On any given night at the US Open, the broadcast cuts from what looks like a Met Gala after-party to a sea of pink cups raised just as often as tennis racquets. Those cups hold the tournament’s unofficial MVP, the HONEY DEUCE. Part cocktail, part status symbol, the mix of Grey Goose vodka, raspberry liqueur, lemonade, and honeydew melon “tennis balls” has become as iconic in New York as the matches themselves. And the numbers prove it. In 2024, fans downed more than 550,000 HONEY DEUCES, pouring over $12.8 million into the US Open’s tills. Since their debut in 2007, sales have soared past 2.8 million cocktails, at an eye-watering $23 each. That is one drink sold every 1.5 seconds during the tournament. Not bad for a vodka lemonade with a clever garnish. HONEY DEUCE is not just a catchy phrase; it is a registered trademark owned by the United States Tennis Association (USTA). Grey Goose has a licensing agreement that allows them to market HONEY DEUCE as the “official cocktail of the US Open,” but the legal rights to the name sit with the tournament itself. From a trademark perspective, the name is fantastic. “Honey” signals something sweet and fun even though there is not a drop of honey in the drink. Then “Deuce” ties directly to tennis, where a tied score is called a deuce. Together, it creates a mark that is playful and immediately tied to the sport. On the trademark distinctiveness scale, HONEY DEUCE would be considered suggestive, where it does not describe the cocktail outright, but nudges you to make the connection between sweetness and tennis. Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and strong, which typically gives those marks a favorable position to be registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USTA has even extended protection by filing a USPTO application for HONEY DEUCE on merchandise like shirts and hats. Similar to how the mint julep has become inseparable from the Kentucky Derby or how strawberries and cream are Wimbledon traditions. The HONEY DEUCE now sits in that same category. The pink cup in hand cements source identity in fans’ minds. Every time a spectator posts a courtside photo with the drink, they reinforce that this specific name, look, and experience come from the US Open. That consistent, event-tied use builds distinctiveness and ultimately makes the HONEY DEUCE trademark stronger. The HONEY DEUCE trademark registration does not only preserve tradition, but it also creates new opportunities. The USTA owns the mark, so they have the power to license HONEY DEUCE in ways that could make the drink even more profitable. Imagine official pop-ups in New York during the Open or sanctioned HONEY DEUCE cans sold nationwide. Those expansions would only be possible because the trademark registration gives USTA control. Without a registered mark, the HONEY DEUCE would just be another cocktail. Now the drink is a multi-million-dollar brand asset that can be strategically licensed, managed, and grown. The HONEY DEUCE shows how branding and experience can work hand in hand. A cocktail with no honey and a simple garnish has become a global talking point because it’s tied to a world-class event and protected by trademark law. It is living proof that when a name is memorable and safeguarded, it can grow into something far bigger than the product itself.

Baseball has always thrived on rivalries: Yankees–Red Sox, Dodgers–Giants, Cubs–Cardinals. These matchups don’t just fill stadiums; they fuel headlines, drive TV ratings, and keep casual fans invested. At the Little League Classic, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred dropped a notable hint: if MLB expands, it could spark a sweeping geographic realignment, possibly dissolving the well-established American and National Leagues in favor of an East/West conference model that mirrors the NBA or NHL. For a league built on tradition, this would be its boldest structural shift since the pitch clock. Manfred framed expansion as a way to “save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel,”  while giving ESPN and other partners crisp East vs. West playoff matchups. But the implications run deeper. Realignment wouldn’t just adjust travel schedules; it could redefine rivalries and supercharge the business of baseball. An East/West structure wouldn’t just reduce travel, it would concentrate historic rivalries into single conferences, creating higher-stakes matchups throughout the season. Expansion has long remained a back burner idea. Yet it may be baseball’s best chance to reset its trajectory. Rivalries Drive Relevance An East/West conference model would give MLB a rare chance to double down on its rivalry-driven formula, while setting up new franchises for success. Imagine a Portland team dropping straight into an instant rivalry with Seattle, or a Nashville franchise locked in early battles with Atlanta. That’s what makes realignment so powerful: it doesn’t just change schedules; it creates storylines that sell themselves. The NHL’s success with Vegas and Seattle proves the model works. By aligning expansion teams with natural regional rivals, the league gave them immediate identity, relevance, and value. MLB has an even bigger opportunity. With carefully crafted conference rivalries, it can amplify fan passion, boost national TV appeal, and deliver the kind of must-watch matchups that keep baseball culturally relevant in an increasingly crowded sports landscape. Rivalries as the Growth Engine MLB’s balanced schedule is more than a tweak; it’s a strategic necessity. Other leagues, especially the NFL and NBA, have leaned into rivalries and star matchups to fuel growth. Baseball can no longer afford to lag. The league’s financial reality underscores the point. MLB revenue ( $12.1B ) trailed the NBA’s ( $11.3B ) and NFL’s ( $23B ) in 2024, and younger fans are drifting toward faster-paced sports. Expanding rivalry games is one of the few levers MLB can pull to recapture attention in a crowded entertainment landscape. Imagine Mets–Yankees and Cubs–White Sox clashing in meaningful series across the calendar. Add Ohtani facing his former Angels multiple times a season, and these aren’t just games; they’re storylines that sustain engagement.   Rivalries   create must-see TV, and must-see TV creates revenue. The data backs this up. In the   Subway Series   finale, peak viewership topped 3 million, making it the most-watched Sunday Night Baseball game in seven years. Dodgers–Giants games consistently rank among MLB’s highest-grossing gate receipts, often selling out regardless of standings. Rivalries don’t just create buzz; they drive ticket, merchandise, and media revenue. Proof of Concept: The NHL Model If MLB wants proof that expansion and realignment can be a growth engine, it doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel; it just needs to look at the NHL. In 2014, the NHL realigned  its divisions to prioritize geographic rivalries, grouping teams more regionally to cut travel and boost local intensity. The result was a schedule packed with rivalry-driven matchups that consistently delivered higher ratings and stronger fan engagement. That groundwork made the league’s recent expansions seamless. When the Vegas Golden Knights launched in 2017, they sold out consistently, built an instant identity, and are now valued at over $1 billion just seven years after joining the league. The Seattle Kraken followed in 2021, tapping into a ready-made regional rivalry with Vancouver and sparking another passionate fan base. NHL franchise values  jumped 44% in 2024, growth that outpaced basketball and football.  