As reported by TMZ Sports, Charlotte Hornets Forward Miles Bridges Sr., has been arrested for felony domestic violence. Mr. Bridges was later released on a bond for $130,000. This bond is extraordinary for a domestic violence case even if it is classified as a felony. As a former felony prosecutor who handled thousands of domestic violence cases, the $130,000 bond was eye-popping. That is the type of bond you see on sexual assault cases or even some homicide cases. This particular type of charge usually would carry with it a $15,000 to $25,000 bond. California Penal Code 273.5(a) which governs felony domestic violence states as followed: Any person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in subdivision (b) is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6000), or by both that fine and punishment. One type of victim that this would apply to would be an intimate dating partner. Thus, the alleged victim is very likely a dating partner of Miles Bridges. As reported by TMZ, police were called to the scene, but Mr. Bridges was gone by the time law enforcement arrived on scene. The woman required medical attention. The last sentence is very, very important. That means there were visible injuries. At this time, we do not know what type of visible injuries the alleged victim had. At a minimum, there was bruising but there may has also been bleeding. Based on the high bond, my guess is that there was bleeding and potentially a lot of it. Where does the case go from here? The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office will make a filing decision as to whether or not formal charges will be filed. Unfortunately, in domestic violence cases, many victims do not want to go forward with charges. They almost become the protector of the abuser. It is a sad reality. The alleged victim is well aware that Mr. Bridges is on the cusp of Free Agency and a huge potential contract. She knows pursuing charges would give a ton of NBA teams pause as to whether or not Mr. Bridges is a worthy investment. She may very well tell the DA’s Office she doesn’t want to move forward with charges. The DA’s Office would then have to evaluate whether they can continue without the victim’s cooperation. Based on the serious nature of the charges, hopefully they can. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Sports Law. He is frequent legal analyst on Law & Crime Trial Network. He has also appeared on television, radio, and podcasts discussing criminal law issues. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. In over five years as an attorney, Attorney Tympanick has tried forty cases and handled thousands more You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick. www.tympanicklaw.com.

While American football fans and legal analysts have fixated their attention on events pertaining to the numerous lawsuits entered against Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson and his former team in recent weeks, global football fans are observing with a hopeful optimism the events that have just recently concluded in Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court. After years of an exasperating lack of transparency and accountability, the two men who formerly sat atop of the world of soccer are at risk of conviction for crimes they allegedly committed as a collaborative tandem. On June 21st, closing arguments were held in Bellinzona, Switzerland for what has been characterized by local media officials as the sports trial of the century – the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland against Sepp Blatter, former president of FIFA, and Michel Platini, former president of the European football federation (UEFA). Blatter and Platini are currently facing charges of fraud, misappropriation of FIFA funds, criminal mismanagement & forgery of a document, with the case brought forth by the Swiss authorities centering around a mysterious payment of 2m Swiss francs made out to Platini by Blatter in 2011. An investigation by the Swiss Attorney General’s Office uncovered a contract agreement between the two men whereby Platini would serve as a FIFA consultant between 1998-2002 in exchange for an annual salary of 300,000 Swiss francs. Over eight years after the conclusion of Platini’s contract, FIFA obliged the demands of the thrice-voted Ballon D’Or (the award given to the player voted best in the world from the previous year) winner by making out to him the mysterious payment. According to Platini, the payment was made as part of a verbal agreement between himself and FIFA under “conditions of the utmost legality.” Blatter’s perspective on the payment was consistent with that of Platini, emphasizing that the payment was merely an “administrative matter” as a “salary payment that was owed.” Nevertheless, Swiss prosecutors maintain that the payment in question was made without a legal basis, ultimately damaging FIFA’s financial assets and unlawfully enriching Platini. Metaphorically speaking, the allegations lodged against Blatter and Platini are the cherry on top of a corruption-flavored sundae that aptly characterizes their unpopular reign atop soccer’s governing bodies. Whether it be sexist comments against the advancement of the women’s game or making a comparison between transfers and slavery, Blatter has displayed a knack for offending numerous groups of supporters with his misguided statements. Platini is also culpable for such statements, recently emphasizing that Lionel Messi – arguably the greatest player in the history of the game and an invaluable ambassador for its global development – deserved to be booed by his own fans during a game in which his team won by 3 goals. Nevertheless, the crown jewel of their infamous tenures must certainly be the role Blatter and Platini both played in 2010 to award the right to host the 2022 FIFA Men’s World Cup to Qatar – a nation with inhospitable summer temperatures and an egregious record of human rights atrocities. If you are wondering why the World Cup – a summer tournament – is not currently being played, it is because Qatari summers are so hot that FIFA was forced to move the tournament to November, thereby forcing many countries to temporarily suspend their domestic seasons. And if you are wondering how Qatar has prepared to host the World Cup, many of the stadiums have been constructed by the hands of migrant workers trapped in a sponsorship-based employment system. This system forces workers to endure employer abuse and dangerous working conditions in order to