Staying competitive in an ever-changing world of collegiate athletics is about having an identity, strategy, brand, and a willingness to adapt. That’s exactly what the American Athletic Conference is trying to do with its official rebrand to The American Conference, or simply The American. The league is also shedding the “AAC” nickname, which was often confused with the Power Five’s ACC (Atlantic Coast Conference). Now the conference can move forward with a simpler, bolder identity. A rebrand is necessary to attract top-tier recruits and sponsors to a conference people most likely never heard of. There’s no real rebrand without trademark filings. A trademark is legal protection for a name, logo, slogan, or other brand elements that distinguish an organization from another. In the sports world, trademark filings and registrations become a valuable asset through licensing agreements. A license agreement is a formal agreement giving a person or organization permission to legally use the trademark filings/registration to third parties for the creation and sale of merchandise. To go along with their rebrand, The American recently filed federal trademark applications for their new business division, “AMERICAN RISE VENTURES,” and the design of their newly introduced mascot named Soar the Eagle. The conference has held a federal trademark registration for “THE AMERICAN” since 2015 nearly a decade before the name change was officially announced. These trademark filings/registrations are key assets for the conference which can be used for licensing agreements. To streamline and scale this process, the conference launched American RISE Ventures. The new business division is responsible for the league’s commercial growth. This is done through sponsorships, media rights, tech innovation, and long-term strategic partnerships. In simple terms, American RISE Venture will oversee the licensing of the conference’s intellectual property to apparel companies, content distributors, corporate sponsors, and any other entities that will generate revenue for the conference. For a mid-major conference without massive media rights, turning intellectual property into a monetized brand is a smart and necessary way to grow financially. Under the proposed House v. NCAA settlement, Division I schools will be permitted, though not required, to share up to 22% of their average annual athletic revenue with student-athletes, with a projected cap of $20.5 million per school. A school’s financial situation is everything in the new era of college sports. Compensating athletes is no longer optional, it’s essential to stay competitive. Knowing how important money is to be nationally competitive, The American Commissioner Tim Pernetti announced that all schools except for Army and Navy (players cannot receive compensation at these schools) must commit to distributing at least $10 million to athletes over the next three seasons. He became the first commissioner to set such a standard. This announcement was pivotal because The American has taken some big hits in recent years, losing Cincinnati, UCF, and SMU to larger conferences. The conference has responded aggressively by adding seven new programs, such as Charlotte, FAU, North Texas, Rice, UAB, UTSA, and Army (football-only). With 15 teams now in the fold, the conference is betting on fresh markets, strong leadership, and a brand that speaks to both tradition and innovation. While The American is not stacked with perennial playoff contenders, Army and Tulane still flirted with the College Football Playoff race last season. Maybe extra money going to schools within the conference can attract the athletes required to be in serious contention. The gap to the College Football Playoff may seem like a pipedream, but The American Conference is positioning itself as an innovative, forward-thinking conference where the rest of the country will have no choice but to take notice. Soon that pipe dream might become reality.

Professional football’s landscape is once again shifting—this time with more force than ever. Puma and Manchester City have just announced a staggering extension of their kit sponsorship contract, one that could exceed an unprecedented $1.5 billion. The deal, which will now carry City’s partnership with Puma through at least 2035, has redefined the financial ceiling for kit manufacturer agreements while underscoring the value that can come from aligning a global brand with continued dominance on the pitch.   City is reportedly set to take in nearly £100M ($134M) per season, a notable increase from the £65M ($88M) they agreed to during previous contract negotiations with Puma in 2019. The deal will be the richest in the history of the Premier League—even surpassing the 2023 pact Manchester United signed with Adidas back in 2023 (10 years at £900M, or $1.2B). While critical financial terms and performance-based incentives will naturally remain confidential, the vast scope of the parties’ agreement speaks volumes. Clearly, Puma aims to bet big—not just on the continued success of City, but also on the club’s ability to keep driving fan engagement across the globe via both traditional and emerging platforms.   Puma’s Premier Partner: A Relationship Built on Success Manchester City’s first contract with Puma came before the 2019–20 season—a linkup that was perfectly in sync with one of the most decorated periods in City’s club history. Over the next six seasons, the men’s team took home a whopping four Premier League titles—most prominently a 2022–23 campaign in which City won the treble and lifted both the FA Cup and Champions League trophies. Not to be left out, the women’s team added hardware of their own, with both squads being featured as critical pieces of Puma’s sports marketing empire.   Since beginning their storied partnership, the two parties have pushed the boundaries of creativity in kit sponsorships—from debuting AI-made fan jerseys to dropping kits in the metaverse , City’s relationship with Puma has evolved well beyond traditional apparel. The collaboration between the two has become a case study for how elite performance and digital engagement innovation can join forces to drive global revenue and reinforce brand identity. The CEO of City Football Group (CFG), Ferran Soriano, highlighted the extreme ambitions of their Puma partnership, saying , “We joined forces with Puma with the ambition to challenge ourselves and go beyond the expectations. We have achieved this and more over the last six seasons." Soriano’s sentiments were reiterated by Arthur Hoeld, CEO of Puma, who pointed to the “great success both on and off this pitch” that the two groups had enjoyed over the course of their relationship. Notably, the deal will also deepen Puma’s connection to the CFG umbrella—already including clubs like Girona, Mumbai City, Palermo, and Melbourne City—strengthening the brand’s global ties with roots now spanning multiple continents.   The Global Arms Race of Kit Sponsorship More than just a flashy headline, City’s deal reflects the new economics of elite global football. These sorts of sponsorships are no longer reduced to mere logo placements on jerseys. The partnerships of today span merchandising, data insights, licensing, IP rights, and more. For clubs, they also serve as a crucial revenue stream that supports more than just roster building—it’s the fuel that drives international expansion.   With billions on the table, the courtship between major sportswear brands and top clubs is further intensifying . Every deal that breaks a record is resetting the global market. Yet, these deals are also including increasingly complex legal structures —varying in terms of their profit-sharing models, performance triggers, and regional licensing rights. While Manchester City’s deal may surpass United’s in terms of its annual value, underlying performance clauses and guaranteed revenue may shift how each deal is truly measured in practice.   Another key consideration is how revenue is reported. Depending on whether merchandising is outsourced or handled in-house, the same £100M may show up in entirely different ways in reports or on a team’s balance sheet: net revenue vs. gross revenue or direct vs. sublicensed. While it may seem subtle, these nuances matter—especially when comparing league rankings of commercial income and club financials .   Europe vs. the U.S. Model: A Stark Contrast in Sponsorship Frameworks This sort of mega-deal, club-first structure is largely unique to European football. In the U.S., major professional leagues like the NFL, MLB , and NBA control jersey sponsorships. For example, Nike produces all NFL uniforms, with revenues typically being pooled together and shared across all teams in a system designed to maintain parity.   However, cracks have formed in this centralized model, beginning in 2017 when the NBA permitted individual teams to sell jersey patch sponsorships—granting franchises a slight amount of autonomy despite still facing broader league restrictions. Continuing this trend, the NHL allowed helmet ads in 2020 and jersey patch sponsors in 2022. The MLB also granted teams the ability to have jersey sleeve partners under the 2023 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and added helmet ads in 2024. The NFL has held out, refusing to allow team-based jersey sponsors beyond their league deal with Nike. Interestingly, despite being a smaller professional league, the MLS was actually early to the game, first allowing jersey sponsors in 2007 (and becoming the first American professional league to have such deals) before permitting separate training kit deals in 2014 and sleeve sponsorships in 2020. These same types of deals are also seen across Europe , with brands like Spotify, Fly Emirates, Qatar Airways, and T-Mobile investing millions to be featured on kits. That said, these patch deals and smaller sponsorships all pale in comparison to full kit agreements like that of Manchester City.   From a legal perspective, these sorts of decentralized deals all come with tight restrictions, such as ensuring that new sponsors don’t conflict with league-level agreements (at least in the U.S.). Teams also frequently negotiate zones of exclusivity, approval rights, and industry categories. For European clubs like City, the freedom to strike global agreements and develop international partnerships allows them to craft massive long-term plans—but also notably shifts commercial and legal risk squarely onto the shoulders of the club.   Looking Ahead: City Sets the Stage Manchester City’s new deal is about far more than just the numbers—it’s a highly successful strategic blueprint for excellence in global sports branding in the 2020s. As streaming continues to expand its reach, emerging markets keep entering the fold, and digital activations are reshaping the very definition of fandom, the clubs with the strongest commercial connections will rise to the top and enjoy an edge that lasts far beyond when the last player exits the pitch.   Puma’s extension signals that City is ready and eager to lead that charge. As teams like Nike’s FC Barcelona or Adidas’ Real Madrid wait in the wings as potential next squads to break the kit sponsorship record, this contract sends a clear message: build a global brand, win consistently, and your shirt will become more than a uniform—it will be a billion-dollar billboard.   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 .