The NHL proved how strategic realignment can turn expansion into opportunity. Now MLB has a chance to take it even further: adopting an East/West model could supercharge rivalries, give new franchises instant relevance, and deliver the matchups fans and media crave. In today’s crowded sports landscape, this might be baseball’s best shot at its biggest growth era in decades. Just as the NHL’s divisional shift made Vegas–Vancouver and Seattle–Vancouver natural rivalries, MLB’s East/West structure would place expansion teams in rivalry-rich regions from day one, igniting fan engagement and maximizing media impact. Legal Implications of Expansion and Realignment But for MLB, bold moves come with high legal stakes, from territorial rights to billion-dollar media deals, making the legal landscape as critical as the business one. MLB’s unique   antitrust exemption , upheld in Flood v. Kuhn (1972) , gives the league rare power over territorial rights, franchise moves, and scheduling. But that power cuts both ways. Drop an expansion team into the wrong market or disrupt a billion-dollar regional TV deal, and suddenly that exemption looks less like a shield and more like a target. We’ve already seen how ugly these fights can get. In   San Jose v. MLB (2013) , the city sued after the league blocked the Oakland A’s move to San Jose, arguing MLB’s territorial rules were anti-competitive. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the antitrust and unfair competition claims , leaving MLB’s exemption intact, but the case underscored just how explosive relocation battles can become. But cities aren’t the only stakeholders. Regional sports networks (RSNs) pay massive sums for exclusive broadcast territories, and realignment could scramble those boundaries overnight. If an expansion team lands in a market that overlaps existing contracts, think Nashville cutting into Atlanta’s TV reach, RSNs like Bally Sports or YES Network could sue to protect their rights.  That risk is amplified by the financial instability many RSNs already face due to cord-cutting and subscription losses.  There are also potential marketing and branding risks. Recent controversies across sports, from missteps in NIL marketing in college athletics to disputes over team trademarks, show how quickly public perception can turn into a legal or regulatory problem. Expansion franchises would need airtight intellectual property strategies to avoid conflicts with existing brands. At the same time, the league as a whole would face increased scrutiny over how it sells and packages new rivalries. Closing Pitch: Rivalries Are MLB’s Real Expansion Playbook Baseball has always sold itself on tradition: the timeless rivalries, the summer rituals, the comfort of knowing which teams belong where. But in an era dominated by the NBA and NFL, tradition alone can’t capture attention. Expansion is coming, but adding new teams isn’t enough — MLB needs a structural reset. Adopting an East/West conference model would concentrate historic rivalries, give expansion franchises instant relevance, and deliver marquee matchups that drive engagement, ticket sales, and media value. Realignment isn’t just about geography; it’s about giving MLB the tools to control its competitive, cultural, and financial future. Preserving tradition while unlocking unprecedented growth opportunities for a modern audience. Oliver Stevens 1L at Hofstra Law. You can find him on LinkedIn .

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fans celebrated a win outside of the main card last week, as UFC announced a major media rights agreement with Paramount that puts the traditional Pay-Per-View (PPV) distribution model on the ropes.  Last Monday, TKO Group Holdings, UFC’s parent company, and Paramount unveiled a whopping seven-year media rights agreement to make Paramount the new exclusive  home of all UFC events in the United States. Beginning in 2026, the full slate of the UFC’s 13 numbered events – which feature high-profile fighters, like last week’s UFC 319: Du Plessis v. Chimaev – and 30 Fight Night cards, often headlined by rising contenders and up-and-coming talent, will be made available to viewers on the Paramount+ streaming platform. UFC adopted the PPV model at its inception in 1993 and ultimately evolved into what is today the largest PPV event provider in the world . UFC’s PPV era has been driven by iconic fighters and marquee matchups and began thriving in the mid-2000s, particularly after the debut of The Ultimate Fighter  in 2005, the reality TV series that brought Mixed Martial Arts into the mainstream. In 2013, UFC turned toward digital platforms and launched UFC FIGHT PASS® , one of the world’s largest streaming services for combat sports offering live and on-demand content to fans around the world. Over the years, UFC secured landmark broadcasting deals, from its early media rights agreement with Fox Sports Media Group  in 2011 to the multiyear contract with ESPN and ESPN+  in 2019 to bring UFC Fight Night events to viewers through a monthly ESPN+ subscription fee while still reserving big, numbered events, like UFC 319, for traditional PPV. In 2026, UFC fans in the United States will gain access to all UFC events through a Paramount+ subscription, with no additional PPV charges, and enjoy select events live on CBS. UFC President Dana White has even suggested that among the potential events to air on CBS is the proposed UFC card on the White House lawn  on July 4, 2026 to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. The UFC-Paramount deal is not entirely unprecedented. It follows Turki Alalshikh’s announcement earlier this year that all Riyadh Season and The Ring boxing events in Saudi Arabia will be free to subscribers of DAZN, an international sports streaming service, beginning in November 2025. “We have [a] big vision to grow boxing and decide[d]: No More Pay-Per-View,” Alalshikh posted on X . Together, these moves suggest a broader trend toward leaving the PPV model that has long dominated major combat sports broadcasts behind . As for the fighters, UFC’s shift away from the PPV model in 2026 could also impact how fighters share in event revenue. Cu rrently, top UFC athletes earn a percentage of the revenue generated from PPV sales, or “PPV points,” for the events they compete in. Headliners and champions in particular negotiate PPV points as part of their contracts, as these can significantly boost earnings for fighters on high-selling cards and even exceed the guaranteed base purse fighters receive just for showing up to the fight. Legendary UFC fighter George St-Pierre, who was a major draw for UFC PPV events during his career, told Covers that while the Paramount deal may be good for the UFC as a promoter, it could reduce fighters’ leverage during contract negotiations. “When I was competing, I was able to have a great argument to negotiate on my contract,” St-Pierre explained. “I could tell the UFC, ‘Hey, if you want me to do all the promotion, I want to become a partner. I want a piece of the pie,’ to negotiate a part of the Pay-Per-View revenue.” However, when asked about fighter pay at a Post-Fight Press Conference last Tuesday, White told reporters: “It’s August and we have until January to figure all that stuff out. But the low hanging fruit that’s easy to answer? Bonuses are obviously going up.” Although the fate of the PPV point system is uncertain, UFC’s move from PPV to Paramount+ could offer fighters greater exposure, new and lucrative sponsorship opportunities, and possibly even a slice of the anticipated increase in revenue for the UFC. Still, while Paramount and UFC work out the details of the agreement, PPV may not be entirely out of the fight, as White acknowledged that “something could  be a PPV, still.” Ultimately, many aspects of the deal, including whether Paramount will adjust its current subscription pricing upon carrying UFC content in 2026, are yet to be determined. But, as White stated in a post on X , there’s one thing fans can be certain of: “This deal puts UFC amongst the biggest sports in the world.”   Nancy Mouradian earned her J.D. from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Pepperdine Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship, and the Law.