avoid the risk of immediate deportation. Needless to say, while the decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup was not the primary reason for the charges presented at trial, it is consistent with the notion that Blatter and Platini have utilized their resources to expand the scope of their control over the game. The verdict for Blatter and Platini’s trial will be released on July 8th. If convicted, the two would likely face suspended 20-month sentences. For soccer fans around the world, the severity of their sentence is not the most important issue. What matters most is that the figureheads responsible for years of corrupting the integrity of the beautiful game would finally be brought to justice for their actions. Conviction would bring an ignominious end to Blatter and Platini’s presence within the sport of soccer. And frankly, it might be deserved. Bryce Goodwyn is an incoming 1L at Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, he will be a member of the Honors Program and will work as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the Regent University Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

The Oakland Athletics secured a victory Thursday from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. As reported by Owen Poindexter of Front Office Sports, the Commission voted 23 to 2 to remove Howard Terminal’s port priority use designation, clearing the way for the Athletics to use the site for the team’s mixed-use ballpark project. Previously, due to the site no longer being used to load and unload container ships, Mayor Libby Schaaf stated that “[t]ime has shown [Howard Terminal] is not needed nor ideal for shipping activities.” Mayor Schaaf echoed similar sentiments at the Commission hearing, asking for the Commission’s approval to remove the designation. Other port and city leaders noted that Howard Terminal is no longer viable for port use. In total, there were over 100 public comments, many in support, others noting that the stadium project would push out residents and workers. Now, the Athletics will shift their focus to the team’s negotiations with the City of Oakland over a development agreement. At the same time, the team will need to resolve multiple lawsuits, including a lawsuit challenging the Oakland City Council’s certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the stadium project, which alleges that the project will lead to “massive displacement and gentrification,” a major issue in the Bay Area. On the other hand, the Oakland Athletics are not limiting their options. Reports have surfaced that the team is also looking at two potential sites in Las Vegas, Nevada. Earlier this week, Major League Baseball made it clear that it would support the Oakland A’s moving to Las Vegas by reporting that the league would waive the relocation fee for the team to move to Las Vegas. With the Commission vote and the league’s waiver of the relocation fee to move to Las Vegas, the Oakland Athletics have multiple options for the future. Thus, to keep the Athletics in Oakland, the pressure is on the city of Oakland to meet the team’s needs. Otherwise, the Athletics may be off to Las Vegas. 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.

When news broke today that USC and UCLA are reportedly leaving the Pac 12 for the Big Ten, nearly everyone involved in college athletics was floored, and rightly so. Similar to how Texas and Oklahoma left the Big 12 for the SEC last summer, the two biggest national brands of a power five conference are leaving for a more nationally relevant league. We all know the chaos NIL and the transfer portal have caused across the landscape, but news like this will fundamentally change the power structure of college sports as we know them. Throughout most of history, the most prominent teams across a multitude of college sports have been members of the “power conferences.” In recent times, being a part of the “Power 5” meant your school had more prestige and recognition than the majority of Division I schools. While the Big East still boosts great basketball, the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC have garnered much attention and coverage in comparison to mid-major leagues like the Sun Belt, Conference USA, and Big West to name a few. Until the late 2000s, the gap between each of these power 5 conferences wasn’t tremendously noticeable, if at all. As hard as it is to imagine now, the SEC was not the dominant conference in college football on an annual basis. At the turn of the century, schools like Miami, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, and Ohio State were winning titles at the same rate as any SEC program did. The same goes for other revenue-generating sports as well. Sure, the SEC and Big Ten still were the most successful and most profitable conferences during that time, but the gap between them and the three other power leagues wasn’t large. But over the past 20 or so years, the shift of power and prestige has moved incrementally more to the SEC and Big Ten each year. From 2006 to 2012, an SEC team won the college football national championship every year. Conference realignment has seen big-time brands like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 for the SEC and Maryland leave the ACC for the Big Ten. The SEC signed a lucrative$3 billion media rights deal with ESPN/ABC in 2020 and the Big Ten’s new deal is expected to be worth at or near $1 billion and should be announced shortly. The number of NFL draft picks coming from SEC in Big Ten schools across multiple sports recently has far outpaced that of the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12. All of these developments have highlighted that we were moving closer to a “Power 2” instead of a “Power 5.” When the new Big Ten media deal is signed, each school is expected to receive approximately $100 million annually, which would be five times what the Pac 12 pays out to its member institutions. USC and UCLA joining the league obviously might enhance that number. By 2028, the SEC is expected to distribute a nine-figure sum to each of its members as well. With the ACC locked into a not-so-great media rights deal until 2036 and the Big 12 losing two of its biggest brands last summer, all signs have been pointing to the SEC and Big Ten dominating the rest of the conferences financially for the last year. Today’s news only moves us closer to that. Where things go from here is hard to predict with 100% accuracy. Is the Pac 12 dead? Where do schools like Oregon, Washington, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State go? Do the Big 12 or Big Ten pursue them, or are they done expanding? What about Clemson, Miami, and Florida State? How long will it be before they look to join the SEC? Does Notre Dame stay independent? All of this is up in the air. But what is not is the fact that the future of college athletics points to the SEC and Big Ten being the two most powerful conferences. It’s a sad day for the Pac 12 conference and schools like Washington State, Oregon State, and Colorado, who may not have the attraction that a school like Oregon does to other leagues. Hopefully, for them, they can land on their feet in a good situation like how the remaining Big 12 members did last year. But the reality in college athletics today comes down to this: if you’re not in the SEC or Big Ten, you’re trying to get into one of those two leagues. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

