In 2022, the area of sports law experienced major developments across the country, many of which will continue their trajectory of change in the new year. Below, we summarize the most significant sports law events of 2022 and predict the areas we anticipate will continue to see development in 2023. NIL Rights A review of 2022 sports law would be incomplete without a discussion of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The story that began with the U.S. Supreme Court's Alston decision in 2021 continued to see ripple effects in 2022, as student-athletes began to take advantage of the new rights that were offered to them to maximize their endorsement opportunities. An entire industry developed to support the new NIL landscape (e.g., companies like OpenDorse and INFLCR), the presence of collectives exploded on campuses across the country, and these rights were further extended and/or regulated with new state laws as well as the repeal of certain state NIL laws. The NCAA also failed to formalize its interim NIL policy, initially introduced in July 2021, even though it eventually issued additional limited guidance to universities and collectives regarding the treatment of student-athletes' NIL deals and peripheral issues. As may have been expected based on the organization’s response to Alston, the NCAA continued to abstain from issuing any detailed, unified approach to NIL across the country or enforcing any of its new guidance. It did, however, announce that President Mark Emmert, who has been at the helm of the NCAA since 2010, will step down in February 2023. Former two-term Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker will become NCAA President on March 1, 2023. Meanwhile, in the absence of NCAA regulation, states have continued to propose and enact laws with varying degrees of restrictiveness on student-athlete’s pursuit and entry of NIL deals at both the college and high school levels. Pay-for-Play With the changes sparked by the new NIL developments in college sports, 2022 also saw a renewed push to reclassify student-athletes as employees and to pay them for their participation in college athletics. This was demonstrated in several proposed state laws (e.g., in California and South Carolina), which attempted to legalize pay-for-play. It was also seen in the continued litigation of Johnson v. NCAA, which has now been appealed to the Third Circuit. But perhaps most notably, it was seen in the reiterated comments made by NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo that student-athletes are misclassified and should be reclassified as employees and be permitted to unionize, as well as the serving of a formal NLRB Complaint on USC, the PAC-12, and the NCAA alleging that the three entities are joint employers that have violated the National Labor Relations Act. College Transfer Portal The NCAA’s newly refined transfer portal rules deserve a mention here as well. In April 2021, the NCAA removed its former rule preventing most student-athletes seeking to transfer from playing for one year after matriculating to their new university. In 2022, the NCAA Division I Council tailored this new landscape even further to create specific windows of time during which students could enter the transfer portal. The result across both these changes, together with the developing post-NIL world, has been a shift towards a roster-building model and athlete marketplace more closely resembling the professional leagues. Major League Baseball New Collective Bargaining Agreement After an extended period of negotiation and a resulting three-month lockout, MLB team owners and the Players Association ultimately reached an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which took effect at the start of April 2022. The new agreement, which expires in five years, has increased minimum salaries, added a new pre-arbitration eligibility bonus pool for top-performing young players, raised competitive balance tax thresholds, introduced a universal designated hitter role for teams in both the National and American Leagues, expanded the draft lottery, implemented a system to clamp down on service-time manipulation, limited the number of times a player could be optioned within a season and expanded to a 12-team postseason format. The new CBA also created the Joint Competition Committee, which will be staffed with four active players, six members appointed by MLB, and an umpire, in order to adopt changes to playing rules beginning in 2023. The work of this committee has already resulted in the introduction of a pitch clock to limit the time between each pitch, a requirement to limit defensive shifts (which will require each team to have two infielders on either side of second base), and the introduction of larger bases to reduce the risk of injury to players. USWNT Soccer Settlement and New CBA The hard-fought, years-long battle for equal pay for the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT) finally reached a resolution via a $22 million settlement in its class action lawsuit against U.S. Soccer and new CBAs for both the women’s and men’s national teams featuring equal compensation. This was a major coup for the women’s team and for the push, generally, for equal pay for women in all industries. Antitrust Litigation Antitrust law saw its fair share of activity in 2022. A number of LIV Golf players sued the PGA Tour for anti-competitive practices following the Tour’s suspension of the players for competing in LIV Golf events. The PGA Tour then countersued LIV Golf for its own allegedly anticompetitive behavior. In baseball, Congress (again) took an eye to the MLB antitrust exemption, demanding that the MLB explain why the exemption should continue. Four minor league teams, whose major league affiliations had been removed by the MLB, also appealed their antitrust action to the Second Circuit with a view toward eliminating the exemption. And in swimming, the International Swimming League v. World Aquatics (formerly, FINA) action came to a close with a summary judgment decision issued for the defense in the earliest days of 2023, finding no unreasonable restraint of trade and that competitors are not required to help one another compete with each other. Minor League Baseball Unionization Following years of efforts to join, minor league players finally became members of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA). After the MLBPA obtained the support of over 50% of potentially eligible players, who executed union authorization cards designating the MLBPA as their bargaining representative, the NLRB confirmed the validity of the cards. Rather than the possibility of a protracted election