State The word “THE” is in all capital letters because the players put an emphasis on it. This trademark battle started in 2019 when Ohio State filed a trademark application for it. Ohio State University argued the word “THE” is a rallying cry for the university, and it has been for many years. The possible hiccup in the university’s application for the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was that fashion designer Marc Jacobs filed to trademark the same word, according to CNN. In 2021, Ohio State University and Marc Jacobs reach an agreement. It allows both parties to register “THE” branded products for continuous use and license, according to Ohio State spokesperson Ben Johnson. Ohio State worked to protect its brand and trademarks because this asset benefits students and faculty, and it supports the university’s core academic mission, which is teaching and research. This trademark and licensing program generate more than $12.5 million in revenue, which funds university programs and student scholarships, according to Johnson. This trademark battle was similar to Texas A&M University trademarking the 12th man, after the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks tried to trademark it themselves back in the 2010s. Another recent battle was between two universities, South Carolina and Southern California, when both schools tried to trademark the interlocking SC logo in the 2010s, according to herrick.com. These trademark battles may seem silly, but they protect products and entities from confusion. The trademark allows for these products and entities to “mark” themselves from other products and entities that are similar to those products. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

In an eyebrow-raising, but less-than-surprising decision, FIFA has re-stated its policies regarding following all laws in countries that host the FIFA World Cup—Which this year means no premarital sex, no public drinking, and a restriction on openly homosexual relationships. In Qatar, if athletes or fans are caught engaging in premarital sex or enjoying a beer in public, they could be charged with up to seven years in prison, and any suspected homosexual relationships could subject each party to a year in prison. Being a country with such intense punishments, many thought that FIFA (soccer's governing body) would relax its normal policies of strict obedience and deference to the host country's laws. However, no such relaxation will be present. FIFA reiterated that all laws of the host country must be obeyed by all athletes and all fans for the duration of the tournament, which lasts from late November through December of this year. Now, I don't know how familiar you may be with soccer fans or players, but they are not normally known as a dull or sober crowd. Fans enjoy consuming alcohol at events, and players are regularly found after games in clubs and bars either celebrating their wins or drowning their losses. Going hand in hand with this party atmosphere, I'm willing to bet that many fans and players alike are engaging in premarital sex either with long-term partners or “one-night stands,” and a combination of both of these things being banned in Qatar is going to pose some interesting and high profile issues as the World Cup gets underway. While the move by FIFA to reaffirm its stance is certainly eyebrow-raising, it comes as no real surprise. FIFA is reluctant to set a precedent of requiring relaxation of strict laws in host countries because of what it means for future events and future headaches that this would create, as well as understanding that it really lacks the authority to “require” a sovereign nation to change its rules to host an event. But this is where my understanding of the issue ends. At a time where, in most of the western world, drinking with friends at or after a sporting event and premarital sex are daily occurrences, and where being homosexual is not seen as being a crime, this is definitely major negative press for FIFA. It will certainly impact the number of people who are willing to go watch the World Cup. So, why does FIFA still choose to have the World Cup in Qatar? It's a simple answer to a simple question, and one that we hear again and again—money. Qatar paid handsome fees to FIFA for the opportunity to host the World Cup and has invested approximately 200 billion dollars into infrastructure and associated expenses, with approximately 10 billion being allocated to actually building the stadiums. FIFA just simply couldn't ignore the prospect of earning that much money from hosting fees, and FIFA apparently is turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations committed by the country as a result. On top of all of the issues with imprisonment for what is largely considered “normal” behavior in most of the soccer-playing world, there are questions about the labor conditions of workers building this infrastructure and these stadiums. Reports have circulated that over 6500 migrant workers have died while working to build these stadiums since construction began, further showing a lack of concern for not only human rights, but also human life—all of which FIFA has inexplicably ignored due to its own prospects for profits. Unfortunately, stories like this are all too common where a governing body ignores issues of human rights or health and safety, despite stated initiatives to increase diversity and inclusion, all in the name of cash. I understand, as do many of us, that (as much as we