Texas Tech’s football program is making headlines, and not for the reasons most fans would expect. According to reports, the Red Raiders’ roster will cost over $28 million this season, a staggering figure for a program that has not been ranked since 2018. What’s happening at Texas Tech should not be surprising. It’s a sign of how far the landscape has shifted in the new era of name, image, and likeness (NIL). In the past, schools could lean on tradition, prestige, and pipeline recruiting. Today money talks, and programs without historical dominance have a chance to level the playing field. Texas Tech doesn’t have the national clout of Texas or the historical weight of nearby universities. What truly sets them apart is their NIL collective backed by billionaire donors like Cody Campbell, Michael Portnoy, Vicki Cooper, and even Patrick Mahomes. Armed with unprecedented financial support, Texas Tech entered the offseason with a clear mission to transform itself into a serious contender. In March, they unveiled $240 million worth of renovations featuring brand-new training facilities, advanced weight rooms, upgraded nutrition centers, modern player lounges, and top-tier recovery amenities. Texas Tech also used collective money to secure commitments from 13 four-star recruits, highlighted by a groundbreaking fully guaranteed $5.1 million NIL deal for five-star freshman Felix Ojo. Texas Tech’s added talent should put them into the preseason Top 25 with expectations of making an impact in the Big 12. With the departure of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, the Big 12 lacks a true powerhouse football program. Last season, Arizona was picked to finish dead last in the Big 12, but they defied expectations and went on to win the conference championship. If Arizona can do it, why not Texas Tech? The automatic bid to the 12-team College Football Playoff now goes to the conference champion, positioning the Red Raiders just one breakthrough season away from securing a spot on college football’s biggest stage. This would not only be monumental for the players but also for the university as a whole. A College Football Playoff run would convert into an increase in merchandise revenue, larger alumni donations, and a boost in applications. One NCAA report found that after a team wins a national championship, applications increase by 8–12% the following year.  (Anderson, 2017). A separate 2019 study by the Journal of Sports Economics confirmed that athletic success especially in football and basketball leads to noticeable increases in both student enrollment and donations. (Zimbalist, 2019). For a school investing $28 million in its roster, national relevance is the fastest way to turn a short-term expense into long-term gains. The programs that adapt are redefining what success looks like. And at the heart of that shift? Money. With the backing of collective money, programs can now turn things around quickly, making NIL no longer a fringe concept or clever recruiting pitch, but an absolute necessity. It allows programs without deep-rooted traditions or blue-blood pedigrees to compete with the sport’s giants. As Texas Tech is proving, with the right backing and bold execution, NIL can do more than close the gap, it can flip the hierarchy altogether. Schools with financial firepower now have a legitimate path to national relevance. In a landscape where history is being rewritten in real time, NIL has become the fastest way to climb to the top, and it’s only going to become more common. Work Cited Anderson, M. L. (2017). The Benefits of College Athletic Success: An Application of the Propensity Score Design. The Review of Economics and Statistics MIT , 119-134. Zimbalist, B. B. (2019). The Impact of College Athletic Success on Donations and Applicant Quality. Journal of Risk and Financial Management .