The WNBA is arguably the most openly queer professional sports league in the world, and not just by the numbers. Without athletes like Brittney Griner, Breanna Stewart, Alyssa Thomas, DiJonai Carrington, and many others at the forefront of both athletic performance and social advocacy, the W has fostered a cultural ecosystem where queerness is not just tolerated but centered. But while this visibility has become a hallmark of the league’s brand, the legal infrastructure behind that visibility is far less robust than fans may think. When Identity Becomes Labor The legal impact of LGBTQ+ visibility in the WNBA starts with the fundamental issue of labor protection. While the league projects itself as inclusive, it operates in the private sector, meaning Title VII protections apply, but only to the extent they’re enforced. In Bostock v. Clayton County  (2020) , the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. That ruling gave queer players a stronger federal legal shield, but the reality of enforcement within tight-knit and heavily scrutinized professional leagues is vague at best. Unlike some corporate environments that quietly adopt expansive anti-discrimination policies post- Bostock , the WNBA leans into its LGBTQ+ image as a selling point. But being “out” isn't just an identity in the WNBA – it’s a component of many players' public brand, sponsorship value, and off-court revenue, which, in turn, creates a labor condition where queerness becomes part of the job. From a legal standpoint, that makes speech protections, privacy rights, and the boundaries of personal identity at work far more complex. Navigating Expression in a Private League For many of these queer players, it’s not just about who they are, but what they stand for. Natasha Cloud wrote an op-ed in The Players’ Tribune  calling for white players to step up on racial justice. Brittney Griner’s detention in Russia became a geopolitical crisis. Sue Bird’s public relationship with Megan Rapinoe helped shift cultural norms about female athleticism, leadership, and love. But personal advocacy doesn’t always come with formal protections. The WNBA is a private league, so its players don’t benefit from First Amendment protections in the workplace. Speech rights are instead negotiated through collective bargaining. And while the current CBA offers some flexibility, the boundaries between “player conduct” and “personal expression” remain blurry. Worst-case scenario: a player's queer identity or political beliefs are reframed by management as a “distraction” or grounds for discipline in contract renewals or media obligations. The line between advocacy and professionalism becomes even more strained in a media environment that expects players to be both visible and likeable. That tension has legal undertones, not just cultural, because it determines who gets endorsement deals, who gets cut, and who is left without support from the league during public controversies. Public Messaging vs. Internal Commitment The WNBA's official Pride campaigns, rainbow logos, and inclusive marketing speak to a league that wants to lead on LGBTQ+ issues. But there’s little public information on whether the league has concrete mechanisms for handling anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, player safety concerns, or formal appeal processes tied specifically to identity-based harm. Without those systems, the league’s public messaging becomes a matter of branding, not structural equity. Other leagues, notably the NHL, have folded under pressure  when attempts at inclusive branding sparked political backlash. The WNBA has, so far, avoided that kind of resistance. But the question remains: if the league were to face public or legal pressure for how it handles queer players, especially transgender or nonbinary athletes, would its internal policies and CBA protections be ready? What Comes Next? The question of how to include trans and nonbinary athletes could define the league’s future approach to equity. Layshia Clarendon, the first openly nonbinary and trans player in league history, had to fight for acknowledgment – pushing back against performative gestures like the Indiana Fever’s “Diversity Night,” and later helping lead the league’s Social Justice Council  to elevate LGBTQ+ advocacy. Clarendon did help bring big issues to light but also highlighted how the league’s values weren’t always supported by actual policy. If the WNBA wants to continue leading the way on LGBTQ+ inclusion, it must ensure that the legal rights of its players match the public narrative. That means locking in speech protections in the CBA, going beyond the bare minimum with real, enforceable anti-discrimination protections, and making sure there are real processes in place for players to speak up and get support if they face discrimination. Queer visibility in the WNBA is not just a cultural strength; it’s a legal issue. And like any labor issue, it deserves enforceable protections, not just applause. Emery Ochshorn is a 2L at University of Miami School of Law and honors student in the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Program.

Over the last few years, private equity has significantly increased its presence in the sports industry, moving from the sidelines to the center of ownership and investment. This shift is driven by a number of factors, including skyrocketing team valuations, lucrative media rights deals, and a desire to unlock new revenue streams beyond traditional game-day sales. Why Private Equity Is Investing in Sports 🏈 Historically, sports teams were often seen as "trophy assets" owned by wealthy individuals or families, with a focus on passion and prestige rather than financial returns. However, with franchise values outpacing the S&P 500, private equity firms now view sports as a robust asset class with predictable revenue streams and significant growth potential . A major catalyst for this trend has been the relaxation of ownership rules by major leagues. The NFL, for example, recently voted to allow approved private equity funds to acquire minority stakes of up to 10% in its teams. This follows similar moves  by other leagues, including the NBA, MLB, and NHL, which have opened their doors to institutional capital since 2019. This change provides owners with much-needed liquidity and capital for projects like stadium renovations and technological upgrades. Private equity firms are not just buying teams; they are also investing  in the broader sports ecosystem. This includes media and broadcasting rights, real estate developments around stadiums, and companies that provide data analytics and technology for sports organizations. By applying their business expertise, these firms aim to improve operational efficiency and commercialize assets to drive greater returns. The Legal and Regulatory Landscape 🏛️ The entry of private equity into professional sports has prompted a new wave of legal and regulatory considerations. Leagues have been careful to implement rules that, while opening the door to institutional money, also seek to protect the integrity of the sport. A primary concern is the potential for conflicts of interest . Leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB have created strict rules to prevent a single private equity firm from gaining too much power. For instance, most league policies limit private equity investments to a minority, non-controlling stake  in a franchise, often with a cap on the percentage of ownership and a minimum holding period. The NFL , for example, limits a fund to investing in up to six teams, with a maximum 10% stake in each and a six-year minimum holding period. These restrictions are designed to ensure that investment is purely passive, preventing a firm from influencing key decisions like player trades or coaching changes, which could affect competitive balance across the league. Another major legal issue is antitrust regulation . The sports leagues' long-standing "single entity" defense, which argues that teams must cooperate for the good of the league (e.g., through revenue sharing), is a key part of how they operate without violating antitrust laws. The rise of private equity firms, particularly those investing in multiple teams, could challenge this model. A single firm with stakes in several competing teams could theoretically coordinate to fix prices on tickets or broadcasting rights, or engage in other anti-competitive practices. This is a significant concern for regulators and has led to the careful structuring of investment deals to avoid these pitfalls. Notable Examples of Private Equity in Sports 💰 CVC Capital Partners and Formula One:  A landmark example is CVC's acquisition of Formula One in 2006. CVC restructured the business, expanded the race calendar, and secured lucrative media deals, ultimately selling its stake in 2016 for a significant return on investment. Sixth Street Partners and Real Madrid:  Sixth Street invested €360 million to renovate Real Madrid's stadium, with the agreement giving them rights to a portion of the non-football event revenues generated there for the next 20 years. This partnership is expected to dramatically increase the stadium's annual revenue. Arctos Sports Partners:  This private investment platform is dedicated to the professional sports industry, holding stakes in multiple teams across different leagues, including the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco Giants. These examples illustrate how private equity's playbook extends beyond traditional team ownership, focusing on creating long-term value through strategic business management and diversified revenue streams. Michael Moore is a graduate of New York Law School and former member of the school’s Sports Law Society and current member of the NYC Bar Association’s Sports Law Committee. When he’s not working at the New York Law Department he’s thinking about the intersection of sports and law and when the Knicks or Rangers will finally win a championship. His writings are his own and do not reflect the ideas of his employer or the NYCBA Sports Law Committee.