period and an ultimate union election to be supervised by the NLRB, MLB acknowledged the voice of the minor league players and voluntarily recognized the MLBPA as the players’ representative. Minor leaguers will now begin the process of negotiating their first-ever CBA with MLB, which the parties hope to finalize before the start of the 2023 season. Toxic Workplaces and Ownership Accountability The handling of toxic workplace allegations and ownership accountability by the major professional leagues received a great deal of attention in 2022 in both the NBA and NFL. The NBA’s inquiry into allegations against Phoenix Suns and Phoenix Mercury owner Robert Sarver culminated in a publicly released report prepared by the law firm retained by the NBA to conduct the investigation. The report corroborated many of the allegations made against Sarver, and he ultimately opted to sell his teams following the resulting pressure from players and sponsors. The Washington Commanders/Dan Snyder story has yet to resolve but certainly gained significant heat this year, as the Congressional Oversight Panel publicly released its report on its investigation into Snyder’s toxic workplace practices, federal charges were filed against Snyder for these practices, and even other NFL owners began to voice their interest in the forcible removal of Snyder from the League. While Snyder appears to now be exploring a potential voluntary sale of the team, there has been no information released yet as to whether he intends to actually sell his entire ownership interest or only a portion thereof, or the nature of any offers that have been submitted. Honorable Mentions Brian Flores - the former Dolphins coach’s lawsuit against the NFL and several of its teams for racial discrimination provided an eye into hiring practices and continued discriminatory behavior within the League; Deshaun Watson - Watson’s alleged misconduct was resolved with the NFL by way of settlement at a $5 million fine and 11-game suspension, offering the first practical example of the newly updated personal conduct policy as set forth in the 2020 CBA; FTX - the collapse of the cryptocurrency giant brought with it renewed scrutiny of celebrity endorsement liability, as a number of athletes (Tom Brady, Steph Curry, Naomi Osaka, and others) have been named defendants in a class action lawsuit; Pickleball - the meteoric rise of professional Pickleball saw major financial investment from world-class current and former athletes in all sports, including LeBron James, Tom Brady, Kevin Durant, Drew Brees, Kim Clijsters, Draymond Green, Naomi Osaka, Patrick Mahomes, and Rob Gronkowski, among others. What to Watch for in 2023 Pay-for-play and Johnson v. NCAA Revenue sharing and House v. NCAA The new NCAA era under new President Charlie Baker Potential power shift from NCAA to Conferences Any federal response to the NCAA’s punt to Congress and potential legislation (both state and federal) addressing the recent changes in college athletics LIV Golf Dan Snyder Minor League Baseball CBA The above article was originally published by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith’s The Official Review on January 13, 2023. To view the post, please click here.

Roberto Clemente is known for his legendary career in Major League Baseball. 18 seasons as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates and a Hall of Famer. His name is one of the most recognizable in baseball, so when it is headlining a story, it’s imperative to dive into it. Case Citation and Parties of the Case: Citation: Clemente v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233423 Plaintiffs: Roberto Clemente Jr. Family Agency LLC, its owners (Roberto Clemente Jr., Kimberly Dschuchan, Kailee Clemente), and a non-owner Ryan Norton Defendants: Allstate Insurance, Tomaino Insurance, and John Tomaino Background: Clemente’s son, Roberto Clemente Jr. is married to Kailee Clemente, and Kailee’s mother, Kimberly Dschuhan, was an insurance agent for Nationwide Insurance. While at Nationwide. Ms. Dschuhan wanted to buy a book of business from an existing agency that would allow her to open up an agency of her own; The Roberto Clemente Jr. Family Agency, LLC (hereinafter “Clemente Agency”). Ms. Dschuhan began negotiations with an Allstate agent, Daniel Cone. Mr. Cone wrote a letter of intent in which he agreed to sell his book of business [1] to the Clemente agency on the contingency that Allstate approved the transaction and the Clemente Agency became affiliated with Allstate. Allstate and the Clemente Agency had a myriad of issues along this process including “a constant moving of goalposts by Allstate” in regard to the opening of the agency, Allstate’s refusal to provide signage for the official name “Roberto Clemente Jr. Family Agency, LLC”. The plaintiffs also alleged friction between other Allstate agencies and the Clemente Agency as a result of the Clemente Agency having a close affiliation with “one of the most beloved Black athletes of all time” and therefore a competitive advantage with minority customers. As a result, Allstate terminated its agreement with the Clemente Agency “for fraud.” [2] Allstate alleges that the Clemente Agency's fraud was related to the practice of applying a widow discount to certain policies. The Clemente Agency denies these allegations and claims they relied on Mr. Tomaino when pertaining to widow discounts. Due to the breakdown of the relationship between Allstate and the Clemente Agency, the Clemente Agency attempted to sell their book of business, pending Allstate’s approval. After failing to find a buyer by the deadline, the Clemente Agency claimed that Allstate had made the sale impossible by blocking at least one potential sale. Complaint: That’s a lot of background, so what’s the complaint? The Plaintiffs filed a Charge of Discrimination [3] with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) alleging Allstate terminated the agreement and took other actions based on the racial minority ownership of the agency and the agency’s affiliation with a famous Afro-Hispanis baseball player. The EEOC dismissed the case as untimely filed and the Plaintiffs went to court for redress. Plaintiffs claim the Defendants violated 42 U.S. Code §1981: Equal rights under the law. Both Tomaino and Allstate filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief. Legal Standard: The elements of a §1981 claim are that the plaintiff is a member of a protected class (race), there was intent to discriminate based on race, discrimination concerns the right to make and enforce contracts, and but-for causation. [4] There’s a lot of legalese when it comes to filing pleadings so I’m