Ask almost anyone why they don’t watch Major League Baseball (MLB), and they’ll likely say, “it’s too boring” or “too long.” To address these concerns, MLB introduced one of the most significant game changes in the sport’s history, the pitch clock. This system imposes a time limit to force pitchers to move the game forward. Depending on the situation, different time limits appear. Pitchers have 15 seconds to deliver a pitch if the bases are empty, 18 seconds if there is at least one runner on base, and a 30-second timer between batters. Though this addition has increased the game’s speed, the increased injuries to pitchers following this implementation are notable. A History Behind the Timer Implemented in 2023, the MLB pitch clock aimed to address common criticisms of the game. The goal of the pitch clock is to cut down on the common and lengthy dead time between pitches. This allows for the game to be faster, more exciting, and allows fans to have more to watch. With this season being the second with the addition of the pitch clock, MLB games have been shown to have shortened by roughly twenty minutes. Initially, pitchers had 20 seconds if at least one runner was on base. However, for the 2024 season, this time was reduced to 18 seconds, a change that was opposed by players. Prior to the clock, 54 percent of MLB fans expressed their belief that the games were too long. After the implementation of the pitch clock, only 42 percent of fans expressed this concern. This 12 percent decrease demonstrates improved fan satisfaction. Although fans are more pleased with games, pitcher injuries have spiked, with a potential correlation to this new rule.  A Spike in Pitcher Injuries Since the implementation, Cleveland's  Shane Bieber , Atlanta's  Spencer Strider , the New York Yankees'  Jonathan Loáisiga , Miami's  Eury Pérez , and Oakland's  Trevor Gott  are among the pitchers diagnosed with elbow injuries, some of which were season-ending. Players are urging the league to make a change to the pitch clock due to the increase in injuries. Recently, the Major League Baseball Players’ Association (MLBPA) issued a statement placing the blame on recent pitcher injuries on the pitch clock. A central focus of the debate over whether the pitch clock has led to an increase in injury is the reduction of recovery time between pitches. Union executive director Tony Clark has made several statements regarding the opposition to the pitch clock. Clark has discussed how players have significant concerns regarding health and safety, and that the league is unwilling to truly assess the effects of one of the most significant rule changes in decades. This lack of recovery increases stress on the elbow and shoulder joint in pitchers, which can lead to quicker overuse injuries.   MLB’s Pushback Against the Claim The MLB responded to the union by noting that pitcher injuries have increased over the past three decades, even before the pitch clock was introduced. The MLB claims that there has been an overall increase in pitcher injuries in the past three decades, regardless of the clock being implemented in 2023. Prior to this addition in the MLB, the minor league implemented this clock in 2022 and showed a decline in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries, a common tear or strain in the elbow for pitchers. MLB suggests that modern pitching trends, such as max-effort throwing (where pitchers consistently deliver each pitch at full velocity) and pitch design (which creates sharper, more unnatural pitch movement), have contributed more to the rise in injuries than the implementation of the pitch clock. MLB also argues that a greater number of players are entering the league with a prior history of injuries. This is thought to be a precursor to recurring issues and further injuries as players continue their careers in the MLB.   Legal and Labor Law Implications The argument the MLBPA presents raises questions about whether the MLB is fulfilling its duty of care to its athletes. If this injury trend and lack of support by the MLB continues, it is possible for athletes to challenge the league for failing to consider foreseeable health consequences and being negligent in player safety. MLB owes a duty of care to its players to prevent foreseeable harm. If the pitch clock significantly increases injury risk, MLB could be liable for those injuries directly caused by the rule change. However, MLB may argue that injuries stemming from pitching mechanics or pre-existing conditions fall outside their responsibility due to the assumption of risk. Similar concerns for player safety have led to major legal action in other professional sports leagues such as the NFL . In 2015 , a settlement was finalized out of a large class-action lawsuit filed by former NFL players who claimed that the NFL had concealed the risk of concussions. Approximately 4,000 former players were directly involved with the lawsuit. Though the NFL had long denied any wrongdoing and insisted that player safety always was their top priority, they reached a settlement over concussion-related brain injuries and agreed to compensate victims, pay for medical exams, and conduct research on the issue. Since the settlement, the NFL has awarded over $1 billion to former athletes who suffered from injury. MLB could face a similar situation if these pitch clock injuries persist. Policy Considerations and Potential Reforms Rather than abandoning the pitch clock entirely, the MLB could adopt targeted reforms to ensure pitchers receive the proper rest and recovery time while also maintaining a faster game pace. Many players oppose the limited time between pitches, especially the 2024 reduction of 20 seconds to 18 when there is at least one runner on base. Reverting to 20 seconds or even adding slightly more time could aid in the recovery of pitchers, especially during longer innings that require more pitches. An increase to 22-23 seconds could significantly reduce the strain on the elbow and shoulder joints. Before the MLB creates changes that would significantly alter the play of the game, they could introduce a medical review panel to assess the potential physical impacts of what they are hoping to incorporate into the game. This could mirror the NFL, where medical advisory boards play a role in evaluation decisions and can help limit the league from future liability by demonstrating a good-faith effort to ensure the safety of players. The Need to Listen to the Voices of Players Although the pitch clock may have succeeded in aiding with the pace of MLB, the rising level of pitcher injuries since its implementation cannot be ignored. While the league benefits from the revenue and enjoyment of the game, the players are the ones who take on the physical burdens of the playing rules. The MLB must consider reforms as players voice a growing discomfort with regulations regarding physical health.   Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

When news broke back in February of 2021 that Fernando Tatis Jr. signed a 14-year, $340 million extension with the San Diego Padres, several parties were undoubtedly thrilled. Whether it was the Padres organization, MVP Sports Group (Tatis’ agency), or the ‘Friar Faithful’ fans out in San Diego, there were several ‘winners’ from the transaction. However, those associated with Big League Advance were likely pumping fists and popping champagne when they heard the news as well.   Big League Advance (BLA) is a company that offers minor league players upfront payments in exchange for a percentage of future MLB earnings . According to BLAs website, the company has signed more than 700 athletes since its founding in 2016. One of those athletes is Fernando Tatis Jr., who now owes the company upwards of $34 million after agreeing to a deal with them in 2017.   However, Tatis doesn’t appear to be willing to shell out his money to BLA. Last week, the star outfielder filed a legal complaint against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. According to a press release from his legal team, Tatis is seeking to hold BLA accountable for “exploitative, predatory business practices, which shamelessly push illegal loans on young, vulnerable athletes — most from economically disadvantaged Latin American countries.”   “I’m fighting this battle not just for myself but for everyone still chasing their dream and hoping to provide a better life for their family,” Tatis states in the release. “I want to help protect those young players who don’t yet know how to protect themselves from these predatory lenders and illegal financial schemes — kids’ focus should be on their passion for baseball, not dodging shady business deals.” This statement conflicts with remarks Tatis made after inking with BLA. According to   The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal, Tatis said after signing with the company that his payments would go toward transforming his minor-league training regimen in the U.S. as well as his offseason plan in the Dominican Republic. That included aspirations of hiring a personal trainer and upgrading his diet and living situation as an MLB prospect. “If I’m a successful player and make big money, I’m not going to care about giving that money away,”  Tatis told   The Athletic in 2018, when discussing his BLA agreement. "That will be nothing if I make all that big money."   