While the Stanford football has struggled on the football field over recent years, the program has generated no shortage of headlines over the course of the offseason. The first major piece of news coming out of Palo Alto surfaced last November when it was announced that former Cardinal and NFL star Andrew Luck was taking over as the program’s General Manager. While many college football teams have hired GMs in recent years to navigate the complexities of NIL and the transfer portal, not all of these positions entail the same job responsibilities and decision making authority within the structure of the program. According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, Luck’s position at Stanford places him atop of the football program and is a distinct evolution from the traditional power structure where athletic directors and head coaches possess the ultimate decision making authority.   As if bringing back a legend as General Manager wasn’t newsworthy enough, it was far from the only program altering change that occured since Stanford’s final game in the 2024 season. This past March, Luck, in his capacity as GM, fired head coach Troy Taylor after an investigation found Taylor had been “inconsistent with the standards” of Stanford in his behavior. More on his termination later. Taylor, 57, led Sacramento State to FCS playoff appearances in each of his three seasons. Stanford’s then-athletic director Bernard Muir hired him in ahead of the 2023 season after the departure of longtime coach David Shaw. Taylor went 3-9 in each of his two seasons in Palo Alto. As a result of Taylor’s termination, Luck hired his former head coach with the Indianapolis Colts, Frank Reich, as the program’s interim head coach for the 2025 season. As the Cardinal open training camp ahead of their Week 0 game against Hawaii, more news circulated out of Northern California. In the past few weeks, Taylor filed a defamation lawsuit against ESPN and one of its reporters, Xuan Thai. The lawsuit arises from a series of articles regarding allegations Taylor “bullied” and “belittled” female Stanford athletics staffers. As mentioned above, Stanford fired Taylor shortly after the articles were published, and he contends the articles were the reason he was terminated.     In his complaint, Taylor argues that the investigations into him did not conclude that he bullied or belittled female staffers. He claims multiple investigations into him found insufficient evidence to support the claim that his actions were gender-biased or rose to gender-based misconduct. Moreover, in accordance with defamation suits, the lawsuit alleges that ESPN and Thai acted with actual malice, knowingly publishing false information to harm Taylor's reputation. Taylor claims that the defendants had access to the investigatory reports, which contradicted their published statements, yet chose to ignore these facts. Taylor asserts that the false reporting led to his termination and caused severe damage to his reputation, making it difficult for him to find future employment in the coaching profession. Additionally, despite being notified of the inaccuracies, Taylor claims ESPN and Thai did not retract or correct their statements, further exacerbating the harm to Taylor's reputation. Taylor seeks damages for the harm caused to his reputation and career, as well as punitive damages for the defendants' willful and malicious conduct.   Nonetheless, the lawsuit, filed in a California federal district court, will face hurdles. A major challenge for Taylor is that he is a public figure, which means he’ll need to establish ESPN acted with “actual malice.” The test for actual malice is whether ESPN published a false statement knowing it was false or having reckless disregard as to whether it was false. Given that articles are typically vetted by editors, who usually require multiple sources and other methods of fact-checking, media companies can often persuasively argue that they made good faith and reasonable efforts to confirm information before an article was published.   It will be interesting to see how this case develops. For Taylor, his overarching interest is restoring his reputation with the hopes of landing another coaching job. As a successful high school as FCS head coach at Sacramento State, Taylor certainly knows how to run a program. His lack of success in his short time at Stanford shouldn’t be an ultimatum on his ability to coach. In the ever-changing landscape of college football, Stanford has been negativily impacted as much as any power conference program.   Given the school’s rigorous academic standards, the emergence of the early signing period, transfer portal, and NIL have made Stanford one of the hardest jobs in college football. In addition, the recent move to the ACC hasn’t helped matters either. Could Taylor have turned Stanford around with more time? We’ll never know. But what is important is that if the allegations made against Taylor were falsified, Taylor should be able to resurrect his reputation in the industry. If they weren't, it may be hard for him to find another job in major college football. The outcome of this case will play a big role in that possibility.   Brendan Bell is a 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He writes primarily on legal issues in MLB and College Athletics.

Seattle Mariners catcher Cal Raleigh just made history. Not only did he become the first catcher in Major League Baseball history to win the Home Run Derby, but he also did it with a nickname, Big Dumper that has been echoing across social media ever since. The name, originally inspired by Raleigh’s physique, has exploded in popularity. Fans have been creating custom jerseys with the nickname on the back. At this point his nickname might be more well-known than his real name. In a recent interview, when asked if he planned to trademark the nickname or start building a brand around it, Raleigh responded, “I’m just focused on the season.” That’s a professional answer. With the playoffs around the corner and having signed a $105 million contract extension earlier in the year, keeping his head in the game makes sense. Focusing on the game does not mean he has to ignore his brand though. Raleigh can stay focused on baseball and wait until the offseason to work on his brand while still securing his trademark rights by filing a 1(b) trademark application. A 1(b), or "intent-to-use" trademark application, is one of the most practical tools available to athletes, creators, and entrepreneurs. In simple terms, intent to use application is a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) where the applicant declares a genuine intention to use the trademark in commerce in the near future, even though the mark is not yet being used. The best part? The person who files the application does not have to sell products or offer services right away. This means they can get a filing date earlier than a possible competitor. Ultimately the mark has priority over someone else’s if a legal conflict develops. A person may claim use in commerce between the date they file their application and the date the USPTO examining attorney approves their mark for publication in the Trademark Official Gazette. Also, use in commerce may be claimed within the first six months after the date they were issued a Notice of Allowance (NOA), which is a notice indicating their mark has been “allowed” for registration (but has not yet registered). During this period, a Statement of Use is filed to claim use of the mark in commerce. The USPTO allows up to five six-month extensions to file a Statement of Use after a Notice of Allowance is issued. An applicant can have a maximum of three years (36 months) from the Notice of Allowance date to file the Statement of Use, provided they file the extension requests and pay the required fees.  Raleigh is having a career-defining season, becoming the first catcher ever to win the Home Run Derby, leading the league in home runs, and currently holding the second-best odds for American League MVP. Moments like this do not come around often, and they create a window of peak visibility that every athlete should be ready to capitalize on. This is the perfect time to turn on-field success into off-field opportunity. With the surge of attention surrounding his nickname, there’s little doubt he could build a powerful and profitable brand from his name, image, and likeness. Athletes work their entire careers to get in the spotlight, but the financial upside doesn’t stop with their contracts. The most marketable players in sports, from LeBron James to Shohei Ohtani, leveraged peak moments to launch or strengthen their personal brands, creating income streams that can far outlast their playing careers. By not taking steps to secure and develop his brand now, Raleigh could be leaving millions on the table. Trademarks, endorsements, licensing deals, and merchandise all start with owning the rights to your identity. Without that foundation, someone else can cash in on your moment while you get nothing. If Raleigh filed a 1(b) for “Big Dumper” right after the Derby, he would not need to release anything or even have a business plan. He would have peace of mind knowing he had his priority date, and he can focus on the season. Now, with major outlets covering the nickname and fans eager for gear, the clock is ticking. Trademark squatters are real. Once they see value in a name, they file first and either try to sell it back or block the original owner from using it. If that happens, Raleigh could end up spending thousands of dollars or worse, losing the rights to his own nickname. Similar to any business, it starts with protecting your assets. In sports, the best players prepare for the next pitch before it is thrown. Off the field, the principle is the same, anticipate the opportunities and protect your position before someone else takes it. Raleigh has already made history with his bat. A simple filing could make sure he owns the history he is creating with his name.   https://www.nilinmotion.com/