On June 30, 2022, Los Angeles Lakers' guard Kendrick Nunn was sued in Florida District Court for copyright infringement. The plaintiff, a professional photographer named Steven Mitchell, alleges that Nunn deliberately removed his explicit attribution and credit that accompanied the original image. Mitchell licensed his sports photographs primarily through Imagn Content Services, a division of the USA Today Media Network. At the time of the alleged injury, Nunn was playing for the Miami Heat. Mitchell was hired to photograph Heat players, and he did so at a pre-season event on September 30, 2019. Mitchell claims that Nunn obtained a photo of his from that day and posted it on Facebook and Instagram without his permission. Mitchell seeks $150,000 in statutory damages, punitive and actual damages, and an injunction to have the photo taken down. The photograph in question is attached below: Mitchell is no stranger to copyright litigation as he and LeBron James settled a similar lawsuit last year. James had filed a countersuit against the photographer seeking $1 million after Mitchell sued him for posting his image without consent. 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.

Abraham Lincoln famously said, “He who represents himself, has a fool for a client.” In most cases, Honest Abe’s motto holds true, but perhaps 2019 National Football League MVP and Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson is living proof that self-representation can be profitable. Jackson’s Compensation So Far Thus far, Jackson is entering the fifth year of his rookie contract. As a first-round draft pick, his contract allocated four years and gave the Ravens the choice to exercise his fifth-year option. Through his tenure in the NFL, Jackson’s yearly earnings have been as follows: 2018 - $5,448,471, 2019 - $1,002,510, 2020 – $1,535,980, 2021 - $1,771,588. While this is well below the compensation of players in Jackson’s caliber, Jackson is fully guaranteed $23,000,000 for the 2022 season. This means that during the 2022 season, Jackson will make nearly $1.28 million per week, which is nearly the amount he made during his standout 2019 MVP season. Jackson has been vocal about his intentions: he wants to get paid, and paid well. While on LeBron James’ show “The Shop,” Jackson declared that he wants to become a billionaire. Jackson has his goals set high, and reasonably so, he’s shown nothing but improvement and is revolutionizing the way in which the most important position is played in the world’s most profitable sports league. Notwithstanding all of the stardom, talent, and craftiness that Jackson embodies, heading into a contract negotiation against a professional football team that has a seemingly daunting surfeit of skilled legal minds remains an exceedingly daunting task. Consequences for Lawyers in Contract Negotiations Entering contract negotiations for multi-year contracts that can reach up to hundreds of millions of dollars without extensive experience in negotiating is seemingly a foolish venture. Lawyers are prideful of their ability to drive hard bargains and reach their client’s desired outcome. Consequently, someone who lacks a college degree being successful in contract negotiations poses a major threat to the cozy position lawyers feel they have as legal representation during contract negotiations for athletes. Will Jackson’s success in negotiating his fifth-year option serve as a template for future star athletes to cut out their legal representation altogether, or is Jackson an outlier in his refusal to employ legal representation in his negotiations? History of Self-Represented Success Jackson is far from the only player to negotiate his own lucrative contract in the NFL. Some fan favorite players, like Deandre Hopkins and Richard Sherman, have negotiated their own contracts. Hopkins even locked down a salary that made him the third-highest paid wide-receiver in the NFL. Even Laremy Tunsil, who experienced difficulty in the draft for off-field issues that surfaced which scared some organizations away from drafting the highly talented offensive tackle. Tunsil then proceeded to agree to $66 million over three years with the Houston Texans. Players have shown that not only can they succeed in contract negotiations without legal representation, but they can triumph against adversity and reputation issues that could prevent an agent or representative from securing the same contract as the self-represented athlete. Additional advantages held by the athlete in negotiations are the inherent fact that the athlete is bargaining with the team that likely relies on him for success, they will have to be treated with respect because they will continue to be with this team, and an athlete is not bound by the typical decorum usually exhibited in these negotiations. These differences and nuances between the self-represented player and the agent represented player manifest in both benefits and shortcomings for both types of athletes. As it stands, Jackson will be a free agent in the 2023 NFL season, and he is looking to negotiate a contract for his future as one of the faces of the NFL. As Jackson goes through the process of acquiring his next profitable, multi-year contract, the legal field will keep their eyes fixed on his success as a self-represented athlete. Jacob Ehrlich is a rising 2L at New York Law School with a great passion for all sports and sports law. Jacob is interested in all areas of Sports Law, but especially athlete representation, intellectual property rights, and collective bargaining.