While he has certainly become a successful player and has made big money, it appears like his sentiments about giving his money away have changed.   Tatis is not the first player to sue BLA. Former big leaguer and top catching prospect Francisco Mejía sued BLA in 2018, citing “unconscionable” tactics BLA used to persuade him to give up 10 percent of his future MLB earnings in exchange for three separate payments totaling $360,000. However, Mejia eventually dropped his case.   Moreover, BLA recently sued former big league outfielder Franmil Reyes in Delaware Superior Court, claiming breach of contract. BLA says Reyes owes $404,908.87 in past due payments plus $298,749.13 in interest, as well as a yet-to-be-determined amount from when he played in Japan. It's worth noting that like Tatis, Mejia and Reyes both hail from Latin American nations. According to his legal team, Tatis received $2 million from BLA in exchange for 10% of his MLB pay. That means that in addition to the $34 million from Tatis' 2021 contract with the Padres, he's responsible for paying BLA a 10% cut of any subsequent MLB deal he inks.   While BLA has yet to comment on Tatis’ filing, they will almost assuredly answer the complaint and offer several defenses in hopes of convincing a court to dismiss the case. BLA could argue that the contract Tatis signed is not a loan, but instead a deal wherein Tatis received capital that he could use to supplement his minor league earnings. BLA will probably also point out the risk it takes in its deals. If the player (like most minor leaguers) never becomes a regular MLB player, BLA might never be repaid. Moreover, because BLA has also signed many American-born players, they could counter Tatis' argument that they are "exploiting" Latin American players specifically. While it will be fascinating to see how this case develops, Sportico references that Tatis’ suit may hit an arbitration snag . According to the article, it’s possible that a judge will dismiss the case to arbitration. Albeit in passing, the complaint noticeably references arbitration, which could become a key issue. An attorney familiar with player investment contracts told  Sportico  that BLA contracts ordinarily contain arbitration clauses; the attorney requested anonymity because the discussions are private. The complaint claims Tatis has suffered a variety of financial injuries including “arbitration costs as a result of Defendants’ efforts to enforce” the contract. The complaint also argues that its demand for injunctive relief “is not arbitrable,” meaning it would be outside the scope of arbitration. To the extent Tatis is engaged in arbitration with BLA over interpretation of the contract, BLA could argue that Tatis’ arguments must first be determined by arbitration before a court can hear his claims. The loser of an arbitration can petition a federal court to vacate an arbitration award, but that strategy might now be more difficult for Tatis. He is contending the BLA contract is entirely void—and thus non-interpretable–which could make it more difficult for him to argue in arbitration that the contract be interpreted a certain way. In conclusion, while one could attempt to make the argument that BLA’s practices are somewhat exploitive, a deal is a deal, and it appears like proper consideration was exchanged between the two parties. It’s possible Tatis isn’t expecting to free himself of all his financial obligations to BLA and is just attempting to see if he can knock down the $34+ million fee down a bit. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to follow this case and the impact it could have on players signing with BLA moving forward.   Brendan Bell is a Rising 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

In the months leading up to the 2025 NBA Draft, Ace Bailey was projected as the consensus No. 3 overall pick. A high-flying, shot-making wing with tantalizing upside, Bailey stood just behind his Rutgers teammate Dylan Harper and presumed No. 1 overall pick Cooper Flagg in virtually every mock draft. Most projections had him landing with the Philadelphia 76ers at No. 3—a franchise in need of youth and length on the wing and a market where Bailey’s brand could flourish. But with just days remaining before the draft, the trajectory of Bailey’s professional journey has taken a sudden and polarizing turn.   Bailey, reportedly represented by Omar Cooper—the father of former Auburn star and NBA player Sharife Cooper—has become the centerpiece of what could be one of the most controversial draft strategies in recent memory. According to multiple reports , Cooper has been attempting to guide Bailey away from the top of the draft toward a select group of East Coast teams, particularly those expected to pick in the 6–9 range. This geographic window includes franchises such as the Charlotte Hornets, Washington Wizards, and Brooklyn Nets, which are positioned closer to Bailey’s home base and potentially offer clearer roles for immediate on-court development.   The strategy reached a boiling point last week when Bailey cancelled his pre-draft workout with the 76ers—less than seven days before the draft. In fact, Bailey will enter draft night without having conducted a single individual workout for any NBA team, an extremely rare occurrence for a top prospect. While this has sparked significant criticism and concern from team executives and fans alike, it also signals a potentially disruptive new tactic in player representation.   The Cost of Control There’s no sugarcoating it: financially, this approach could be expensive —at least in the short term. According to the NBA’s rookie scale , there’s approximately a $10 million difference in total contract value between the 3rd and 8th overall picks. While rookie contracts are guaranteed, Bailey’s refusal to cooperate with top-picking teams could cause him to slide several spots down the board, sacrificing significant earnings before he even steps on an NBA court.   Many scouts and league insiders agree: Bailey’s talent easily warrants a top-three selection. His smooth shooting stroke, athleticism, and defensive upside have drawn comparisons to elite two-way wings like Paul George and Jayson Tatum. So why risk the fall? The answer, some believe, lies in long-term value and career optimization.   A Calculated Bet on Fit Over Fortune Despite the backlash, rival agents are reportedly watching Omar Cooper’s maneuvering with more interest than judgment. In recent years, the league has seen how the right team—regardless of draft position—can fast-track a player’s development and earning potential.   Take Tyrese Maxey, for example, who fell to the 21st pick in 2020 and then signed a 5-year, $204M extension after developing into a cornerstone player for the Sixers. Or Jalen Williams, drafted 12th by the Thunder, who’s blossomed into one of the most exciting young forwards in the league thanks to a well-defined role and patient development. Like Maxey, Williams has turned the opportunity afforded by his draft position into a potential $247M contract extension this offseason.   If Bailey can join a stable organization that offers playing time, a clear role, and market appeal, the bet is that he can recoup—and even surpass—the money lost on his rookie contract. An All-Star appearance, a Most Improved Player campaign, or even a playoff breakout could all position him for a significantly larger second deal. For a player with Bailey’s ceiling, the financial difference between an $8 million rookie deal and a $200 million second contract ultimately comes down to timing, not destiny.   Agents understand this math, and they understand optics. Cooper’s move is undeniably high-risk, but it’s not without precedent. Klutch Sports has famously steered clients away from small-market teams, and international stars have long used draft leverage to control their NBA entry. What’s different here is the brazenness—there’s no medical holdout, no Euro-stash fallback, no secret injury. Instead, Bailey and his team are loudly and publicly refusing to engage with certain teams, deliberately focusing on a select few.   A New Era of Player Empowerment? Whether this gamble works may depend entirely on the trajectory of Bailey’s first two years in the league. If he performs well—particularly if he thrives in a system that gives him a green light early and fosters his shot-creation ability—the narrative may quickly shift. Cooper could be seen not as reckless but as revolutionary.   But if Bailey struggles or fails to stand out on a non-contending team, the questions will only grow louder. Did he overplay his hand? Would a season alongside Joel Embiid in Philadelphia have accelerated his growth more than a rebuild in Washington or Charlotte? Did sacrificing $10 million in guaranteed salary and potential endorsement opportunities set back his career rather than position it for success?   The NBA world will be watching closely. Bailey’s draft-night landing spot and his performance over the next two seasons may serve as the ultimate litmus test for whether agents can—and should—exert more influence over draft outcomes.   In an era where player empowerment continues to reshape the league, Cooper and Bailey may be testing the next frontier: strategic draft manipulation not for ego, but for longevity. And while many disagree with the execution, no one is ignoring the audacity.   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 .