going to do my best to simplify it. For those interested, FRCP 12(b)(6) and FRCP 8 provide a more in-depth view of the process. A complaint must allege a plausible level that the defendant committed the alleged act and the plaintiff needs to allege facts that would raise “a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of her claims”. [5] Holding: The Court starts by denying Allstate's motion to dismiss and dismissing the §1981 claim against Tomaino, but the §1981 claim against Allstate is allowed. The Plaintiffs' 1981 claim is not time-barred and although Ms. Dschuhan, Ms. Clemente, and Mr. Norton are white they are not precluded from bringing a §1981 claim. [6] The court acknowledges that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged discrimination as to contractual rights relating to Allstate and that they have plausibly alleged causation. Final Result: The Court granted in part and denied in part Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss the discrimination claim and that the claim cannot include actions predating the contract. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim that Allstate and Tomaino defrauded the Clemente Agency by misrepresenting discount techniques to prepare a reason to terminate the agreement. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ conversion claim [7] that the Tomaino Agency unlawfully acquired policy from the book of business before the sale deadline. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim that Allstate and Tomaino were unjustly enriched. [8]. The Court dismissed the claim that Tomaino interfered with the purchase of the book of business and the agreement between Allstate and the Clemente Agency, but did not dismiss the claim that Allstate interfered with the purchase of the book of business. The Court ordered that the Plaintiffs can file an amended complaint on or before January 11. I will update this article if/when that complaint is amended and the result. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He is also the Chief Editor for the legal analysis section of Conduct Detrimental. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin. Footnotes: [1] A book of business is a list of clients [2] Allstate had the ability to terminate the agreement immediately after providing written notice for cause, which includes fraud. [3] A Charge of Discrimination is a form asserting that an organization engaged in employment discrimination [4] But-for causation is “but-for X, Y would have happened” [5]Connolly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 788-89 (3d Cir. 2016). [6] Being discriminated against because of association with someone of another race is protected by §1981. [7] Conversion happens when a person intentionally and without authority takes control over the property of another and obstructs their ability to posses it. [8] Unjust enrichment happens when a party receives a benefit without giving proper restitution required by law.

The NCAA’s Division I Council made several changes this week at the NCAA Convention. Among the most notable changes, the Division I Council voted to eliminate the voluntary coach allowed by NCAA Bylaw 11.02.06 and establish that sports, including baseball and softball, may have four paid coaches. The changes will begin on July 1. Prior to the changes, teams were only allowed three paid coaches but could have an additional volunteer assistant. The volunteer assistant could not receive compensation despite the volunteer assistant coach performing similar functions to other coaches’ less certain recruiting activities. Smart v. NCAA In November, two former volunteer baseball coaches filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA, alleging that the NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by fixing the compensation for volunteer baseball coaches. The NCAA has lost in court on a similar issue before. In Law v. NCAA, the NCAA instituted a rule limiting the salary of Division I entry-level coaches. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding that the NCAA’s rule had an anticompetitive effect due to the rule “lowering the price of coaching services.” With Law as precedent and the Supreme Court of the United States holding in NCAA v. Alston that NCAA rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny, the NCAA needed to alter the bylaws. While Smart may take years to play out as current/former volunteer coaches seek backpay, student-athletes, programs, and coaches will have a better future with the addition of a fourth paid coach. 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.

Given how popular and seemingly larger-than-life most professional sports franchises are, we sometimes forget that these entities are still “companies” looking to make the most prudent business decisions available to them. While there is often more money involved, your favorite sports team operates under the same principles that your business does. As a finance major, my professors often say that when analyzing investments, it’s best not to just seek out the highest possible return, but the highest risk-adjusted return. How does this simple finance fundamental apply to Carlos Correa’s negotiations with a handful of MLB teams this offseason? Well, it explains why the former Rookie of the Year, All-Star, and World Series-winning shortstop went from being a Giant to a Met to a Twin over the course of about a month. After superstars like Aaron Judge, Jacob deGrom, Justin Verlander, Trea Turner, and Xander Bogaerts all signed massive free agent contracts earlier this offseason, all signs pointed to Carlos Correa having a robust market being the last major impact player left on the board. That notion was initially validated when Correa agreed to a 13-year contract worth $350 million with the San Francisco Giants, one of the biggest deals in MLB history. However, on December 20th, Correa’s introductory press conference in San Francisco was postponed due to a holdup with his physical stemming from an injury Correa suffered before even debuting in the majors. Within a matter of hours, the Mets swooped in and offered 12 years and $315 million to Correa, which he quickly accepted. Before anything was official, Mets owner Steve Cohen claimed that the acquisition “puts us over the top.” You might be asking: what did the Giants see in Correa’s physical that the Mets didn’t? Well, the answer came on Christmas Eve when reports surfaced that the Mets did in fact have similar concerns. Cohen’s comments came before any Mets doctor was able to examine Correa. This led to nearly three weeks of back and forth between Correa, Scott Boras (Correa’s agent), the Mets, and