First Yeti. Now Mammoth. Utah’s NHL franchise is already in its second trademark dispute. The first dispute came before the team even had an official name. In early 2024, Smith Entertainment Group (SEG) applied to register “Utah Yeti” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On the surface, the name seemed like the perfect fit. It was memorable, distinctive, and great for merchandise. Unfortunately, in March 2024, the USPTO refused the application. The refusal cited a “likelihood of confusion” with YETI, the well-known cooler and drinkware company. In trademark law, products do not have to be identical for a conflict to exist. It is enough if the goods or services are related in a way that might cause consumers to believe they come from the same source. Different companies can feature a similar name if they are clearly in different fields, but it seems likely the sports apparel was too similar to the YETI products. A USPTO refusal for “likelihood of confusion” is not always the end of the road. Even when the examining attorney believes two marks are too similar, the parties involved can sometimes negotiate what’s called a coexistence agreement or consent agreement. This is a written deal where both sides agree that each can use the mark, often with certain restrictions. For example, using it only for specific products, in certain geographic areas, or with clear branding differences to avoid confusion. SEG tried to negotiate an agreement with the cooler company, but neither side could come to an agreement. At that point, SEG had no choice but to abandon the “Utah Yeti” application and begin the search for a new name. After an unprecedented naming process that put the decision in the hands of fans, Utah’s NHL franchise went through four rounds of public voting that started in mid-2024 and ran into early 2025. The list of twenty potential names was narrowed down to three finalists Utah Mammoth, Utah Outlaws, and Utah Hockey Club. More than 850,000 votes were cast, and ultimately, Mammoth won decisively in the final round. In May 2025, the franchise officially unveiled its new identity as the Utah Mammoth. For the first month, the rollout appeared smooth. Then Mammoth Hockey, a smaller company that has been selling hockey bags and other Mammoth-branded gear since 2014, sent a cease-and-desist letter to SEG. The company argued that the team’s name would likely confuse consumers into thinking the two were connected, warning that “it is highly likely that consumers will confuse the two marks, risking our client’s business and operations. Hockey enthusiasts who pledge support for a team other than Utah Mammoth will not purchase goods from our client due to the consumer’s mistaken belief that such a purchase would support a rival team.” Mammoth Hockey does not have a federal trademark registration for the “MAMMOTH” name. Instead, they are relying on common law trademark rights, which are based on use of the trademark in commerce within a particular geographic area. You may only be able to enforce those rights in the specific areas in the United States where you use the trademark if the use covers less than the entire country. On August 1, SEG filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of “Utah Mammoth” is lawful and does not infringe any trademark rights. SEG also pointed to Mammoth Hockey’s earlier public support for the name, including a Facebook post highlighting “Mammoth” as a favorite to become the new name of the team and prior messages from its founder about a possible collaboration. The bigger takeaway, however, is the importance of securing your trademark early. If Mammoth Hockey had filed for a federal trademark back when they began using the name in 2014, they would be in a much stronger legal position today. Federal trademark registration gives you the legal presumption of ownership nationwide, the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with your goods or services, and a stronger position in disputes like this one. Without a registered trademark, they lack the full protection that comes with federal rights, especially when facing a well-funded professional franchise. The Utah Mammoth are unlikely to be forced into another rebrand. A more realistic outcome is a settlement or coexistence agreement that allows both parties to continue using their names within defined boundaries. This serves as a clear reminder, filing a trademark is not just a formality; it is a vital step in protecting your brand, reputation, and long-term business. While this situation may not end in a dramatic courtroom battle, it will be worth watching how the dispute is ultimately resolved.

Whenever a city can host a major sporting event—no matter if it’s the Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup, All-Star Game, or National Championship—it’s frequently met with mixed reactions. Critics are quick to raise concerns  about public subsidies, infrastructure overhauls, and temporary job creation. Others fault organizing bodies of tournaments, like FIFA or the NFL, arguing  these bodies exploit local host committees and withdraw valuable resources without delivering the long-term benefits promised in the underlying host bid process.   But a closer look at the numbers—and the playbook for pulling off the successful hosting of major sporting events—reveals a picture filled with optimism . If handled correctly, these massive events can inject  billions into the local economy, bolstering tourism, spurring job creation, and enhancing the global status of a city. The key is robust local buy-in and intentional community investment, allowing  host cities to ensure the financial benefits are shared equitably and invested where they can be most impactful.   2026: South Florida and Miami’s Moment on the Global Stage Greater Miami and South Florida, for example, are on the cusp of a record sequence of international and national sports and entertainment blockbuster events. In the next year, South Florida and Miami will welcome  the World Baseball Classic, host  the College Football National Championship, and serve  as a site for several FIFA World Cup matches. Factoring in annual events like the Formula 1 Grand Prix, Miami Open, and Art Basel (not to mention the typical schedules of the city’s five professional sports teams) will result in the global spotlight shining  brighter than ever before on Miami and South Florida more broadly.   The complete lineup headed the city’s way will present a remarkable opportunity but also an enormous challenge. With ever-growing numbers of eyes now trained on Miami, success will depend on the city’s ability to plan strategically so residents and nonprofit organizations—instead of just event planners—are well-placed to share in the spoils. Dispelling the Myth: Do Events Like the World Cup Take More from Communities Than They Give Back? You’ve likely already heard the critique : hosting massive events like the FIFA World Cup all too often leaves cities financially worse off. There’s no doubt these events are expensive—Miami-Dade County approved  $46M in funding for their World Cup host committee, including $25M in in-kind county services like fire rescue and police and another $21M in cash subsidies (which have faced recent calls for retraction)—with similar spending  across many of the other fifteen host sites for the 2026 tournament. Understandably, residents have been vocal  about their concerns—especially as Miami faces budget cuts to the arts  and community programming  for social services.   