The moment everyone has been waiting for has finally arrived—the settlement in House v. NCAA has been approved. Athletic directors, coaches, athletes, and fans have been anxiously awaiting the day where Judge Claudia Wilken would approve this settlement. And rightfully so. This settlement strikes at the core of the NCAA’s amateurism model. The NCAA has said that its rules regulating student-athlete compensation are the “standards of amateurism,” the “‘mold’ of rules providing that ‘athletes must not be paid’” to preserve the “‘character and quality” that differentiates it from professional sports.” [1] While Alston led to student-athletes being allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), the schools were still not allowed to make payments to the athletes. This settlement changes that. Schools will now be able to make payments directly to their athletes for use of their NIL. Understandably, this is the most notable aspect of the House settlement. However, another significant outcome of this settlement is the creation of the College Sports Commission, which is partnering with Deloitte to launch the NIL Go clearinghouse.   The NIL Go clearinghouse platform is meant to serve as a vetting process for third-party NIL deals entered into by collegiate athletes. When an athlete enters into a third-party NIL deal of $600 or more, they will be required to submit details about that agreement to the platform, which will then screen the deals based on a variety of factors. While the precise algorithm for evaluating these deals is unknown, there is some information available. When a deal is submitted, the platform will make three determinations: (1) is the third party an “associated entity” with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand?; (2) is the deal for a “valid business purpose?”; and (3) is the deal within Deloitte’s “range of compensation” paid to similarly situated individuals? [2] While each of these determinations present their own legal issues, the third determination, seemingly a fair market value analysis, likely presents the most difficulty.   This fair market value analysis considers a number of factors, including athletic performance, an athlete’s social media reach, the market of the athlete’s school, and the reach of the school in that market. [3] While these factors seem reasonable enough to determine the fair market value of a particular deal, the issues for the NIL Go platform likely do not arise out of these factors, but out of using the fair market value analysis as a method of approving or denying NIL agreements entered into by collegiate athletes and third parties.   When an agreement is reviewed by NIL Go, it may be denied if it does not fall into the range of compensation determined by Deloitte’s algorithm. If an agreement is denied, an athlete has three options: cancel the agreement, revise and resubmit the agreement, or request arbitration. For example, if a Kansas basketball player enters into an agreement worth $2 million, but the clearinghouse has determined that the compensation range is $500,000 or below, the athlete could revise the deal and resubmit it to the clearinghouse. It is possible that Kansas could provide the remaining $1.5 million from its revenue share pool, but there are no guarantees that would occur. Disregarding any legal issues, this outcome seems blatantly unfair to the athlete. After negotiating a deal for himself, he has been told he is being paid over his fair market value, a number determined by factors completely out of his control.   Along with this unfairness, the fair market value analysis and range of compensation limitation may run into issues with antitrust law. 15 U.S.C. § 1 prohibits any “contract, combination, . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” Price fixing is considered a restraint of trade. According to the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, price fixing is “an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold.” [4] This form of restraining trade may well be relevant to the range of compensation limitation set by the NIL Go platform. The NCAA, the College Sports Commission, and Deloitte, are essentially agreeing on a formula which determines what the fair market value, or fair price, for an athlete’s NIL is in any given deal. By rejecting deals that exceed an athlete’s fair market value, the clearinghouse effectively sets a ceiling on what the athletes can earn. This suppression of the market for collegiate athlete NIL deals appears to represent the exact behavior that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.   This fair market value “ceiling” may sound familiar—it sounds similar to salary cap rules in professional sports. However, a critical difference between professional sports and collegiate sports is the athletes’ ability to collectively bargain. In a league like the NBA, the athletes are employees represented by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), which engages in collective bargaining with the league to determine many things, including the salary cap rules. However, collegiate athletes are not employees (yet), and thus do not have a collective bargaining agreement to set out the terms for something like the NIL Go clearinghouse.   The NIL Go clearinghouse is supposedly designed to reduce payments from booster-funded collectives to athletes disguised as NIL deals, where the athlete was providing little to no real value to the collective. This has certainly been an issue since collegiate athletes have been allowed to profit from their NIL, however, the clearinghouse may be eliminating one problem while creating another, potentially bigger problem. The effects of the NIL Go clearinghouse, and the House settlement generally, on collegiate athletics remain to be seen. What seems clear, however, is that the NCAA’s legal problems will not be going away any time soon.   Davis Bax is a rising 3L at the University of Kansas School of Law, where he is president of the Sports Law Society and the St. Thomas More Society. He can be found on LinkedIn as Davis Bax . [1] Brief for Petitioner at 27, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) (Nos. 20-512 and 20-520). [2] Ross Dellenger, What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders? , Yahoo Sports (June 13, 2025, 7:00 AM) https://sports.yahoo.com/college-sports/article/what-is-nil-go-and-why-is-it-the-latest-subject-of-debate-among-college-sports-leaders-120028561.html [3] Id. [4] Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes: What They Are and What to Look For , U.S. Dep’t of Just. Antitrust Div., 2 (2021) https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2016/01/05/211578.pdf

In May, a WNBA matchup between the Chicago Sky and the Indiana Fever, Sky star Angel Reese was reportedly targeted with racial slurs from fans in the crowd. This has led to the league's investigation and major discussion on how such situations should be handled. Though no formal outcome has occurred, the incident forces us to consider imperative questions: What obligations do leagues and arenas have to protect players from targeted abuse by fan bases? Where is the line between fans expressing emotion and engaging in actual harassment? Do we need clearer rules and/or stronger protections to ensure athletes feel safe and respected while executing their jobs? A Rivalry Set by the Media Anyone who knows about women’s basketball knows the rivalry between Caitlyn Clark and Angel Reese. Though there is competitiveness on the court, both Clark and Reese have stated how their so-called “rivalry” is more media-driven than personal. This media framework has allowed for the WNBA to receive more attention. However, this attention comes with consequences. In the 2023 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship where Reese’s LSU defeated Clark’s Iowa, Reese made gestures towards Clark where she pointed to her ring finger once it was known that LSU would win the title. Reese was heavily criticized after this for “unsportsmanlike conduct” even though Clark made a similar gesture earlier in the tournament Since then, the media has fueled this storyline casting these two players against each other for their final colligate season in 2024 and into the WNBA. What could have remained a typical sports rivalry was instead turned into a larger cultural conversation with racial underliers. This