eventually, the Twins. Why did this process take so long? It’s because when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, things can get extremely complex. And that they did. When teams sign players to long-term contracts like Correa’s, they often acquire insurance to protect themselves if the player is unable to play due to an injury. However, these insurance policies contain exclusions regarding previous and or existing injuries (i.e. Correa’s ankle injury) that might wreak havoc on the player’s long-term health. For most free agents who sign shorter-term deals, this isn’t an issue. But when you’re talking about a deal spanning over a decade, teams want to protect themselves against risk as much as possible. If insurance won’t protect the teams, what can? In contrast to the NFL, most MLB free agent contracts are fully guaranteed. Once signed, a player is entitled to all the money that was agreed upon. Yes, there are usually performance bonuses that sometimes include playing time elements, but for the most part, star players like Correa usually have the leverage to secure a lot of guaranteed cash. However, as the last month has told us, sometimes it can get tricky. A recent example of this came in 2018 when J.D. Martinez signed with the Boston Red Sox. Coming off a monster 2017 season, Martinez was in line to cash in on a big-time deal. However, concerns over a foot injury he suffered early in the season somewhat hampered his market. Martinez still netted a nine-figure deal from Boston, but not without some drawbacks. The Red Sox, led by GM Dave Dombrowski at the time, negotiated their own means of walking away from the final two years of the contract in the event that Martinez’s foot proved to be a chronic condition. According to the contract, had Martinez spent 60 consecutive days on the injured list in the third year of the contract with an injury related to his prior foot injury, the fourth year could’ve been converted into a mutual option. Boston could’ve also converted the fourth year to a mutual option had Martinez missed 120 days between the second and third years of the deal pertaining to the prior Lisfranc issue. As it turned out, none of this came to pass as Martinez played out his Boston deal without any foot concerns. But from this, you can definitely see the detail and implications involved in these types of negotiations. That’s why the Correa situation took so long. You can bet lawyers from the Mets and Twins worked around the clock to try and include the most advantageous contract language possible to protect against the long-term risk of taking on Correa. Concurrently, Boras Corp sought to maximize the guarantees in the contract. What it likely came down to in the end goes back to a simple principle any finance major learns in school: The deal that was ultimately agreed upon offered the highest risk-adjusted return for both Correa’s camp and the Twins. Ultimately, the Twins were willing to offer more in guarantees and Correa saw fit to accept the deal. He can earn up to $270 million if he is able to stay healthy over the length of the contract, so he’ll be just fine despite not securing quite the bag he thought he would in San Francisco. Just like every company wants to mitigate risk and every investor seeks the highest risk-adjusted return, teams and players seek to do the same when it comes to the business and law of sports. Some may overlook this aspect of sports, but all of us at Conduct Detrimental, we’re fascinated by it! Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX sent shockwaves through the crypto world, with reverberations being felt across the many industries that invested in and used the exchange. Unfortunately for the Miami Heat, the sports industry was no exception, as on January 11, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that the agreement between Miami-Dade County (the owners of the arena) and FTX has been terminated. Not even two years after the crypto-exchange pledged $135 million in a deal spread out over 19 years to the county, the naming rights for the Heat’s arena are once again up for negotiation[1]. The Heat were not the only sports organization to suffer from the implosion of FTX, as Major League Baseball was forced to do some damage control and remove the FTX sponsorship patch from the shirts of their umpires. In November, Commissioner Manfred said that it would be a “pretty good bet” that the league won’t have their employees don the FTX logo for the upcoming season[2]. MLB and FTX had agreed to a sponsorship deal in June of 2021, making FTX the league’s “official cryptocurrency exchange” and making history as the first non-athletic brand to adorn the shirts of MLB umpires. Along with these organizations, a number of professional athletes that served as brand ambassadors for the company were named in a class-action lawsuit filed in November[3]. Stars like Tom Brady, David Ortiz, Shohei Ohtani, Shaquille O’Neal, and Stephen Curry were all named in the suit, which claimed that the use of these “big names” gave the company an “aura of credibility” and drove American consumers to invest[4]. All of these athletes are generally liked among sports fans, and have had little-to-no controversies in their careers, but the collapse of FTX and their roles in promoting it could certainly shift some public opinion. Now, for the Miami Heat and for Miami-Dade County, a new arena sponsor is on the horizon. After the judge’s ruling to end the agreement, the stadium crews will remove all FTX branding from inside and outside the arena, leaving it “un-branded” as of the writing of this article. I’m curious to see what a temporary name would be, or if they already have a deal lined up to replace FTX, what the details of that deal would be. Considering the original deal with FTX in March of 2021 was supposed to pay $90 million of the total directly to the county, it is likely that the county will seek to match or exceed that mark in a new deal[5]. A new deal could be beneficial to Miami-Dade and the Heat however, as just a few months after FTX secured the rights to the Heat’s arena, another cryptocurrency exchange, Crypto.com, made a historic deal with the owners of the Lakers’ arena (AEG Worldwide) for $700 million over 20 years to rename Staples Center to Crypto.com Arena[6]. Although the arena where the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, and Los Angeles Kings play is undoubtedly a more valuable investment than the Heat’s arena, the county should nevertheless be able to get more than they did in their original FTX deal back in March of 2021. During this in-between phase for the naming rights to the arena, the county and the Heat are