don't like to think so) all sports leagues are businesses that need to make a profit to continue to exist. But as a fan of sports in general, it's frustrating and disheartening to see such blatant and transparent money grabbing from these leagues and how far they are willing to compromise their own stated beliefs and policies to the whims of the highest bidder. I understand that FIFA's hands are tied in the position that they are currently in with Qatar, but it's important to remember that FIFA themselves is the ones that created the situation in the first place. Going forward and from a management perspective, I can only hope that at some point the negative press and consequences of making decisions like this that compromise the human rights of patrons and athletes who will be attending events like the World Cup will mean that it's not financially viable for organizations to ignore these issues. As much as I hope for this, the economist in me understands that there's always going to be money in these places and also very little social change, so issues and conflicts like this one will continue to occur—continuing to reduce the validity and believability of leagues’ statements promoting “diversity and inclusion.” https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022 https://frontofficesports.com/the-most-expensive-world-cup-in-history/#:~:text=Russia%202018%3A%20%2411.6%20billion,Qatar%202022%3A%20%24220%20billion https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/22/unmarried-sex-public-alcohol-consumption-could-lan/ Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach that lost his job due to his continuous praying post-game at midfield. In a 6-3 decision, the majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, held that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect Kennedy’s conduct. Joseph Kennedy was a coach for the football team at Bremerton High School. Kennedy is a practicing Christian and performed post-game prayers at the fifty-yard line immediately after football games concluded. The prayers typically lasted around thirty seconds. Initially, Kennedy would pray alone. In later post-game prayers, Bremerton high school students and eventually players from opposing teams joined him. In September 2015, the Bremerton School District sent Kennedy a letter asking that Kennedy avoid talks with students that “include religious expression, including religious prayer,” as the school district wanted to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. After halting the practice for a brief period, on October 14, Kennedy sent a letter to school officials informing them that he would resume offering a “post-game personal prayer” at midfield. On October 16, Mr. Kennedy offered a prayer at midfield after the game, and players from the opposing team and members of the community joined him. Subsequently, after the football game on October 23, Kennedy again knelt in prayer at midfield. This time, nobody joined him. Finally, after the football game on October 26, Kennedy knelt at midfield while other adults joined him on the field. After the October 26 football game, the Bremerton School District placed Kennedy on administrative leave due to Kennedy engaging in “public and demonstrative religious conduct while still on duty as an assistant coach.” Later, Bremerton School District did not rehire Kennedy for the following season. Majority Opinion Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, views this case through the lens of the Freeh Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause. “Where the Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercises, whether communicative or not, the Free Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.” Free Exercise Clause The Free Exercise Clause states that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. A violation can be void when “a government entity has burdened [Kennedy’s] sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or generally applicable.’” Justice Gorsuch found that Kennedy’s religious beliefs are unquestioned. Thus, he turned to whether Bremerton School District’s policy was neutral or generally applicable. In finding that the policies were not neutral nor generally applicable, Justice Gorsuch reasoned that they were not neutral because Bremerton School District “sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious character.” In turn, the policies were not generally applicable because Bremerton School District “advised against rehiring Mr. Kennedy on the ground that he ‘failed to supervise student-athletes after games’” due to Kennedy’s postgame prayers. However, Bremerton School District permitted other coaches to forgo supervising students for the coaches to visit friends and family. Thus, Bremerton School District did not apply its supervisory requirement to all coaches. Free Speech Clause In analyzing the Free Speech Clause, Justice Gorsuch focuses on the following question: “[d]id Mr. Kennedy offer his prayers in his capacity as a private citizen, or did they amount to government speech attributable to the [Bremerton School] District?” Generally, the Free Speech Clause does not protect government speech. The majority found that Kennedy was offering his prayers in Kennedy’s capacity as a private citizen. In answering the question, Justice Gorsuch focuses on the prayers after the three football games in October, when Kennedy had halted his motivational postgame talks. Viewing Kennedy’s actions after the football games in