has become one where Reese, a black female, is often cast as the “villain” in contrast to Clark, a white female, as the “hero.” That framing does not just exist in headlines or highlight reels, it shapes how fans view and treat these players, both online and in person. As we saw in the recent game between the Chicago Sky and Indiana Fever, it can fuel real-world incidents that cross the line from fandom into harassment. This media-fueled rivalry has only intensified as these two players begin their second season, escalating to something that is beyond the game of basketball. Just A “Basketball Play” The play that sparked the investigation happened in the third quarter of the game. Clark jumped and reached over Reese’s head for the basketball just as Reese was going up for a wide-open shot. The contact appeared deliberate, causing Reese to fall to the floor and prompting a confrontation between the two players. Officials responded by assessing Clark with a flagrant foul and Reese with a technical foul. While Clark later explained her actions and Reese called it simply “a basketball play,” Reese faced significant criticism from fans, including racially motivated comments. The reaction to this “basketball play” is a prime example of how race plays a major role in how the media and fans interpret players. Clark and Reese are two very competitive and talented players, yet Reese often receives backlash for her “attitude” while Clark is praised for her “competitive edge.” This difference is not just about perceptions. Rather, it impacts how fans treat players and influences how sporting leagues handle misconduct. The biases that have occurred through this “rivalry” are a key example of how fan behavior crosses the line into harassment or abuse, especially targeted attacks like racial slurs. This raises serious questions about the duty of care owed to players and the measures leagues must take to protect them from these occurrences. Legal Protections for Players We often forget that star athletes are employees who have a right to a safe and harassment-free workplace under the law. Just as any profession requires, athletes have the right to perform their jobs without being subjected to abuse, discrimination, or hostile environments. Though their workplace is in arenas with millions watching while most of us are in a more traditional workplace setting, it does not diminish their right to a safe environment. Clark and Angel receiving essentially the opposite treatment reflects how public bias can transition into workplace hazards. This drastic disparity shows why professional leagues must actively monitor the fan behavior of fans to protect players before it becomes out of control. Workplace safety laws, such as those enforced under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, require employers to provide an environment free from harassment. For professional sports leagues and teams, this means taking reasonable steps to prevent and address abusive conduct, including harassment by fans during games. While it is challenging to control every fan in a stadium or arena, leagues are expected to enforce fan conduct policies, remove disruptive individuals, and ensure security measures are in place to protect players. Failure to do so can open the door to legal claims based on negligence or a hostile work environment. The Freedom of Speech Debate One argument that may arise is an individual’s First Amendment right. Fans do have the right to express themselves at games, including cheering, jeering, and showing passion. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that crosses into harassment, threats, or racial slurs. This is especially true in a private venue like a sports arena, where the owner sets the rules of conduct. Courts have generally upheld that venues can limit disruptive or abusive behavior to maintain a safe environment. Balancing Player Protection and Fan Expressions This balance between protecting players and respecting fan expression is a delicate line to follow. The Reese incident highlights the need for clear policies and swift enforcement to ensure that athletes can perform their tasks without fear of abuse while fans still can be passionate about their teams. This incident involving Reese is a reminder that professional athletes deserve more than just praise and applause. They deserve protection, respect, and a safe environment to perform their job. As leagues like the WNBA continue to grow in visibility and influence, they face increasing pressure to not only celebrate their stars but to also shield them from harm. Finding the line between fan passion and harmful hate is challenging, but it is a responsibility the league cannot ignore. Clear policies, consistent enforcement, and a commitment to creating respect both on and off the court are essential to ensure player safety. How the WNBA responds to this event will set a precedent for the future of sports and send a powerful message about the values we want our leagues to uphold for future generations. Katherine Vescio is a 2L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn .

Something great and unique about baseball is that every ballpark is different.   The dimensions of the actual diamond are standard, but after that, teams can pretty much design their home as they see fit. While MLB ballpark guidelines have generally established minimum fence distances, teams can construct a giant wall in left field or include seemingly endless foul territory down the first- or third-base lines.   In addition to varying dimensions, certain ballparks over the course of baseball history have contained quirks and oddities that you’d never see in other sports. We all know about the Green Monster at Fenway Park and ivy walls at Wrigley Field. However, as recently as 2015, Houston’s Minute Maid Park (recently renamed to Daikin Park) featured a slanted hill in center field with a flagpole in the field of play. We also saw many stadiums with bullpen mounds down the foul lines. Some baseball fans and officials consider these to be fun quirks. Others consider them to be hazards.   While MLB clubs have removed hills, flagpoles, and bullpen mounds in recent years for player safety reasons, certain hazards are still in the field of play that contain high risk of injury. Ex-big leaguer Darin Ruf’s collision with an uncovered tarp in Cincinnati is an unfortunate example.   Last week, Ruf filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas against the Cincinnati Reds for damages after he suffered a career-ending injury while crashing into an uncovered tarp roller at Great American Ball Park in 2023. The lawsuit charges the Reds with negligence in failing to maintain safe field conditions and specifically cites the presence of the unpadded metal tarp roller.   Ruf was playing first base for the Brewers when he was injured during the Brewers' 5-4, 11-inning victory over the Reds on June 2, 2023. In the third inning, Ruf was chasing a foul pop when his knee hit the end of the tarp roller.   According to the complaint, Ruf suffered "permanent and substantial deformities to his knee." Ruf went on the 60-day injured list and never played in the major leagues again. Ruf's complaint says the end of the tarp roller was made of sharp metal and had no protective cushioning or cap. "This was an obvious and avoidable risk," Tad Thomas, Ruf's attorney, said in a release announcing the lawsuit. "There are basic safety protocols every MLB team should follow. Leaving an unpadded metal roller on the edge of the field is inexcusable." "This didn't need to happen," Ruf said himself in the statement. "I wish it didn't happen. Players shouldn't have to worry about hidden hazards like that on a major league field." Ruf is seeking punitive and compensatory damages. The complaint says the Reds didn't take reasonable precautions to keep the stadium safe and also are liable for the negligent acts of the grounds crew's "reckless" conduct. To date, the Reds have not provided a statement or update on the matter. Ruf is not the first MLB player to sue after suffering an injury. F ormer MLB outfielder Mac Williamson sued the San Francisco Giants and the owners of Oracle Park  over a concussion he suffered in 2018. The lawsuit claimed his injury, which ended his career, was caused by tripping over a bullpen mound in foul territory and hitting his head on the outfield wall. Williamson alleged that the placement of the bullpen mounds in foul territory created an unreasonable risk of harm. While the outcome of the lawsuit was not publicly disclosed, the Giants did remove the bullpens in foul territory to beyond the outfield fences in 2020.   Outside the baseball context, longtime NFL running Reggie Bush won a lawsuit against the St. Louis Rams for $12.5 million  in 2018 after suffering a knee injury in a game after slipping on a concrete surface when he was pushed out of bounds.    It will be interesting to see what comes of this suit both on the micro and macro level. While it’s likely this individual case settles behind closed doors, nearly every MLB stadium without a roof features a rolled-up tarp along the foul lines. Ruf’s lawsuit may bring about proper protocols and regulations that mandate that these tarps are sufficiently padded and always covered to reduce injury risk for players. MLB and the MLBPA have a common interest in ensuring player safety, so I’m sure this lawsuit will spark discussions between the league and grounds crews across the league to help prevent injuries (and lawsuits) in the future.     Brendan Bell is a Rising 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @_bbell5