in uncharted territory. With the Heat welcoming fans to their arena this week for a back-to-back versus the Milwaukee Bucks, the arena owners will either need to secure a deal in record time, put up a temporary name for the stadium, or perhaps leave it un-sponsored for the remainder of the season while they search for a new partner. Regardless of the path the county takes, I’d be surprised if they agree to a deal with another cryptocurrency company. The risks associated with these companies and the extreme fallout from the collapse of FTX is not something that sports leagues or teams will want to have to concern themselves with. Even though such companies can provide lucrative deals, like the Crypto.com Arena deal, their long-term viability is unproven, and can leave organizations susceptible to unnecessary risks. Greg Moretto is a Pre-Law Student at Boston College ‘23. He is a member of the BC Sports Business Society E-Board. He can be found on Twitter @gregjmoretto. Sources: [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/goodbye-ftx-arena-miami-heat-stadium-ditches-crypto-sponsor-11673462807 [2] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/17/mlb-commissioner-its-a-pretty-good-bet-ftx-patches-wont-be-on-umpires-next-season/ [3] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ [4] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ [5] https://www.thenextmiami.com/ftx-arena-getting-a-name-change-after-just-19-months/ [6] https://www.thenextmiami.com/ftx-arena-getting-a-name-change-after-just-19-months/

This past winter, many Americans began watching soccer for the first time in years or for the first time in their lives. This was because the United States men’s soccer team was back in the World Cup for the first time in 8 years. The World Cup has created thousands of new soccer fans across the globe and especially new fans in America. The expanding market of American soccer fans has, in turn, helped Major League Soccer grow its own fan base too. This growth of new fans has led to expansion teams, new stadiums, and higher-skilled players coming to America. The past three MLS seasons have led to record high transfer fees and salaries that the league has never seen before. But, with all this new success, how does the MLS compare to larger and established leagues like the English Premier League? For starters, there is a serious difference in value when comparing the most expensive and least expensive teams’ annual salaries in each respective league. The most expensive annual salary of any team in the MLS is Toronto FC with an annual salary of over $33,241,969, while the top team in the Premier League, Manchester City, has an annual salary of $211,645,000. The lowest annual salary in the Premier League is Brentford, with an annual salary of $31,636,000. Only Toronto FC has a higher salary than Brentford and the lowest annual salary in the MLS is the newly created team Minnesota United FC is $10,284,693. The large wealth disparity between the Premier League and the MLS is a major issue when MLS teams are looking to acquire high-level talent when English Premier teams can offer double or triple the salary you are offering. Upcoming stars looking to continue their high level of play and be properly compensated for their skill will look at other stars around the world, what league they play in, and how much they are getting paid. The English Premier League’s highest player annual salary is the newly signed Erling Haaland, which Manchester City is currently paying an annual salary of $20,800,000. Haaland’s salary alone is more money than all but two MLS teams' entire annual salary. When upcoming stars see that they can earn a salary in the same ballpark as Haaland’s earnings, it is hard for MLS teams to convince a player to earn less money to come to play in America. The Premier League does not have a salary cap and allows owners to shell out millions of dollars to make sure they put out the best possible players and overall game. The MLS can bridge the gap in popularity if they can convince potential owners to invest in world-class players in order to become a top league in the world. Evan Lautato, 1L at St. John’s University of Law School, 1L Representative for the Entertainment and Sports Law Society, www.linkedin.com/in/evan-lautato-a4bb14178 Citations: https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/ https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/ https://www.spotrac.com/mls/cap/2022

Context: The Ultimate Fighting Championship (hereinafter “UFC”) President Dana White found himself on the end of substantial public backlash after a video surfaced of him slapping his wife, Anne White, in a nightclub on New Year's Eve. The video is linked below for those interested (TW Domestic Violence): https://www.tmz.com/2023/01/02/dana-white-wife-drunk-fight-slap-new-years-eve-nightclub-cabo/ After the video was released, Endeavor Group Holdings, which acquired controlling interest in the UFC in 2016, saw their stock drop 6%. White was criticized by many, notably UFC legend and commentator Daniel Cormier who stated he was no doubt in the wrong and that fighters should not be defending White’s actions. White publicly apologized and claimed that alcohol was the primary reason the incident occurred and that nothing like this had happened in the thirty years of his marriage. Ironically, White was slated to release his new Power Slap League on TBS which would involve two athletes taking turns slapping each other as hard as they can. The premiere was initially delayed after the controversy, but White recently released a promotional video for the league, hinting that there are still plans to debut the new league soon. White again received public backlash for releasing a video promoting a professional slapping league following the incident that occurred on New Year's Eve. Repercussions: White has stated in the past that there is no room in the UFC for fighters who commit domestic violence and that the UFC has a zero-tolerance policy in regard to these incidents. He was quoted as saying “there’s one thing that you never bounce back from, and that’s putting your hands on a woman.” [1] The language of the UFC’s official Code of Conduct regarding this is as follows: “Discipline may be imposed for misconduct, which includes without limitation, the following examples: Criminal offenses, including but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse…” [2] However, even though the UFC claims it holds its fighters accountable for those who commit domestic violence, as of right now White has faced no punishment from ESPN or Endeavor. This could change as recently the California Legislative