Right up there with Rachel and Ross, Notre Dame and the Big Ten Conference have been a massive ‘will they/won’t they?’ couple for over a century. The geography, numerous storied rivalries, and academic compatibility have made the pairing seem like a no-brainer to many, but aside from hockey, the two have never worked things out. However, with the Big Ten’s addition of USC (and UCLA), that all could change. Let’s look at why this unprecedented realignment could be the greatest chance for the Big Ten to reel in their golden-domed white whale. First, the scheduling opportunities seem to finally line up for Notre Dame. Notre Dame Football has long valued independence due in part to its national, coast-to-coast schedule. While the Midwest has given the Irish rivals in the Michigan Wolverines, Purdue Boilermakers, and Michigan State Spartans, the fact of the matter is these are all secondary to the arch-rival Trojans out at Southern Cal. As the years passed, the Big Ten foes came and went, but USC remained a constant annual opponent. The only other school with a longer continuous rivalry with the Irish is Navy, dating back to an agreement between the schools during World War II. Preserving these two opponents on a yearly basis is, understandably, non-negotiable for the Irish. Given this past week’s developments, however, Notre Dame could now join the conference, play its traditional Big Ten rivals and maintain its rivalry with USC without relinquishing the rare out-of-conference annual opponent spot, reserving one for Navy instead and maintaining both rivalries. It may seem that Notre Dame has at least a half-rivalry with every school in the country, but make no mistake: this potential lineup of traditional opponents should be a major deal for the Irish faithful and national media alike. Speaking of national media, let’s talk television deals; after all, the other big reason Notre Dame is so reluctant to join the Big Ten (or any conference for that matter) is the lucrative deal it has held with NBC since 1991. The deal, which extends through 2025, is reportedly worth up to $15 million annually. While its exclusivity provided Notre Dame a national brand at the time and its payout is still high, it isn’t higher than the average TV revenue payout for Big Ten members and it won’t even compare to the TV revenue payout likely to come out of the Big Ten’s next media rights contract. The Conference’s current contract with ESPN expires in 2023, and prior to the addition of USC and UCLA, the Big Ten was projected to be the first conference to surpass $1 billion in annual media rights fees. With the two West Coast powers joining and providing substantial leverage for the Conference, we will now witness Apple, Fox, Disney, and other corporate titans battle over a media rights deal likely to eclipse $1.5 billion annually. If each Big Ten school was raking in $25.4 million from the Conference – including $18.9 million in TV revenue – in 2013, we can only imagine the big bucks each member institution will pull in now. We know for sure, however, that it will be greater than $15 million. Now, given its current non-football ties to Notre Dame, you may ask, ‘What about the ACC?’ The ACC finds itself in a massive media rights contract at the most inopportune time, stuck in its deal with ESPN until 2036. The Big Ten’s next deal will likely dwarf this contract. ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips will likely need to find a way out of this ESPN deal to hold a puncher’s chance at landing Notre Dame as a full-fledged member. This may sound like the ACC is an afterthought in the Notre Dame sweepstakes, but there’s a catch: the ESPN deal includes language that if Notre Dame does choose to join a conference in football prior to 2036, they must join the ACC. The ACC is not only in the conversation for Notre Dame’s future, but also might constrain Notre Dame’s future for the next 14 years. Of course, there is also the possibility that Notre Dame leaves the ACC now, forking over some hefty exit fees and buying out the grant of rights through 2036 for non-football sports. This option essentially takes Jim Phillips out of the equation, and the high potential payout from the Big Ten’s future media contract might outweigh the cost of leaving the ACC. With its latest additions, the Big Ten has positioned itself as stiff competition for the Southeastern Conference (SEC) from an athletic and monetary standpoint in the realignment arms race, something no other conference has accomplished up to this point. In the process – as I’ve detailed above – the Big Ten has also made itself the ideal suitor for Notre Dame, an institution that the Big Ten regrettably spurned in the early 1900s and has flirted with in the many decades since. Will the Fighting Irish recognize the obvious financial, athletic, and academic fit the Conference provides and part with its tradition of independence? Time will tell, but the ingredients are there for this marriage to finally happen. Hunter is an incoming 1L at the University of Mississippi School of Law. You can follow him on Twitter @BigHseidler