October, Justice Gorsuch found that Kennedy “was not seeking to convey a government created message. He was not instructing players, discussing strategy or encouraging better on-field performance, or engaged in any other speech the [Bremerton School] District paid him to produce as a coach.” Thus, Kennedy’s speech was not government speech attributable to Bremerton School District. Government Interest After analyzing Kennedy’s speech through the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause, Justice Gorsuch turned to the strict scrutiny test to determine whether Bremerton School District’s restrictions on Kennedy’s speech “serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored” to the interest. Justice Gorsuch rejected Bremerton School District’s noted interests, including Bremerton School District’s interest in not violating the Establishment Clause and not coercing students to pray. In dispensing of Bremerton School District’s interests, Justice Gorsuch noted that “Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.” Again, Justice Gorsuch focused on the three October football games when Bremerton High School players did not participate in the prayers; thus, they could not feel coerced to pray. “[I]n no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.” Therefore, in finding that there is not a compelling government interest, the majority ruled in favor of Mr. Kennedy, noting “[r]espect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a Free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through spoken word or a bowed head.” Dissenting Opinion Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join, dissenting, frame the question differently. Rather than isolating the prayers after the three October football games, the Justices review all of Kennedy’s conduct. “This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religious to students as the public watched.” With that question in mind, Justice Sotomayor turns to the Establishment Clause, which “prohibits States from adopting laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’” Turning to public schools, Justice Sotomayor notes that states cannot use “its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals.” Thus, Justice Sotomayor finds that an Establishment Clause violation is clear. Specifically noting that Coach Kennedy was the face and voice of Bremerton School District during football games and that Kennedy was speaking from the location he met the opposing to shake hands. “Permitting a school coach to lead students and others he invited onto the field in prayer at a predictable time after each game could only be viewed as a postgame tradition occurring ‘with the approval of the school administration.’” Further, Justice Sotomayor recognized that Kennedy’s practice was coercive for athletes as players depend on Kennedy for benefits, including letters of recommendation. In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor writes that the Free Exercise Clause “serves as ‘a promise from our government,’ while the second erects a ‘backstop that disables our government from breaking it’ . . . . [t]oday the [Majority] once against weakens the backstop.” Takeaway Overall, Justice Gorsuch and the majority chose to analyze isolated instances that did not include Kennedy giving motivational talks with religious references. Thus, Bremerton High School football players were not involved. Otherwise, Kennedy’s conduct could have run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The ruling is an unsurprising ruling from the current court, as the five most pro-religion justices sit on the current court. Even though this ruling appears to be narrow, expect more challenges to the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses 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.

Throughout the years, the sport of tennis has trended in the media both for athletic performance as well as for racism, sexism, and double standards. Wimbledon 2022 is underway and so too is the analysis of the tournament’s old-fashioned clothing rules, shedding light on the sport’s history of disparate treatment and questionable standards. Wimbledon’s dress code for competitors reads as follows: Vox’s incredible piece detailing how the all-white dress code was derived from the Victorian era notes that class, hygiene, wealth and privilege are the reason for the color white’s dominance in the tournament. Repeatedly, these attributes have been found to be rooted in racism and classism. Despite the perceived implications of this dress code, it is quite shocking that it has continued for so long. Tennis fashion has evolved and adapted to the times at least to the degree that women are no longer wearing petticoats on the court; however, the all-white fashion is steadfast at Wimbledon. The most recent concern regarding the all-white Wimbledon dress code is for athletes experiencing menstrual symptoms during the tournament and having concerns over competing in the all-white attire while internationally televised. Some find these concerns to be trivial, as athletes in all sports have to compete while experiencing menstrual symptoms. However, many do not understand the fear and embarrassment that comes with bleeding through your attire in public. It’s a fear that all people who menstruate have felt, and it should not have to be a concern that athletes face when they are competing. Wimbledon is not the only tournament to come under fire for its dress code requirements. In 