Women’s Caucus (hereinafter “CLWC”) has called on Endeavor to remove White from his position as President of the UFC. [3]. The CLWC is composed of 17 state Senators and 32 state Assemblywomen and has one of their primary goals as sexual assault and domestic violence prevention. [4]. The CLWC released an official letter to the CEO of Endeavor, Ari Emanuel, formally requesting White be removed. The full letter can be read here. As previously mentioned, Endeavor and Emanuel have a controlling interest in the UFC meaning they have the majority of the voting stock and control over the decisions of the company moving forward. The removal of White would likely require a board vote, but since they have control of the shares, it’s basically up to Endeavor and Emanuel. My Thoughts: White is a very public and polarizing figure. There’s no denying that he’s been an imperative figure in the growth of the UFC and he frequently finds himself in media headlines. His influence on the sport and its popularity cannot be minimized, but his actions have put Endeavor between a rock and a hard place. White’s comments about domestic violence seem to declare his own punishment and it would be challenging for Endeavor to justify taking no action against White. It will likely not be a full removal, but a temporary suspension and a more in-depth policy against domestic abuse would be appropriate steps toward remedying the situation. White and Endeavor could just weather the storm and wait for the controversy to blow over, but the UFC has an opportunity to make a stand against domestic violence and show their fighters and the public that these sorts of actions have repercussions. I believe they must make a statement and deal an appropriate punishment to White, even if it's not complete removal from the position. If they don’t, it sends the message that their own rules don’t apply to certain people and could lose favor with fans and fighters alike. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He is also the Chief Editor for the legal analysis section of Conduct Detrimental. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin.

Last month, a California Federal District Court formally approved the settlement agreement reached between current and former players of the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT) and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) in the players’ class action lawsuit against the USSF. At the time, the judge was left to resolve one issue—the amount of attorney’s fees. Citing prior precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner reduced attorney’s fees to 25% from the over 30% requested. In October, Solo objected to the settlement agreement, noting a lack of clarity in the payout to each player. Specifically, Solo noted that the settlement agreement would allot $7.9 million to attorneys but did not detail a specific amount to each player. Ultimately, Judge Klausner approved the settlement. As to the attorney’s fees, Judge Klausner cited In re Pacific Enterprises Security Litigation, 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995), noting that 25% is typically the benchmark for attorney’s fees and that fees must be reasonable. Thus, Judge Klausner reduced the attorney’s fees award to $5.5 million, which is 25% of the $22 million common fund portion of the settlement. Two noteworthy items come out of Judge Klausner’s opinion: one is that the case is nearly over. The second point is most important for attorneys—in common fund class action cases, 25% is the standard. So, keep that point in mind when negotiating settlement agreements. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

There has been a changing trend in the top five leagues of European football, and it has led to some major economic developments within each league. This has led to power being removed from the hands of local supporters and businesses and placed in the hands of foreign investors and companies. [1] This has most recently been seen in the financial takeover of Newcastle United in 2021. However, this trend of foreign ownership and involvement in clubs has not necessarily been a bad thing. Since Manchester City was bought in 2008, they have experienced success that has been unprecedented in the history of their club. [2] The infusion of foreign funds into the budget of these clubs allows them to be much more competitive than ever before, which is specifically seen in the case of Manchester City. Six of their eight Premier League titles came after 2008 when they were purchased by the Abu Dhabi Group. The investment of foreign funds led them from being a relegation club in the late 1990s, to being a constant fixture at the top of the Premier League table in the 2010s to now. That said, there is most definitely a downside to the unequal distribution of funds created by foreign ownership in the football realm. It leads to an imbalance of which teams have the best players, and certain teams dominate the league. This can be seen most prominently in Ligue 1, the top league in France. Paris Saint Germain was purchased in 2011 by Qatar Sports Investments and has since dominated the league. [3] They have won the league 8 out of the last 10 years and finished second the two years they didn’t win. These results can be troubling since the extreme foreign investment makes it almost impossible for other clubs to challenge them for the league title. Another negative impact of foreign investment has been the inflation of players' transfer prices, and the impact that this has on smaller clubs. PSG alone has purchased the two most expensive players in football history, Neymar for €222 million and Kylian Mbappe for €180 million. These are transfer sums that are completely unprecedented and brought along via the increased trends of foreign investment into football clubs. This can be seen in the average transfer budget of all clubs in Ligue 1, which is around €120 million. [4] Consider that Paris Saint Germain’s budget was €700 million alone, and it can be easily seen how they are able to dominate the league so easily. The most recent critic of the European system is American head coach Jesse Marsch, who spoke to reporters about how the economic imbalance of clubs in the Premier League makes it difficult to compete. He was comparing the economic landscape of European football to that of sports in the United States, and the salary cap format that is used in American sports like baseball and football. When comparing the Premier League to the NFL and MLB he was quoted saying “We have salary caps and everyone has a chance when the season starts. I'm sorry, but the way European football works, that's just not the case.” [5] He is only the most recent critic, but his message has been echoed by other coaches of smaller clubs who have realized that they clearly can’t compete against bigger clubs with larger budgets. Overall, there are benefits and drawbacks to the increased trends of foreign ownership, and the effects it can have on leagues. If you are the club that is being invested in, things are looking good for you, and you are poised to win trophies. On the flip side, if you’re a smaller club owned by local fans and businesses, the competition just got a whole lot better. Jon Trusz is a Senior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at jonathan.trusz@uconn.edu.