This summer basketball fans flocked to ESPN to watch Paolo Banchero walk the stage as the #1 overall pick by the Orlando Magic in the 2022 NBA Draft. The NFL Draft, which routinely takes place every April, has become a three-day television spectacle drawing millions of viewers. And the 20-round MLB Draft appeals to baseball diehards hoping their team selects their favorite high school or college prospect. Each draft is unique with its own set of quirks. But make no mistake about it ­– the draft has become engrained in the American sports fabric. Professional sports are different than any other business. Emotion and fandom often blur the reality that professional leagues are made up of employer-employee relationships. The passion and intensity allow sports to act as an escape from the traditional business world. But when you begin to shine a light on traditional sports constructs, such as the draft, you might not like what you find. Just because the draft is an accepted piece of professional sports, doesn’t mean it passes muster under a strict interpretation of labor law. The draft is a giant antitrust violation that we’ve all grown to love. Antitrust laws are put in place to promote competition and protect consumers from large ever-growing monopolies. A major piece of federal antitrust legislation, the Sherman Antitrust Act, states that “every contract . . . in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” Simply put, if two interstate parties agree to something that unreasonably restrains trade because of the anti-competitive nature of the deal, this violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. An open and shut violation would be price fixing among competitors to ensure profits. Mcdonald's and Burger King can’t conspire to simultaneously raise the price of a hamburger to collectively stuff their pockets. The draft, as exciting a television product as it may be, restrains trade on players entering professional leagues. The draftees don’t have the option of selling their talents on the open market and seeking the highest bidder, and they also have very little say in the team that selects them and the contract they sign. Paolo Banchero will sign a multi-year deal worth over $12 million per year with the Orlando Magic. Banchero is a tough subject to gather sympathy for, but if he were to hit traditional free agency, he would likely sign for much more money in a location he desired. Unless he secretly loves Disney World, Banchero likely would be going somewhere other than Orlando. The draft suppresses his value and chooses his destination for him. [1] The draft is formalized in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between leagues and players’ associations. Courts encourage CBA negotiations over terms of labor to prevent antitrust litigation. From the court's perspective, let the parties figure it out during negotiations so they don’t flood the court systems. In developing the “non-statutory labor exemption”, courts refuse to allow antitrust claims over terms of employment when employers and employees have agreed to a CBA in good faith. This exemption allows parties to settle their differences at the bargaining table. If the result of the negotiations would normally be considered a restraint of trade, well shame on you, you shouldn’t have agreed to it during negotiations. The draft, along with free agency and other collectively bargained constructs play an important role in how professional sports operate. The goal of a draft is to ensure competitive balance, granting bad teams the “top prize” of selecting the best prospect to join their franchise. The draft also allows leagues to allot salaries of players entering the league, so veterans can seek more on the open market because draftees are making less. As a result, CBA negotiations start at the baseline level that the draft is accepted to support the sports ecosystem. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a players’ union to take a hard stance against the draft during future negotiations. So, while the draft is technically collectively bargained, it's unlikely to change during negotiations anytime soon. To qualify under the non-statutory labor exemption (which the draft currently does), leagues must prove 3 things: [2] the restraint of trade only affects parties to the collective bargaining agreement the restraint is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining the collective bargaining agreement is the product of arms-length bargaining At a quick glance, the draft passes all three tests. The draft falls within the CBA, which is negotiated fairly between players’ unions and leagues. However, a former Ohio State running back made a compelling case that point #1 was not met by the NFL when challenging the draft in court. After a groundbreaking freshman season and spending his entire sophomore season suspended, Maurice Clarett looked to enter the NFL Draft in 2004. However, the CBA and NFL Constitution prevented anyone who didn’t complete three football seasons after they graduated high school from enrolling in the draft and entering the NFL. Clarett sued the NFL, claiming that the draft was an antitrust violation. In his lawsuit, Clarett touched on many of the anti-competitive points raised above. The NFL countered by claiming the draft is free from antitrust scrutiny because it qualifies for the non-statutory labor exemption. The lawsuit was heard by the 2nd Circuit and hinged on one simple question: were prospective players like Clarett who were trying to enter the NFL parties to the collective bargaining agreement? At the time of the lawsuit, the controlling NFL CBA was enacted in 1993 – when Clarett was in 5th grade. Despite this, the 2nd Circuit found that individuals entering a union are subject to the negotiations of the union prior to their entry. Clarett was subject to the negotiations that took place as he was playing flag football. But that still doesn’t solve the main issue at hand. The NFL CBA prohibited Clarett from entering the NFL, joining the players’ union, and becoming subject to the CBA. Yet inexplicably, the court found that the draft still only affects parties subject to the CBA. Essentially, the draft restricting Clarett from becoming a party to the CBA, ensured that the CBA is affecting only parties subject to the agreement. [3] If your head hurts, you aren’t alone. The NFL convinced the court of this circular logic. The reasoning was complicated, but the result was simple: the draft was upheld and Clarett had to abide by the NFL rules and couldn’t enter the NFL draft for another year. To recap: the draft (almost certainly) is a restraint against trade. But because the draft is collectively bargained between players’ unions and leagues, it falls within the non-statutory labor exemption and thus is free from court action. However, to qualify for this exemption, the draft must only affect parties to the CBA. It’s been determined that a player like Paolo Banchero, whose pathway to joining the league is through the draft, is a party to the CBA. Courts have even taken that one step further by declaring that players that are ineligible from the draft because of CBA rules don’t destroy the non-statutory labor exemption. The four American major sports leagues benefit from the labor law framework in which the draft is viewed by courts. As long as it qualifies for the non-statutory labor exemption, the draft is free from legal scrutiny. And good news sports fans, it doesn’t seem like the draft is going anywhere anytime soon. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] Trevor Brown, Is the NFL Draft Illegal, SLA Blog, (last visited Jul. 18, 2022) https://blog.sportslaw.org/posts/is-the-nfl-draft-illegal/. [2] Chelsea Janes, Senate committee appears to revisit MLB’s antitrust exemption, The Washington Post (June 28, 2022) https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/06/28/mlb-antitrust-exemption-congress-letter/. [3] Clarett v. Nat’l Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004).

On July 15, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed all appeals filed by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) against Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations’ (UEFA) decisions to suspend all Russian teams and clubs from participating in FIFA and UEFA competitions. The dismissal confirms that Russian teams will not compete in upcoming competitions, including the 2022 World Cup. How We Got Here On February 28, both FIFA and UEFA announced a suspension of Russian clubs and national teams from competitions, including the suspension of the FUR from the 2022 World Cup. By early March, the FUR appealed FIFA and UEFA’s suspensions, which included requests for a stay of execution pending the outcome of the proceedings. By the time of the appeal, multiple teams, including Poland, had refused to play the FUR. In early April, the CAS released its order on the FUR’s requests for a stay of execution. The ruling focused on the balance of interests for each side, including the FUR’s interest in participating in competitions and FIFA’s interest in maintaining and ensuring smooth competitions and maintaining and ensuring the integrity of its competitions. In finding that the balance of interests weighed “decisively” in favor of FIFA, UEFA, and the other Respondents, the Division President determined that if the FUR were allowed to continue in competitions, opponents would forfeit, which damages the integrity of competitions. Additionally, if the FUR were allowed to play, then FIFA/UEFA removed the FUR, similar damage to the integrity of the competition would occur. Lastly, to promote additional safe competition, additional security measures would need to be taken. Thus, the Division President denied the FUR’s requests for a stay of execution. The Dismissal Based on the order, it appears that the arbitrator panel views FIFA and UEFA’s decisions in a similar light as the Division President. Specifically, the arbitrator panel noted: “The [arbitrator panel] finds it unfortunate that the current military operations in Ukraine, for which Russian football teams, clubs, and players have themselves no responsibility, had, by reason of the decisions of FIFA and UEFA, such an adverse effect on them and Russian football generally, but those effects were, in the [arbitrator panel’s] view, offset by the need for the secure and orderly conduct of football events for the rest of the world.” The FUR’s appeals were always likely to fail. FIFA’s decision aligns with previous suspensions, including the suspension of Yugoslavia from competition for its role in the Balkan Wars. Plus, Article 4 of the FIFA Statutes grants FIFA the right to suspend teams that discriminate against another country for any reason, including political opinion or any other opinion. Thus, with FIFA and UEFA having precedent and governing statutes on their side, the FUR’s appeals were an uphill battle from the beginning. Now, the 2022 World Cup will go on without the Football Union of Russia. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

In a year with the FIFA Men’s World Cup on the horizon, it’s normal for moments that spark widespread debate among supporters to appear in the buildup to the tournament. The typical chaos that precedes each World Cup appears when core players of competing nations place themselves at risk of missing the World Cup due to public disagreements with their managers. These disagreements are generally the result of the manager’s belief in the player’s lack of commitment and dedication demonstrated when playing for his country – traits paramount for members of a team hoping to represent their nation with pride in their World Cup games. However, for a World Cup of multiple firsts, it seems fitting that the most recent moment to spark debate amongst the media and supporters is certainly a first in its own right. On June 20, it was revealed that Polish left back Maciej Rybus would be omitted from Poland’s World Cup roster due to his recent decision to remain in the Russian first division for the forthcoming season. The statement released by the Polish Football Association indicates that, due to Rybus’ current club situation, manager Czesław Michniewicz would not take him into account when “determining the composition of the team” for the winter tournament in Qatar. The decision taken by the Polish FA stems from the nation’s staunch support of Ukraine amidst the ongoing invasion by Russian forces. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, the Polish national team has expressed their desire to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainians – a desire which ultimately led to their decision to not play their originally scheduled World Cup qualifier against Russia. Shortly following the decision of the Polish FA to refrain from competing against the Russians, FIFA issued a statement allowing foreign nationals playing for Russian clubs to “unilaterally suspend their employment contracts until the end of the season in Russia.” This initiative was established by FIFA for the purpose of affording foreign players who wished to leave Russia amidst the ongoing conflict the opportunity to work and receive a salary, and it provided an avenue on which the Polish FA could capitalize by encouraging their Russian-based players to find new employers. Nevertheless, Rybus, who has a Russian wife and has lived in the Russian capital for five years while playing for Lokomotiv Moscow, decided to forego the encouragement of the Polish FA in favor of staying in Russia to sign for Spartak Moscow. Unfortunately for Rybus, this decision means that he has now lost his opportunity to represent his country at this winter’s World Cup. And unfortunately for Poland, their decision to omit Rybus from the roster means that they are without one of their more experienced defenders as they attempt to advance out of a group that includes Saudi Arabia, Mexico & Argentina. Upon reflection, the situation surrounding Maciej Rybus is an unprecedented statement sent to a player by his nation’s governing federation. Never before has a player of Rybus’ status been withheld from their national team solely due to the country in which their club resides. Consequently, the severity of the situation certainly brings some interesting legal questions to light. For instance, could Rybus have standing to bring a lawsuit against the Polish FA on any grounds of employment-based discrimination? Furthermore, does the Polish FA offer its players a payment structure similar to that in the recently agreed CBA for US Soccer, in which players receive bonuses in exchange for World Cup appearances? If so, could Rybus argue that he is being withheld from payments that he, as a regular contributor to the Polish team in major tournaments, would otherwise receive simply because he is employed in Russia? These questions are difficult to answer, as are attempts to find pertinent information on the prospective payment structure of the Polish FA. Regardless, the fruit of these potential claims will likely not be of great significance to Rybus at the moment. As a result of his employer’s home country, Rybus has lost what could be his final opportunity to realize every soccer player’s biggest dream – representing his country at the World Cup. Bryce Goodwyn is an incoming 1L at Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, he will be a member of the Honors Program and will work as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the Regent University Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

As first reported by Evan Drellich of The Athletic, Harry Marino, Executive Director of Advocates for Minor Leaguers, sent an in-depth response to the United States Senate Judiciary’s letter dated June 28, 2022, requesting information regarding Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption and how it affects minor league baseball players. The letter notes that other leagues, including the National Football League, National Basketball Association, and National Hockey League, do not have a general antitrust exemption like Major League Baseball. Marino wrote, “[t]he American people, through Congress, have never expressed an affirmative desire to exemption Major League Baseball from [antitrust] laws.” “[B]aseball players and fans alike continue to lose out on the benefits of competition in increasingly distressing ways.” Marino specifically noted that Major League Baseball team owners collude on Minor League player pay and limit the number of Minor League teams. Regarding the uniform player contract, which is allowed because of the antitrust exemption and Minor League players are required to sign, Marino notes multiple issues, including: Players are required to work year-round, yet paid seasonally; Players are controlled for seven seasons by the team that drafts them; Players are forced to sign away their name, image, and likeness; and Major League Baseball owners colluding on a pay scale for athletes, which leads to an annual salary between $4,800 and $15,400. In summary, the uniform player contract limits a Minor League player’s right to negotiate for better living conditions and better wages, which is anticompetitive and would be illegal without the exemption. As for international athletes, Marino wrote that the issues for international Minor League players are issues of labor law. However, the uniform player contract exacerbates issues for international athletes due to language barriers and a lack of pay during spring training and extended spring training. In the end, Marino called for the end of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption and to repeal the Save America’s Pastime Act, which exempts Major League Baseball from federal minimum wage and overtime laws. “Most Minor League players are living below the federal poverty level for one simple reason: baseball’s unique antitrust exemption prevents them from obtaining fair compensation,” Marino wrote. It is clear that Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption reverberates across Minor League Baseball. Under the current system, a Minor League Player’s ability to negotiate a fair wage via lengthy initial contracts, a low pay scale, and seasonal pay. The ball is now in the United States Senate’s court to help Minor League players by ending the exemption. Until then, the system will continue. 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.