These fears, as valid as they are, can all too easily overshadow the broader economic context. To put things in perspective, the New York/New Jersey Host Committee for the 2026 World Cup calculated  that the event will generate a $3.3B economic impact within their region alone—$1.7B in spending by visitors and $1.3B in labor income. Down south, Miami’s host committee is projecting  up to $1.5B in economic impact, with some comparing  the financial payout to hosting seven Super Bowls in a single summer. These benefits extend far past the stadium’s entrance gates— spreading  outward to local restaurants, hotels, boutique stores, and transportation services, all of which rely on these sorts of big events for much of their financial income. Notably, these businesses also generate additional tax dollars that can be reinvested into public services, fostering even more positive impact for host cities. Local Buy-In: The Missing Link As much as these projections are astronomical, there is a harsh reality  behind the scenes: community buy-in is the kiss of life or death for long-term success in staging the grand event. Not only do these events need publicity—they also require  local support to complement the underlying contractual obligations from host city bid commitments. Small business involvement, workforce participation, and local government accountability are essential  to successful event hosting in these cities. If residents are made to feel overlooked or excluded, the perceived benefits these major tournaments bring can rapidly turn sour .   Host cities that are able to engage  in their communities early—creating pathways for local business involvement, ensuring jobs for local workers, and offering budget transparency—are in turn enabled to create a lasting, positive legacy. For example, Miami’s $25M investment  in in-kind county services for the World Cup is more than just a feel-good headline—it’s a commitment by the city to ensure public safety and operational excellence, a key point after challenges  in recent tournaments. A well-run event is one that will encourage  return tourism and will raise the city’s international reputation—but that outcome only has value if locals also feel the impact: better infrastructure, more jobs, and stronger public services are essential to a positive hosting outcome. Going for Goal: Infrastructure, Jobs, and Long-Term Value It’s no secret that these large-scale events are incredibly labor-intensive, demanding  thousands of workers. In New York/New Jersey, officials are preparing  for the creation of nearly 26,000 new jobs in relation to the 2026 World Cup—including positions in hospitality, construction, security, and event logistics. A similar boom of job creation is likely to befall Miami, especially with the city preparing to host a number of events in such a short duration of time.   The payoffs for hosting these events go far, far beyond  the shriek of the final whistle or the last fan exiting out of the stadium. Infrastructure upgrades —specifically to transportation  networks, security systems, and stadiums—will serve these local city communities for decades and decades to come. The key to making such an impact lies in making sure projects of long-term use and durability are prioritized—not just those exhibiting event-specific flash. Global Visibility: Providing a Priceless Boost As it was aptly described  by Miami-Dade Commissioner Oliver Gilbert, “[w]e are going to have every camera in the world in Miami-Dade County.” That type of visibility goes far beyond symbolism. It turns into long-term economic upside, with cities hosting these sorts of global events often seeing trickle-down increases  in international business investment, cultural prestige, and local tourism—effects potentially benefitting host cities for years to come.   Fans and locals alike should look at Miami and other host cities not as destinations but as global brands . Events like the National Championship Game and FIFA World Cup allow hosts to showcase  the energy, diversity, and infrastructure of their city on a gigantic—often global—stage. When that spotlight is paired with effective local planning and wise governmental stewardship, the returns  can be truly spectacular. A Smart Investment—If Done Right It goes without saying that the economic cost of hosting world-class sporting championships and competitions is a tall ask. However, when matched with an honest government, prudent planning, and most importantly, grassroots community backing, the return on investment can be simply mind-boggling for any host city. Winning takes an all-in team effort.   South Florida and Greater Miami have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make an example of itself. In choosing to put the community first in their event hosting and making sure economic returns accrue not just to sponsors and organizers but also to the people who live in the city and work there every day, these hosts have the ability to redefine how to host big sporting events on an international stage—coming out stronger and more united on the other side.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn .

As a Jets fan living in New Jersey, I should have known better than to hope for a calm start to training camp. The first two days were chaos. On Day 2, quarterback Justin Fields limped off the field, and within minutes, ESPN’s Adam Schefter sent out a tweet suggesting Fields might have torn his Achilles. For the next two hours, the entire New York media was in a frenzy, speculating on who the Jets’ next quarterback might be, and how this franchise could possibly be this unlucky. First Aaron Rodgers, and now Fields? Two quarterbacks with so much hope out for the year before the season even started. Luckily, a sigh of relief came when head coach Aaron Glenn announced after practice that Fields only dislocated his toe. Crisis averted, at least on the field. While Jets fans could breathe again, I’m not sure the team’s marketing and legal departments felt the same way.  The Jets unveiled their revamped locker room at their training facility in Florham Park, NJ and it is everything a player could hope for and more. They have customized lockers, a new sauna, and even a full barbershop. Yet the biggest talking point was not the upgraded facilities, it was the phrase “Gotham City Football,” styled in bold green lettering above every player’s locker. After the phrase was featured as the new brand strategy for the Jets, the team may not be able to secure a trademark registration for it. Unlike the Fields injury scare, this one is not an overreaction. The Jets filed a trademark for the phrase “GOTHAM CITY FOOTBALL” May 2024. A registered trademark would give the team legal protection and exclusive rights to use the name on clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts, tops, sweatshirts, hooded sweatshirts, caps, and hats.  When an entity applies for a trademark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reviews the trademark application to see if it meets all the legal requirements. If they find certain problems with the application, they will issue a trademark refusal. A trademark refusal (or office action) is a legal explanation as to why your application cannot move forward unless you fix the issue. A final trademark refusal (or final office action) means the USPTO did not accept your response to the first refusal and is now officially rejecting the application. At this point, you would typically need to appeal the decision to a board called the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) if you want to keep fighting for your trademark. Unfortunately, on June 12, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a final refusal. The two key reasons for the refusal were geographic descriptiveness and the likelihood of confusion. Geographic descriptiveness is a type of trademark infringement where a name describes the origin or location of the goods or services. For example, a city, state, or region cannot be registered as a trademark on its own. The USPTO does not want one business to have exclusive rights to a place name that others may fairly use. An example of this would be “CHICAGO PIZZA.” A trademark is meant to distinguish one brand from another, so if a brand name only tells you where the product comes from and what it is then the mark may be rejected for being too generic. A generic name lacks the uniqueness required for trademark protection. Unfortunately for the Jets, the USPTO claimed that Gotham City is a known term for New York City. While the Jets argued that “Gotham City” is tied to the Batman franchise and is more fictional than factual, the examining attorney thought otherwise. The examiner pointed to a magazine where the author used the term to describe New York City in 1807. Due to this fact, the USPTO ruled that “GOTHAM CITY FOOTBALL” describes a geographic region, which generally is not eligible for trademark protection. In my opinion, this argument feels like a bit of a stretch. While “Gotham” is the name of