Coming off a division one-leading 14 win season with 179 strikeouts in 122 innings,[1] Vanderbilt pitcher Kumar Rocker finds himself without a contract after being drafted 10th overall by the New York Mets with a $6 million signing bonus. Though his stock fell as the draft neared, Rocker was still regarded as one of the top pitchers in college baseball, rivaled by fellow Commodore and 2nd overall pick, Jack Leiter. What went so wrong between draft day and the signing deadline that one of the top pitching prospects going into the draft was left without a chance at the majors until 2022? As with many top prospects, Rocker was selected for the pre-draft MRI program which would have made his medical information available for all thirty MLB teams. Skipping this program is not uncommon; in fact, Scott Boras - who represents Rocker, amongst other Major Leaguers and Major League hopefuls - advises his clients against participating in it. Following his selection, Rocker completed his physical examination with the Mets which led to concerns over the health of his arm.[2] Boras maintains that his client is healthy, but to no avail as the parties were unable to come to new terms prior to the signing deadline.[3] Though issues with physical examinations cannot always be predicted ahead of time, many have criticized the Mets for not anticipating this outcome, as Rocker’s velocity was noticeably down later in his junior season at Vanderbilt.[4] With that being said, selecting Rocker in the first place was not necessarily a bad move for the Mets, but how they handled the rest of the draft and their draft pool was. Described as “arcane” by one reporter, the draft pool warrants its own explanation so we can truly understand where the Mets went wrong. It’s your birthday, cheers to you! Your grandparents sent you an assortment of gift cards, each one with a different value. Let’s say you got a Dunkin’ gift card for $25, a Cava gift card for $15, and a Target gift card for $10. In all you have $50 to spend, but because they are gift cards and not cash, you can only spend them at their assigned business. Now say the Dunkin’ in your town closed down, so you can no longer spend your $25 gift card. You don’t lose any money, and the money on the gift card doesn’t go away, but you don’t get to use it elsewhere. You still have $50 in gift cards, but with the ability to spend only $25 of it. That’s essentially how draft pools work. The Mets had about $9 million in their draft pool, with each pick in the draft having a slotted value - in the 2021 Draft, the 10th overall pick had a slot of about $4.7 million. The Mets spent that $4.7 million “gift card” on Rocker when they drafted him 10th, but lost out on it when they decided not to sign him. While this money doesn’t necessarily come out of anyone’s pockets, it can’t be utilized elsewhere. So the Mets chose not to sign Rocker and lost out on using $4.7 million of their draft pool, but it doesn’t stop there. Rocker’s slot value can be thought of as a sunk cost, which refers to costs that have already been incurred and are unable to be recovered. As soon as the Mets drafted and decided not to sign Rocker, that $4.7 million signing bonus became a sunk cost. Where the Mets continued to make mistakes is offering Rocker a signing bonus $1.3 million overslot, for a total of $6 million. In order to do this, the Mets had to sign six of their remaining nine picks in the first half of the draft underslot.[5] Now, not only are they unable to use the $4.7 million gift card, they lost out on being able to spend the $1.3 million gift card as well. There is a way this could have been avoided: by taking out an “insurance policy” in the second half of the draft. Scouting sources from various teams have noted that it is “standard operating procedure” to draft a player in later rounds to redirect any overslot value should a situation like Rocker’s arise.[6] If the Mets took an insurance pick, Rocker’s $4.7 million slot would have still been a sunk cost, but the $1.3 million would have been available for redirect to that insurance pick. Unfortunately for the Mets, they had already agreed to terms with their 11th-20th round picks and were not able to divert Rocker’s overslot money to them. In the end, the Mets lost out on utilizing $6 million of their $9 million draft pool. While the Mets won’t get Rocker, they will get the 11th overall pick in the 2022 draft as a compensation pick for not signing the pitcher. Typically, in order to get a compensation pick, teams have to offer the unsigned player 40% of his slotted bonus. Sources have stated that the Mets never even put a contract on the table for Rocker to accept or reject, but Rocker’s decision to forgo the pre-draft MRI program means the Mets can still get the compensation pick without offering Rocker anything.[7] As for Rocker, he will be able to enter the 2022 MLB Draft but cannot sign to a Major League team in the meantime. Though he is eligible to do so, reports have stated that Rocker has ruled out returning to Vanderbilt for his senior season, leaving him with a few options: sign to an independent or international team, or continue to practice and host open workouts as the 2022 Draft nears.[8] This last option is an attractive one for former Commodores, as Vanderbilt has a locker room specifically for professional players - including David Price, Sonny Gray, and Mike Minor - returning to campus to workout. Rocker’s former teammate, Jack Leiter, plans to spend the fall working out at Vanderbilt while continuing his progress toward his degree as opposed to pitching in the minors or playing in the Arizona Fall League.