“That’s Fucking ridiculous!” said Joshua Kusnick, former MLB player agent and guest on the most recent iteration of the Conduct Detrimental Podcast. I couldn’t have said it any better myself. In a story first reported by Doug Gottlieb, A Fox Sports radio host, Doug made a few wild allegations relating to the reasons star first baseman Freddie Freeman fired his agent, Casey Close. Doug’s “source” reportedly told him that the firing was related to the fact Casey and the agency he worked for failed to communicate the Braves' final offer to Freeman in the offseason prior to his move to Los Angeles In the same podcast that the beautifully succinct quote from above was pulled from, Joshua, Dan, as well as the other members of the podcast all examine and weigh in on the possibility of the allegation being true, and the implications both if it turned out to be true and also the more likely option that it was the manufactured story given to Gottlieb by someone pushing an agenda. As a Braves fan there was part of me reading the article for the first time that wanted to believe that the allegations were true and at the Braves weren't the ones that ultimately caused Freeman to go to Los Angeles for more money, but the more that I thought about it and looked at it the less likely that outcome actually is. The fact of the matter is that Casey, as well as the agency he works for, Excel Sports Group, are incredibly Braves friendly. They are the same agency that represented Chipper Jones and helped him to stay a Brave for his entire career, and they represent many other current Braves players and prospects. The idea that an agency with such close ties to the team they reportedly “screwed over” in dealings for one of their club favorites is absolutely ludicrous, and it appears to have no basis. I can't pretend to know exactly what went on behind closed doors with Freeman agents in the club, but after all my interactions with current and past MLB agents, the idea that a final offer reportedly worth approximately $160 million wasn't communicated to Freeman? That simply wouldn't have happened, and if it did Casey would likely be suspended indefinitely by the MLBPA. Both Casey’s and the agency's vehement denial of these facts and their “pursuit of all legal options” against Dough seems to indicate it is false. It's not all that uncommon for a player to switch agencies even once they have made it as big as Freddie has. After Freddie made the move to LA, it would make sense if he no longer wanted to be associated with an agency that has such close ties with the club that he just left. Also, it wouldn't make sense if these allegations were true to leave the agency now—Excel and Casey will both get paid regardless of current employment for the remainder of Freddie’s contract, as they're the ones negotiated in for him. With all this said, I'm left with one burning question I'm unable to answer. If these allegations are false (and they are very likely to be), who was it that would have had the motive to have this story published in the first place? Well, the more that I thought about it only two possible answers exist. Option one is that it was perpetrated by whatever firm Freddie plans to go with to represent him in the future. However, that would have very bold move on their part even despite the competition normalized in the industry between rival agents and agencies. The only other possible option in my mind is that someone within the Braves organization wanted this article to be published so that the public perception would shift, making them look like they are the “good guys” for bringing in Matt Olson as his replacement. I don't like either of these options, especially as a Braves fan—but unfortunately, I think the most likely of these outcomes is that it was perpetrated by someone within the Braves organization. Even if this is the case, I still don't fully understand the logic behind the decision. What is the best way to show the public that you made the right decision? Publicize it every time Olson does something good either on the field or off the field instead of spending a wild narrative that could potentially ruin an agent's career with a story that is incredibly unlikely to have occurred given the state and regulation of agent’s behaviors as fiduciaries of the players they represent. Regardless of what actually happened, I hope that this debacle is the exception and not the rule for any organization (whether agency or team front office) going forward. Agents are bound to do what is best for their clients, which also happens to be what is best for them to make the most money. The idea that an agent would blatantly ignore their fiduciary duties, as well as a better payday for themselves, is completely ludicrous, and I'm sincerely surprised any “reputable” reporter would write such a story or issue such a tweet. On the more legal side of things, Casey, as well as Excel Sports could have a very strong defamation suit against Doug, but they face the hurdle of proving that it was published with actual malice. This could be difficult to prove if Doug actually trusted the source that gave it to him no matter how crazy it was for him to actually do so—this would mean they would have no case against him. However it ultimately ends, let this situation be an example for everyone to make sure the sources you're using are actually reputable because otherwise you become “the boy who cried wolf” and anything you write cannot be trusted. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a 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.