2018, Serena Williams donned a Nike catsuit at the French Open, that was not only stylish and sleek, but health-oriented. Williams openly stated that during her pregnancy she experienced complications, and also has a history of blood clots. The catsuit aided blood circulation in order to prevent blood clots. Despite the underlying medical reasons for her attire, some found the attire disrespected the sport. Bernard Giudicelli, President of the French Tennis Federation, stated that William’s catsuit would no longer be accepted at the French Open because “[Y]ou have to respect the game and the place.” The question of respect for the sport and the athlete’s choice of attire has not only plagued tennis but other sports as well. The Norwegian women’s beach handball team was fined for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms, apparently constituting “improper attire” by the European Handball Federation. However, if athletes are better able to play the game while wearing certain attire, then why does the attire in question disrespect the sport itself? Couldn’t one argue that it is more respectful to the sport if athletes wear clothing that enables them to play their best? In addition, it remains to be proven how certain colors affect respect for the sport. White attire may be the coolest to wear under bright sunlight. Yet, surely other light colors could achieve the same benefit particularly given the range of fabrics and materials available in this day and age. One would hope that professional athletes competing at premier tournaments like Wimbledon would know whether playing in an all-black catsuit would affect their ability on the court. Given the issues related to tennis attire and how it affects athletes on the basis of sex, race, and even disability, a question arises as to why legal action has not been sought more frequently, such as the case with Casey Martin and the PGA Tour. The Supreme Court found that “the PGA Tour was required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to grant Martin a reasonable accommodation based on his disability” that made it painful for him to walk the courses. Although a few athletes have challenged the right to accommodations or the freedom to wear attire that enhances their performance, many athletes fear repercussions for confronting outdated rules and may often feel they lack the legal standing to oppose the associations behind these tournaments. Kate Rosenberg is a J.D. candidate for the Class of 2023 at Texas A&M University School of Law. She can be reached at @Katerosey1 on Twitter.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional levels of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! In each article, we highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to a sports-centric curriculum; sports law certifications; unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; and sports law journals The focus of this Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Texas A&M University School of Law When you think of Texas A&M, the first things that normally come to mind are its great engineering reputation, the passionate “12th Man” fanbase, or Johnny Manziel. What you probably don’t think of when it comes to Texas A&M is that it has a good law school, even though it hasn’t been in existence for very long. Even though A&M was established all the way back in 1876 in College Station, Texas, the Texas A&M School of Law has only been around for a decade. In 2012, Texas A&M University reached an agreement with Texas Wesleyan University under which it would take over ownership and operational control over the school, which is located in Fort Worth, Texas. Since then, the TAMU law has shot up the ranks, attracting world-class professors and talented students along the way. To learn more about Texas A&M law and what it offers to prospective sports-minded students, I had the pleasure of talking with Chris Missimo, a current Aggie law student and former president of the TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Sports Law Curriculum The Texas A&M School of Law has no shortage of excellent courses that prepare its students for a career in the legal profession. Aggie law grads have a stellar pass rate on the bar exam and there are numerous clinics available for students to take advantage of while enrolled. In addition to the standard law school curriculum, TAMU law offers a few courses for sports-minded students. In the past, the “sports law” course was only offered on a semi-regular basis, but with increased interest, the course was offered in consecutive years for the first time this past year. To top it off, a new class dedicated to NIL is set to begin next spring. This class will be taught by Trayveon Williams, a former Aggie running back who holds the school’s record for rushing yards in a season, and Alex Sinatra, a sports attorney, and business consultant. TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society While many law schools have good student-run organizations dedicated to sports and entertainment, the goal of Texas A&M’s is straightforward and clear: to make meaningful connections in the industry. Over the course of the year, the society hosts paneled discussions roughly every month with experts from various areas of sports and entertainment law. Students can absorb great advice and knowledge during these events, but also have the opportunity to network and build connections. In addition to the various paneled discussions throughout the