With next summer’s 2025 FIFA Club World Cup set to kick off in the United States, the tournament is already drawing more than just commercial buzz and global intrigue—it’s setting off alarm bells among national team managers and players alike, who are concerned with one thing: burnout.   The tournament’s expansion to 32 clubs, its month-long format, and a promised prize pool reportedly exceeding $150 million have elevated the Club World Cup’s significance for FIFA and the participating teams. But the timing—just one year ahead of the 2026 World Cup—has ignited a fresh round of conflict between club demands and national team ambitions.   And for many of the game’s biggest stars, the tug-of-war is starting now.   Pulisic and Dest: Fatigue Over Flags One of the most telling early signs came when U.S. Men’s National Team head coach Mauricio Pochettino unveiled his Gold Cup roster— without Christian Pulisic. The AC Milan winger, widely seen as the de facto face of American soccer, was left off the squad due to what’s been labeled as "fatigue" following a demanding club season in Italy. He isn’t alone. Defender Sergiño Dest was also recently dropped from contention, with U.S. Soccer citing his recovery from a long-term ACL injury suffered in April.   Though Pulisic has long been a devoted U.S. international, his absence in a tournament where the U.S. is expected to contend raises eyebrows—especially when contrasted with what’s happening in Europe. It’s not just the fans who’ve taken note.   Pochettino’s Subtle Swipe? Pulisic’s USMNT coach, Mauricio Pochettino, has not exactly hidden his feelings about the decision. When asked about national team participation more broadly, the Argentine offered a pointed reminder of the dedication he’s seen from some of the biggest names in football: “Messi, Mbappé, Neymar . . . they are desperate to play for their national teams,” he said. He then added, “[t]he people need to prioritize the national team.”   Was it a direct jab at Pulisic’s decision? The inference was clear enough for some to read between the lines. The pressure from managers like Pochettino shows how players must constantly walk a tightrope of unspoken expectations, particularly when the stakes—both financial and reputational—are as high as they will be at the Club World Cup.   Tuchel Sets a Hard Line for England Meanwhile, over in England, national team manager Thomas Tuchel has made headlines for his own uncompromising stance .   Despite the Club World Cup looming, Tuchel recently named a full-strength 26-man England squad for upcoming matches against Andorra and Senegal. His selection includes players from Chelsea (Cole Palmer, Levi Colwill, Reece James, Trevoh Chalobah, and Noni Madueke), Bayern Munich’s Harry Kane, Atlético Madrid’s Conor Gallagher, and Real Madrid’s Jude Bellingham—all of whom are expected to feature in the Club World Cup.   Tuchel made it clear that no player would be allowed to leave the national team early to prepare for the tournament, emphasizing that country comes first. Perhaps to underscore his point, he left out Manchester City star Phil Foden altogether (at Foden’s own request)—giving the player the chance to partake in the Club World Cup despite City manager Pep Guardiola admitting Foden was "tired" and in need of rest.   It’s a bold move, especially considering the competition for England spots and the prestige of players like Foden. But it sends a clear message: Tuchel wants total commitment to the national team, even if it means butting heads with club managers—or benching superstars.   Redemption and Recalibration: The Ivan Toney Case Perhaps even more surprising than Foden’s exclusion was the inclusion of Ivan Toney. After an eight-month ban by the FA for betting violations and a subsequent move to Saudi Arabia, most assumed Toney's England career was finished. But after finishing second behind Cristiano Ronaldo in the Saudi Pro League goal-scoring charts, Tuchel rewarded Toney’s resurgence with a national team recall.   For a manager so concerned with discipline and national pride, the decision to reintegrate Toney—who many viewed as persona non grata—signals that performance and hunger may ultimately trump baggage. But it also adds a layer of complexity: while some fatigued players are being discarded and pushed aside, others are being flown across continents for a second chance.   A Double Standard? Mbappé, Bellingham, and the Uneven Playing Field In the midst of all of this, one can’t help but notice that not all players are held to the same standards. Kylian Mbappé played in the UEFA Nations League this summer and will almost certainly make the trip to the U.S. next year for PSG’s Club World Cup campaign. Jude Bellingham, fresh off a grueling debut season with Real Madrid (and reportedly set for shoulder surgery following the conclusion of the tournament), is also expected to juggle both club and country.   This inconsistency—where some players are given time to rest while others shoulder massive workloads—only intensifies the debate over what is expected of modern footballers. Are stars like Bellingham and Mbappé simply better equipped to handle the load? Or are national team managers simply more willing to bend the rules when it comes to their most marketable players?   The Bigger Picture: Club Power, Contracts, and the 2026 World Cup Horizon The Club World Cup is more than just a tournament—it's a proving ground for FIFA’s ambition to turn club competitions into global blockbusters. But with the 2026 World Cup on the horizon, national team coaches are already strategizing, monitoring player workloads, and building continuity. The message is growing clearer: skip the Club World Cup if necessary, rest up, and focus on the badge.   Yet, there's one massive problem: contracts. The majority of players may be contractually obligated to appear for their club in tournaments like the Club World Cup if they are healthy and selected. And with millions of dollars in prize money at stake—not to mention branding opportunities in the U.S. market—clubs will likely demand that their biggest and best stars show up.   That raises serious questions and poses tough dilemmas: What happens when a club insists a player travel and compete, even if the player—or their national team manager—wants them to rest? What leverage do national federations have? Could we see situations where clubs “bench” players who opt out? Or worse, will players risk injury or long-term wear just to keep everyone happy?   A Balancing Act with No Easy Answer As the borders between club and country blur—and as the calendar becomes increasingly congested—the burden being placed on elite players is more visible than ever. Christian Pulisic’s absence may be the first domino to fall, but it's unlikely to be the last.   If this summer is any indication, the lead-up to the 2025 Club World Cup (and 2026 World Cup) will be defined by tough decisions, political posturing, and a whole lot of pressure on players caught in the middle.   Because in the end, no matter what badge is on their chest—club or country—it’s the players who carry the weight.   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 .