the fictional city in Batman, it was originally inspired by New York City. Relying on a 200-year-old reference to claim that the term is geographically descriptive seems like a reach. Today, “Gotham” is far more commonly associated with the Batman universe than with New York itself. If anything, nicknames like “THE BIG APPLE” are much more widely recognized as referring to the city. The geographic connection becomes even more questionable when you consider the Jets' actual location. Although they fall within the New York media market, their practice facility is in Florham Park, New Jersey, and they play their home games at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. At no point do the Jets physically operate within the state of New York. Even if the USPTO agreed with the Jets that "Gotham City" is not geographically descriptive, there’s still another hurdle to overcome, likelihood of confusion. This is the most common trademark infringement. A likelihood of confusion means there is a probability that consumers would be confused by similar marks. In this case, the Jets’ application conflicts with two existing registrations, one from a popular Jets fan club called the “GOTHAM CITY CREW”, and another from “NJ/NY GOTHAM FC” of the National Women’s Soccer League. Both entities already hold registered trademarks. The USPTO argued that consumers might assume the Jets’ merchandise is affiliated with the fan club. On top of that, NJ/NY Gotham FC already owns a trademark registration for apparel, which is the same class the Jets are applying under. So even if the team clears the geographic hurdle, they will still need to overcome the likelihood of confusion before their mark can move forward. For the Jets, facing a likelihood of confusion refusal like this is unfortunate but avoidable. Filing a trademark costs next to nothing for an NFL team, and they could have secured rights to “Gotham City Football” long before rolling it out across their branding. It is mind blowing that a fan club beat them to the punch, but that is the reality of trademark law. The USPTO does not care how famous you are, if someone else filed first your application will get refused. What makes this worse is that the Jets’ practice facility is only a few miles from NJ/NY Gotham FC’s headquarters. They could have created an agreement where both teams could have ownership of Gotham City apparel. With the proper trademark training these likelihood of confusion obstacles could have been avoided. The Jets might have one Hail Mary before appealing to the TTAB. Within the time frame for the nonfinal notice till the deadline to appeal the TTAB can request for reconsideration. According to the Final Office Action this could be done by submitting evidence for Amendment to Claim Acquired Distinctiveness under Section 2(f). To show proof under, Amendment to Claim Acquired Distinctiveness under Section 2(f) the Jets need to submit evidence where the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least five years immediately before the date of this statement. They might be able to show this because back in 1963, the then-New York Titans were acquired for $1 million by Gotham Football Club Inc., and as stated before they referred to their jerseys in 2019 as Gotham Green. If the reconsideration does not work, then their last resort is to appeal to the TTAB. The TTAB which would allow a panel of judges to review the decision. After that they do not lose the right to use the phrase, but without a federal trademark registration, they do not have strong legal protection. If another company, or even a fan group started selling gear using that phrase, the Jets would have a much harder time stopping them. They would not have access to certain legal benefits, like nationwide protection. Unfortunately, across all sports, these trademark stumbles keep happening. Professional sports teams do not do a good job filing a trademark or doing their research. For example, when Cleveland’s MLB team rebranded from the “Indians” to the “Guardians” in 2021, they forgot to check, a local roller derby team had the same name. Also, Utah’s Hockey trying to file “UTAH YETI” which was ultimately rejected, and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had their trademark filing for “BUCS” refused by the USPTO. No matter the sport, professional teams keep showing that they are not on top of prioritizing trademark filings for their team. At the end of the day, sports franchises are businesses, and they need to treat trademark protection like a business priority. It is not just about legal rights; it is about being able to market confidently without risking rebrands, delays, or public embarrassment. At the end of the day, this case is a great example of how tricky trademark law can be, even for a major professional sports team. It also shows that branding is not just about cool slogans and new locker room designs. It is about securing legal rights to those brand elements so they can be used to grow, protect, and monetize the franchise. If the Jets want to keep building out “GOTHAM CITY FOOTBALL” as a legitimate identity, they will need to find a way through appeal or creative rebranding.

What is StudBudz? Recent WNBA headlines are not focused on referee disputes, exciting buzzer-beaters, or honorable rookie statistics. Currently, the spotlight is on the StudBudz, featuring the pink-haired Minnesota Lynx stars Courtney Williams and Natisha Hiedeman. Together, they have launched a Twitch-based livestream that highlights unfiltered off-court moments, personal stories, and allows for fans to interact with the stars in real time. Their Twitch bio , stating "just two Stud Budz who hoop and live our best life," wraps up what this stream is about. What began as a lighthearted stream filled with laughs, behind-the-scenes exposure, guest WNBA player appearances, and an inside look at the day-in-the-life of professional athletes has evolved into something more. The StudBudz have created a platform for athletes to build their brand, redefine what player-driven media looks like for professional sports, and have given the WNBA a brand-new buzz in a way never seen before. With over 70,000 followers , the StudBudz frequently stream after practices and games, providing unfiltered content for fans to enjoy. The All-Star 72-hour Stream The StudBudz have created a way for fans to engage with their favorite players in a way that typical new outlets or interviews cannot provide. This was apparent during the 2025 WNBA All-Star Weekend. The two WNBA stars committed to a 72-hour live stream to allow fans to see all of the ins and outs of a WNBA All-Star Weekend, such as the orange carpet, the major events, and a courtside view of the game. During this, fans were able to witness their favorite players, coaches, and even the WNBA Commissioner enjoy their weekend that showed their true selves, while these moments typically are not seen within the media. StudBudz is widely supported by their WNBA counterparts, as seen during the All-Star Weekend by the two team captains. Caitlin Clark , captain for Team Clark, was unable to attend the orange carpet but mentioned that she watched StudBudz and even mentioned her excitement about the event before the weekend . Napheesa Collier , captain for Team Collier, expressed that rather than prep her team for the game, they were prepping to be on StudBudz. “Pay Us What You Owe Us”: Streaming, Salaries, and Speaking Out StudBudz represents a shift in how athletes manage their brands and careers, especially in a league where financial compensation for players remains a challenge. Despite the rapid growth and popularity of the WNBA in the last couple of years, player salaries are still notably low. This has led many players seeking alternative ways to support themselves financially. During the 2025 All-Star Weekend, a Collective Bargaining Agreement meeting occurred, which ended with player frustration. A central focus of this frustration was on the lack of a fair percentage of the league’s shared revenue. Players only receive roughly 9.3% of league revenue, placing these players far behind other professional athletes such as those in the NFL and NHL. This disgruntled ending of the meeting led to players wearing “Pay Us What You Owe Us” shirts during the All-Star game warm-up, sending a clear message on one of the brightest WNBA stages. In this context, platforms like StudBudz are not just a way to entertain fans; they are essential tools for players such as Williams and Hiedeman to take control of their financial future and earn revenue through creative ways outside of their player salaries and raise awareness of the lack of compensation from the league. A Legal Perspective From a legal viewpoint, the rise of platforms like StudBudz shows potential legal issues and opportunities around media and content rights for professional