year, the spring Sports Law Symposium is the society’s biggest event annually. While several students attend the monthly events, the symposium draws in even bigger crowds of Aggie law students. High-profile executives, athletic directors, general counsels, and other sports lawyers come to Fort Worth either in person or virtually to share insights and advice. In summary, the Texas A&M University School of Law offers a great experience for prospective law students interested in sports law. Between sports law courses and the TAMU Sports and Entertainment Law Society, there are a lot of opportunities to learn and make great connections with experienced professionals in the field of sports law. In addition, its location in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is a big plus. With six professional sports franchises, multiple Division I college sports teams, and several sports firms and businesses, the opportunities are plentiful for any student attending TAMU law to land internships and externships. Even though the law school is relatively young compared to others across the country, it’s a great time to be an Aggie law student. Big thanks to Chris Missimo for taking the time to share all of the great information for this sports law spotlight! You can follow him on Twitter @cmissimo

First reported by Evan Drellich of The Athletic, The United States Senate Judiciary Committee has sent a letter to the Executive Director of Advocates for Minor Leaguers, Harry Marino, with questions regarding the impact of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption on minor leaguers. The letter comes after Senator Richard Durbin stated in March that Congress should reconsider the antitrust exemption. Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption The United States Supreme Court established MLB’s antitrust exemption in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, which found that Major League Baseball does not satisfy the interstate commerce clause under the Sherman Antitrust Act because any travel is merely incidental. Thus, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 does not apply to Major League Baseball. Since 1922, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption has been upheld twice, in 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees and 1972 in Flood v. Kuhn. In 1998, Congress narrowed the scope of the antitrust exemption when it passed the Curt Flood Act, which stipulated that the antitrust exemption did not apply to player employment issues and was a major win for major league baseball players. Notably, the Curt Flood Act does not apply to minor leaguers. For years, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption has been called into question due to baseball ballooning into a billion-dollar industry that includes ample commercial activities crossing state lines. In March, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “Save American Baseball Act” to remove Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. Despite Senator Sanders’ efforts, Congress has yet to eliminate the antitrust exemption. Importantly, Major League Baseball is the only league with a general antitrust exemption. Other leagues are limited to a narrow antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts. Letter From Senate Judiciary Committee Penned by Senators Richard Durbin, Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, and Michael Lee, the letter takes direct aim at the antitrust exemptions’ impact on minor leaguers. Questions include: Please discuss the impact of the antitrust exemption on the negotiation of minor league players’ length of contract, wages, housing, or other working conditions. What effect would removing the antitrust exemption have on minor league player working conditions? If a more tailored approach, like extending the Curt Flood Act to cover minor league players, was taken, what would be the impact? Other questions cover a lockout’s impact on minor leaguers, the abuse and exploitation of international athletes, and Major League Baseball removing dozens of minor league teams prior to the 2021 baseball season. Potential Responses The antitrust exemption allows Major League baseball to control nearly every aspect of professional baseball, including wage-fixing and other working conditions for minor leaguers. As it currently stands, minor leaguers have little opportunity to negotiate salaries, and a minor leaguers’ first contract lasts for seven seasons (less than a typical major league contract), with minimal increases in pay. Thus, removing the exemption or extending the Curt Flood Act to cover minor leaguers would enhance a minor leaguer’s ability to negotiate and instantly improve life for minor league baseball players. Additionally, the antitrust exemption plays a role in the exploitation of international athletes because it allows Major League Baseball and the owners to set minimal parameters on the signing of international athletes. Other areas impacted by the antitrust exemption include intellectual property rights and team markets. Specifically, Major League Baseball and its owners may freely deny teams opportunities to move. For now, it appears that Congress is ready to undertake a thorough review of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. By shedding light on issues in minor league baseball, the Senate Judiciary is focusing on an area that needs change. Hopefully, changes are coming soon. 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.