Have you ever wondered what MLB would look like with a salary cap? As a lifelong Yankees fan already aware of this issue, I've seen teams like the Dodgers and Mets recently outspend everyone, making me think about this even more than I would like. Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL, MLB doesn't have a salary cap. Instead, it uses a luxury tax system that penalizes teams exceeding a set payroll threshold, with the tax rate increasing for consecutive years over the limit. This has led to massive spending gaps, with the Dodgers ($337M), Mets ($324M), and Yankees ($289M) at the top, while teams like the White Sox ($67M), Marlins ($68M), and Athletics ($74M) are at the bottom in 2025 payrolls. The difference between the second and third highest payrolls (Mets and Yankees) alone is $35 million. Many fans worry about the future of the sport if this continues. A salary cap would prevent high-spending teams from dominating and encourage lower-spending teams to invest more in their rosters, fostering greater league parity. For this speculative exercise, I've set a hypothetical MLB salary cap at $200 million and a floor at 90% ($180 million), considering MLB's 2024 revenue of $12.1 billion and a 26-player roster size. Here's how current 2025 payrolls would stack up against this hypothetical cap: Team 2025 Payroll Cap Floor (180M) Ceiling (200M) Los Angeles Dodgers $337,000,000.00 -$137,000,000 New York Mets $324,000,000.00 -$124,000,000 New York Yankees $289,000,000.00 -$89,000,000 Philadelphia Phillies $279,000,000.00 -$79,000,000 Toronto Blue Jays $247,000,000.00 -$47,000,000 Houston Astros $219,000,000.00 -$19,000,000 Texas Rangers $217,000,000.00 -$17,000,000 Atlanta Braves $214,000,000.00 -$14,000,000 San Diego Padres $210,000,000.00 -$10,000,000 Boston Red Sox $199,000,000.00 Chicago Cubs $193,000,000.00 Los Angeles Angels $193,000,000.00 Arizona Diamondbacks $181,000,000.00 San Francisco Giants $170,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 Baltimore Orioles $161,000,000.00 $19,000,000.00 Seattle Mariners $152,000,000.00 $28,000,000.00 Minnesota Twins $146,000,000.00 $34,000,000.00 Detroit Tigers $143,000,000.00 $37,000,000.00 St. Louis Cardinals $135,000,000.00 $45,000,000.00 Colorado Rockies $125,000,000.00 $55,000,000.00 Kansas City Royals $119,000,000.00 $61,000,000.00 Washington Nationals $114,000,000.00 $66,000,000.00 Cincinnati Reds $113,000,000.00 $67,000,000.00 Milwaukee Brewers $108,000,000.00 $72,000,000.00 Cleveland Guardians $100,000,000.00 $80,000,000.00 Pittsburgh Pirates $90,000,000.00 $90,000,000.00 Tampa Bay Rays $90,000,000.00 $90,000,000.00 Athletics $74,000,000.00 $106,000,000.00 Miami Marlins $68,000,000.00 $112,000,000.00 Chicago White Sox $67,000,000.00 $113,000,000.00   Only four teams—the Red Sox, Cubs, Angels, and Diamondbacks—fall within this proposed cap. While the Red Sox are underperforming, the D'Backs and Cubs are competitive playoff teams. Surprisingly, 17 teams are currently under the proposed cap floor, indicating a significant amount of underspending across the league. For instance, the Chicago White Sox would need to nearly triple their payroll to reach the cap floor. Conversely, the Dodgers and Mets would need to cut their payroll by almost 25% to get to the ceiling. Here’s how the top five teams over the cap might adjust: Dodgers : They'd need to cut $137 million, likely meaning players like Mookie Betts or Freddie Freeman would be gone. Additions like Teoscar Hernandez, Blake Snell, and Michael Conforto likely wouldn't happen, and Max Muncy and Tanner Scott could be cut. Mets : Juan Soto's $61 million salary wouldn't be an option. They'd probably need to part with Starling Marte, Edwin Diaz, and Jeff McNeil, or choose between Pete Alonso and Francisco Lindor. Yankees : Currently just under $300 million, they wouldn't sign Max Fried or trade for Cody Bellinger without shedding Carlos Rodon or DJ LeMahieu. Phillies : This would be a nightmare for Dave Dombrowski, forcing prospects like Andrew Painter, Aidan Miller, and Justin Crawford into earlier roles to replace key players like Trea Turner, Nick Castellanos, or even Bryce Harper. Blue Jays : Vlad Guerrero Jr. likely wouldn't receive a large extension. While Anthony Santander might stay, the team would have to lose George Springer, Kevin Gausman, or Chris Bassitt. A salary cap would drastically alter team compositions and the league's landscape, making more valuable players available to smaller market teams and fostering greater competition as underspending teams would need to offer contracts to attract new free agents. Michael Moore is a graduate of New York Law School and former member of the school’s Sports Law Society. 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.

Malik Beasley just had one of his best seasons statistically  of his career with the Detroit Pistons in the 2024-25 NBA season, averaging 16.3 points, 1.7 assists, 2.6 rebounds, and shot a career-high 41.6% from three-point land. Beasley played a major role in helping the Pistons end a six-year playoff drought, helping the Pistons reach the NBA playoffs this season, and Beasley was a finalist for the NBA’s Sixth Man of the Year Award this season. But now Beasley has run into some potential legal trouble as he finds himself being sued by his former agency, Hazan Sports Management (HSM). Specifically, HSM, now Beasley’s former agency is suing Beasley for breach of contract and related claims, where they allege  Beasley owes at least $1 million in damages. HSM claims that when Beasley became a client on November 27, 2023, by signing him to a standard player agent contract (SPAC), they also paid Beasley $650,000 in advance as part of a separate player marketing agreement which granted HSM exclusive marketing rights that would be for a term of four years. HSM alleges after helping Beasley resuscitate his career by securing him a one-year, $6 million contract with the Detroit Pistons, Beasley fired HSM as his on-court representation earlier this year in February and breached the exclusivity provisions of the marketing agreement when he hired Brian Jungreis of Seros Partners to serve as his on-court agent and marketing representative just 15 months into the four-year agreement as HSM alleges. HSM states that when they took Beasley on as a client, he was a player with “known issues,” issues that included financial ones. The substantial marketing advance of $650,000 to Beasley as the agency claims was to in part help those financial issues of Beasley and to become his exclusive marketing agent as HSM expected Beasley would turn around his career where Beasley’s marketing rights would become valuable and generate high commissions for HSM. The player marketing agreement included a liquidated damages clause that requires Beasley to pay HSM $1 million in the event that the agreement is terminated for any reason prior to the end of the four-year term. The liquidated damages clause of $1 million is one of the claims HSM is seeking judgment on against Beasley. It remains to be seen whether this liquidated damages clause in this matter between Beasley and HSM will be enforceable under New York law. If the case does move forward, an anticipated defense that Beasley can bring forward is that the liquidated damages clause in this contract with HSM is not fair and reasonable, therefore being an unenforceable penalty clause as New York law requires  liquidated damages clauses to bear a reasonable relation to anticipated or actual damages in order to not be a contract provision for an unreasonably large liquidated damage amount which is void as a penalty. To counter this, as HSM has already stated this in the complaint, is that both parties agreed and accepted that this liquidated damages provision in the amount of $1 million in the event of a breach was “fair and acceptable in the light of the amount of the Marketing Advance and the risk assumed by Marketing Agent with respect to the Marketing Advance.” The player marketing contract states that “any and all disputes” arising out of it “shall be adjudicated” by a New York court. This is important because this leads the dispute of the marketing agreement to litigation instead of arbitration which is a standard clause in all SPAC’s where the arbitration clause covers disputes between a player and their agents concerning their contractual relationship. Notably, HSM is not alleging that Beasley breached his SPAC with the agency, but rather tying the breach claim to the marketing contract, so in this instance Beasley would not be able to have the complaint dismissed through claiming that it must first be heard by an arbitrator. This case highlights and shows the importance of enforceability of such agreements, and the factors that can lead to one being successful in dismissing such a suit or being successful in recovering damages from the other side. It also shows what can entice players to sign such player-agent contracts, such as marketing guarantees, cash advances, and other inducements. As of now Beasley has not responded to this suit brought against him by HSM and no lawyer has appeared on his behalf on this matter. Romen Richardson is a rising 3L at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC. He aspires to be a prominent sports & entertainment attorney after graduating law school, and also hopes to one day be an NBA Agent. You can follow him here on LinkedIn .