athletes. Unlike traditional broadcast deals, player-driven streams operate in a decentralized area that is often outside the scope of existing league media agreements. This creates room for athletes to be innovative but also highlights a loophole that is hidden from the legalities of these media rights. StudBudz operates alongside WNBA media efforts rather than competing with them, where the two stars discuss events as they have happened and give real-time player inputs. Legal frameworks around NIL, digital content, and player marketing are attempting to adapt to regulate these new trends of content. As more athletes engage in content creation, leagues may need to update policies to clarify boundaries for athletes, protect intellectual property, and create environments where player-driven media can be successful without legal conflicts and punishments. Looking Ahead: The Future of Athlete-Driven Media in the WNBA and Beyond StudBudz shows a unique future of sports media where athletes can show the world different sides to leagues and professional athletes. For the WNBA, platforms similar to StudBudz could be beneficial in expanding fanbases, increasing sponsorship opportunities, and deepening fan loyalty through a new form of engagement. With this stream being a complementary source of media, the WNBA could embrace this media to boost its growth. Looking forward, we can expect more players to continue to engage in social media like Twitch or TikTok to share their stories and life updates rather than in a more scripted manner in typical news sources. StudBudz challenges traditional media and invites leagues to rethink their role and possibilities for fan engagement. As the legal issues surrounding this new form of fan engagement evolve, the relationship between athlete empowerment, fan connection, and league growth will be critical in defining the next chapter for professional sports leagues.   Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

One of the most underutilized assets in the NHL is unused cap space. Although no team currently has maxed out its three allotted salary retention slots, that may soon change in light of the updated Long-Term Injured Reserve (“LTIR”) rules outlined in the 2025 Memorandum of Understanding (“2025 MOU”). With less flexibility to manipulate the cap through LTIR, General Managers (“GMs”) may increasingly rely on salary retention to create midseason trade opportunities. While the NHL remains the only league with a salary cap among the Big Four to allow salary retention1, it’s surprising how infrequently it's used—especially by rebuilding teams that could leverage it to acquire additional assets. Key Mechanics A salary retention agreement is a trade mechanism that came into effect under the 2013 Collective Bargaining Agreement (“2013 CBA”) that allows a team to retain a portion of a player’s salary and cap hit to facilitate a transaction with another club. Turning back to the basics to understand the foundation of salary retention, the 2013 CBA established several key rules2: (i) a team may retain up to 50% of the salary and cap hit (AAV) of a player’s contract, (ii) a team may have no more than three contracts with retained salary on its books at any one time, (iii) the total amount of retained cap hit across all such contracts cannot exceed 15% of the “Upper Limit”3 of the salary cap, and (iv) the percentage of salary cap and cap hit retained must remain consistent throughout the duration of the contract. Notably, retention obligations remain in force even if the player is subsequently traded, bought out or retires. The original retention continues to count against the retaining team’s salary cap. In practice, rebuilding teams are typically the ones that are most willing to retain salary, as they often have available cap space and can leverage it to acquire future draft picks and prospects. Stanley Cup contenders, on the other hand, are typically the buyers – that are constrained by the cap – and will find themselves acquiring players at a reduced price via a salary retention agreement. The Middleman Between the Hidden Art There’s a certain art to navigating salary retention deals. A GM must weight several strategic considerations: a player’s cap hit to the acquiring team (a lower cap hit often boosts trade value in the form of better picks or prospects), the remaining term of the contract (since retention applies throughout) and whether a buyout might offer better cap efficiency. These dynamics often come into play when dealing with seasoned veterans – playing with significant AAVs nearing the end of their careers (and contracts) and playing for non-contending teams – who make ideal candidates for retained salary transactions. One creative strategy that teams have used in the past was the “double retention deal.” In this setup, a third-party team acted as a broker to facilitate the acquisition of a high-salary player by a contending club. For example, if Team C wanted to acquire a star player from Team A but couldn’t fit the full cap hit, Team A could first trade the player to Team B while retaining 50% of the salary. Then, Team B would retain 50% of the remaining salary and flip the player to Team C. In the end, Team C would acquire the star player at just 25% of the original cap hit—effectively converting cap space into a tradeable asset for Teams A and B, typically in exchange for a mid-round pick or a prospect. Consider the case of Ryan O’Reilly in 2023. He was part of a three-team trade in which St. Louis first retained 50% of his $7.5 million AAV and sent him to Minnesota. Minnesota then retained 50% of the remaining amount ($1.875 million) and flipped him to Toronto. As a result, the Maple Leafs acquired a proven, top-six center for just 25% of his original cap hit—approximately $1.875 million. This type of cap gymnastics is often used by contenders gearing up for deep playoff runs. Toronto, however, made it as far as the second round – so, you know, deep by local standards. The trade remains a textbook example of how teams once used broker clubs to stretch their cap space even further – a strategy now restricted by the 2025 MOU. Cap-ital Gains or Cap-ital Offense? We have seen teams convert unused cap space into trade currency to accelerate their rebuilding process through brokered deals when they may not otherwise have a seasoned playoff veteran available for sale. Even though the argument could be made that increased liquidity in the trade market – especially under a hard and flat cap – should reward a disciplined GM with its cap management that can think of creative ways to rent out its unused cap space, there was a clear market inefficiency that needed regulation. Then came the mechanism through the 2025 MOU that effectively shut down the double retention deal discussed earlier. Under the new rules, teams are now required to have a 75-day waiting period before a retained salary contract can be moved again with further retention. As a result, GMs can no longer stack retentions in rapid succession, significantly curbing the flexibility once exploited in these three-team broker deals. The End (of Double Retention) Retention, which was once a cap relief valve, is now a memory of playoff-bound opportunism. For years, teams exploited the double retention loophole to trim millions off the books, paving the way for contenders to land star talent while everyone walked away satisfied. But, the 2025 MOU rewrote the playbook. With new restrictions in place, GMs may need to get more creative to navigate around the rules. GMs must ensure that trades do not constitute – or appear to constitute – circumvention of the 2013 CBA, as such transactions are subject to review by the league and potential rejection.4 Whether this signals a philosophical shift towards the NBA and NFL model – where contracts typically move cleanly from one team to another and “dead money” penalties replace retention tactics like the triple backflip handspring stunts that we’ve seen in the past (like with Ryan O’Reilly) remains to be seen. What’s certain is that as the NHL’s cap landscape grows more complex, it might be time to bring in some true cap specialists to help steer the ship. 1 While the MLB does permit salary retention in trades, it operates without a salary cap. As such, teams aren’t using salary retention as a cap maneuver, but rather as a means of subsidizing a player’s contract – essentially offering a cash discount to the acquiring club. 2 See 2013 CBA, Art. 50.5(e)(iii) (Feb. 15, 2013). 3 The Upper Limit of the salary cap is the maximum a team is permitted to spend on the combined average annual values (AAVs) of all player contracts on its roster in a given league year. For the 2025-2026 season, the Upper Limit of the Salary Cap is $95.5M. 4 See 2013 CBA, Art. 26. Corey Spector is a licensed attorney in NY and ON (Canada). He can be found on LinkedIn .