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a group of racetrack owners in Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. Thus, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s opinion remains in place, which found that jockeys can collectively bargain. Background Puerto Rico has one horse-racing track operated by Camarero Racetrack Corp. Jockeys are hired on a race-by-race basis and paid a minor $20 mount fee for each race, which is one-fifth of what jockeys receive in the mainland United States, and, if they finish within the top five, the possibility of sharing in the winnings. After negotiations between Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Hípica”), which represents the owners, and Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc. (“Jinetes”), which represents the jockeys, over working conditions ultimately failed, the jockeys refused to race for three days between June 30-July 2, 2016. Due to the cancellation of races between June 30 and July 2, Hípica and racetrack owner Camarero sued the jockeys and Jinetes, alleging that they engaged in a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. First Circuit’s Opinion Judge Sandra L. Lynch found that the statutory labor-dispute exemption applied to the matter. Specifically, the exemption applies to “conduct arising (1) out of the actions of a labor organization and undertaken (2) during a labor dispute, (3) unilaterally, and (4) out of the self-interest of the labor organization.” While acknowledging that the third and fourth conditions were not in dispute, Judge Lynch reasoned that the first two conditions were satisfied because Jinetes is a labor organization advocating for jockeys’ terms of employment and seeking higher wages and safer working conditions. Thus, the exemption applies. Hípica appealed Judge Lynch’s opinion to the Supreme Court, citing different treatment among the appellate courts and asking the court to determine the following question: “Whether the statutory labor exemption from the operation of the antitrust laws in 29 U.S.C. § 113, which exempts ‘labor dispute[s]’ that ‘concern[] terms or conditions of employment,’ encompasses concerted action by independent contractors that does not relate to an employer-employee relationship.” Now, the Supreme Court has declined to review the question. The First Circuit’s opinion will stand, which required remanding the case to the district court for dismissal. Most importantly, the jockeys are able to collectively bargain. Allowing the First Circuit’s opinion to stand is significant for figures in other sports. The PGA Tour operates in a similar manner, considering golfers as independent contractors. Thus, golfers could utilize the opinion to bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. Expect to see this opinion resurface in the future. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

On January 3, 2023, the NCAA Transformation Committee finally released its official 39-page document, giving recommendations for how they envision the future of Division 1 sports. Such proposals included but were not limited to the following: Expanding March Madness, for both men and women, to around 90 total teams Requiring every D-1 establishment to provide health insurance for all injuries related to athletic participation while in college and two years after graduation Allowing each sport to self-govern However, while such a report mentioned NIL, it never set standards. The NCAA has stated that with NIL, they need a "clear, stable framework under which to address them... and Congress is the only entity that can grant that stability." Thus, in the wake of the report and for guidance regarding NIL, Institutions, Student Athletes, Prospective Student-Athletes, and NIL entities will turn to the NCAA's updated guidelines published in October 2022. On October 26, 2022, the NCAA released an updated guideline regarding "Institutional Involvement in a Student-Athlete's Name, Image, and Likeness Activities." Such a guideline builds off the interim policies adopted by the NCAA on July 1, 2021, and the question-and-answer document released by the NCAA in November 2021. Accordingly, while the revised guideline is not exhaustive, there are some critical policy updates within it. Institutional Education and Monitoring Under the updated guideline, all Student-Athletes' NIL activities must be reported to the NCAA. Additionally, educational sessions (I.e., Taxes, financial literacy, social media, entrepreneurship, etc.) for Student Athletes, NIL Entities, Boosters, and Prospective Student-Athletes are permissible. Accordingly, no activities have been identified as impressible under the "Institutional education and monitoring" section of the guideline; however, that is subject to change. Institutional Support for Student-Athlete NIL Activity Permissible activities under the revised guideline include but are not limited to the following: Engaging NIL entities to inform Student-Athletes of NIL opportunities; Engaging NIL entities to administer a marketplace that matches Student-Athletes with NIL opportunities without the involvement of their Institution; Providing Student-Athletes information about opportunities that their Institution is aware of; Providing NIL entities with Student-Athlete's contact and other directory information; Providing stored photo/video/graphics, or stock to Student-Athletes or NIL entities; Introducing Student-Athletes to representatives of NIL entities; Arranging for a NIL entity and Student-Athlete to meet in institutional facilities and/or on campus; Promoting NIL activity, provided there is no value or cost to the Institution (i.e., retweeting or liking a social media post); Promoting Student-Athlete's NIL activity on paid platforms, provided the Student-Athlete or NIL entity is paying going rate for the advertisement (I.e., NIL entity pas for an advertisement on the video board); and purchasing items related to a Student-Athletes NIL deals that are de minimis in value and for the same rate available for the general public. However, there are also impermissible acts under the aforementioned guidelines, including but not limited to the following: Communicating with NIL entities regarding specific Student-Athlete requests/demands for compensation or encouraging NIL entities to carry out Student-Athlete requests; Proactively assisting in the development/creation, execution or implementation of a Student Athlete's NIL activity (i.e., developing products, developing promotional materials, ensuring Student-Athletes performance of contractual NIL activities) unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; Providing services (other than educational services) to support NIL activity unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; Providing access to equipment to support NIL activity further unless the same benefit is generally available to the Institution's students; and allowing Student-Athletes to promote their NIL activity while on call for required athletically related activities (I.e., press conferences, celebrations, practices, pre- and post-game activities). Institutional Support for NIL Entity/Collective Under the NCAA's current NIL guideline, institutions supporting a NIL entity are authorized to: Allow staff members to assist a NIL entity in raising money for itself (i.e., donating autographed items & appearances at fundraisers); Provide assets to a NIL entity under a sponsorship agreement, provided that access to the assets are available to and on the same terms, as other sponsors; Request donors to provide funds to a NIL entity (without directing funds to be used for a specific sport or Student-Athlete); and provide donor information or facilitate meetings between a NIL entity and donor. In contrast, institutions supporting a NIL entity are prohibited from: Subscribing to the entity and subsequently donating cash to the entity, regardless of whether funds are designated for a specific sport or Student Athlete; Providing assets to a donor as an incentive for providing funds to a NIL entity; and allowing athletic department staff members to be employed by the NIL entity. Negotiating, Revenue Sharing, and Compensating While the NCAA does not specify permissible activities for negotiating, revenue sharing, and compensating; the NCAA does provide a list of activities that entities, coaches, staff members, institutions, and/or departments are proscribed from: Athletic department staff member (or company owned by a staff member) representing enrolled Student-Athletes for NIL deals (including securing and negotiating deals on behalf of the Student-Athlete); Acting on behalf of the athletics department representing enrolled Student-Athletes for NIL deals; Entering into a contract with a Student-Athlete for the sale of product related to the Student-Athlete's NIL; Conference and Student-Athlete revenue sharing, including but not limited to, Broadcast revenue and NIL revenue; Staff members who own a business separate from the Institution, entering into NIL deals with a Student-Athlete; Compensating a Student-Athlete to promote a coach's camp; and Student Athletes receiving compensation directly or indirectly from promoting an athletics competition in which they participate in. Ultimately the hope is that the NCAA can continue to make strides and provide further guidance in the ever-evolving NIL space. Brandon Blumer is a 2L law student at New York Law School. You can connect with him via https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonblumer.

After an interview with Piers Morgan criticizing Manchester United, Ronaldo terminated his contract with the club in November. This led to many clubs opening their doors to welcome the 37-year-old Portuguese superstar. There were many rumours across the world but Al Nassr saw their opportunity and made an offer to Ronaldo. On Tuesday, Ronaldo shocked the football world as he was officially unveiled by the Saudi Club. Ronaldo, who has won five Ballon d’Or awards and five Champions League titles, will now play outside Europe for the first time. He will now try to win a title in his fourth different country after winning seven domestic championships in England (Manchester United), Spain (Real Madrid), and Italy (Juventus). CR7 said it best: "this contract is unique but I’m a unique player, so for me it’s normal." Would you expect him to say anything less? The exact number is unclear. However, his total salary will be close to €200m per year, including a commercial deal. This makes him the highest-paid footballer in history. I mean he had to make some noise considering Messi may have solidified himself as the best footballer of all time with his recent World Cup victory. Let's put a pin in that debate until next time. There are rumours of a clause in Ronaldo's contract that allows him to go on loan to Newcastle United if they qualify for the Champions League. Eddie Howe's Magpies are currently sitting at 3rd in the table with 34 points after a magnificent season thus far. This seems like a pretty good deal for CR7 considering that the top 4 teams in the Premier League qualify for the Champions League at the end of the season. I will say, however, that there are many conflicting sources on the validity of this clause, but I would not be surprised if it is true. Hear me out: Newcastle recently became the richest club in the world following their £300m takeover in 2021. In other words, they are now able to afford a player with the star power and ego like Ronaldo. Ronaldo wants to prove, in addition to being the highest-paid footballer, that he is better than Lionel Messi. What better way to show that than competing in the most competitive stage in football? Let's face it: Saudi Arabia has never been known for their soccer clubs. This recent move by Al Nassr, however, shows that the Pro League is trying to make some progress into the Top 5 (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France). With his presence, CR7 will naturally bring publicity to Saudi soccer. This added attention could also help Saudi Arabia solidify their bid for the World Cup in 2030. Along with Greece and Egypt, Saudi Arabia recently submitted a bid to potentially hold the first World Cup in three different continents. Ronaldo is not getting any younger. Physically, he will not be able to continue to perform like he once was. Thus, it makes sense he made move to a smaller league and take his paycheck just like many aging players do. Look at the bright side, Ronaldo can always say that he made more money than Messi, unless PSG decides to spice things up. Thanks for stopping by, Matt Matthew Marino is a 2L at Elon University School of Law.