[9] While the Mets’ mishandling of the 2021 Draft should serve as a lesson to the organization, it should also serve as a red flag to the MLBPA. Professor Mark Edelman notes that the next round of collective bargaining between the league and the players association should include creating less restrictive rules for first-year draft picks.[10] He suggests an updated draft system that would automatically create a contract between a player and the team who drafts him, or a supplemental draft should a team decide not to sign one of their picks.[11] In the end, the ones who suffer the most as a result of this blunder are, of course, Rocker, and baseball fans everywhere who will not have the opportunity to see him pitch in the majors for upwards of another year. Jake Mintz of The Ringer Podcast Network pointed out that the Mets are facing very few repercussions for botching this draft; sure, they lost the chance to use two-thirds of their draft pool, but they still came out of this with the 11th overall pick in the 2022 Draft, whereas Rocker is left “out in the wind.”[12] Let’s hope the MLBPA considers this in their next round of collective bargaining so they can protect future draft picks from ending up in “baseball purgatory.”[13] Rebekah Ansbro is a second year law student at George Mason University where she is the outreach & social media chair and events chair for the Mason Sport and Entertainment Law Association. You can connect with Rebekah about sport and entertainment law on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebekah-ansbro-21a24115a. [1] Statistics, D1 Baseball (2021). https://d1baseball.com/statistics/ [2] McDaniel, K., Passan, J., New York Mets don't sign first-round draft pick Kumar Rocker before deadline, ESPN (Aug 1, 2021). https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31934790/new-york-mets-plan-sign-top-pick-kumar-rocker-concerns-physical-exam-sources-say [3] Ibid. [4] Anderson, R., How the New York Mets botched their Kumar Rocker selection in the 2021 MLB Draft, CBS (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/how-the-new-york-mets-botched-their-kumar-rocker-selection-in-the-2021-mlb-draft/ [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] McDaniel, K., Passan, J., New York Mets don't sign first-round draft pick Kumar Rocker before deadline, ESPN (Aug 1, 2021). https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31934790/new-york-mets-plan-sign-top-pick-kumar-rocker-concerns-physical-exam-sources-say [8] Anderson, R., What’s next for Kumar rocker after Mets fail to sign former Vanderbilt star?, CBS (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/whats-next-for-kumar-rocker-after-mets-fail-to-sign-former-vanderbilt-star/ [9] Gerson, A., 'Forever thankful': Jack Leiter lauds Vanderbilt baseball after signing with Rangers, Tennessean (July 28, 2021). https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vanderbilt/2021/07/28/jack-leiter-vanderbilt-baseball-after-texas-rangers/5408387001/ [10] Edelman, M., Unsigned New York Mets Draft Pick Kumar Rocker Can Place Some Of Blame On MLB Players Association, Forbes (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/08/02/unsigned-mets-draft-pick-kumar-rocker-has-union-partially-to-blame/?sh=12b5aa8d2cb6 [11] Ibid. [12] Mintz, J., Who Actually Has a Shot at Winning the World Series?, The Ringer (Aug 3, 2021). https://www.theringer.com/2021/8/3/22608384/who-actually-has-a-shot-at-winning-the-world-series [13] Edelman, M., Unsigned New York Mets Draft Pick Kumar Rocker Can Place Some Of Blame On MLB Players Association, Forbes (Aug 2, 2021). https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/08/02/unsigned-mets-draft-pick-kumar-rocker-has-union-partially-to-blame/?sh=12b5aa8d2cb6

On July 28, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver made a historic announcement: “With the 2nd pick in the 2021 NBA Draft, the Houston Rockets select, Jalen Green, from Merced, California and the NBA G-League Ignite.” That’s right. The 2nd pick in the 2021 NBA Draft surpassed college basketball to play in the NBA’s G-League, the NBA’s official minor league. Though Green was not a part of the pageantry of March Madness, nor did he receive national media attention playing for a major college program, Green did receive something many of his fellow draft picks could not: $500,000. Prior to Green’s announcement to play for the G-League Ignite, Jalen was ranked the 2nd best high school basketball player in the country and was seriously considering playing college basketball (Green said he would’ve gone to the University of Memphis if not for the G-League). But money talks, and $500,000 speaks volumes to a high school kid. Apparently, so does $300,000 and $250,000, which is what former UCLA commit Daishen Nix and former Michigan Wolverines commit Isaiah Todd made playing for the Ignite. Nix and Todd verbally committed to college programs before decommitting and choosing to turn pro. But G-League Ignite isn’t the only professional option for recruits. Other high school stars such as LaMelo Ball and R.J. Hampton skipped college and played professionally in New Zealand. Sports content brand Overtime created their own professional basketball league, Overtime Elite, and signed Jalen Lewis, the 12th ranked high schooler in the class of 2023, to a $1,000,000 contract. These pro options either were formed or became prominent options thanks to the NCAA not allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness. However, as the famous Florence and The Machine lyric goes, “The dog days are over. The dog days are gone.” On July 1, 2021, college athletes became eligible to benefit from their name, image, and likeness. As fellow Conduct Detrimental writer Jake Rubenstein wrote, this monumental change in the NCAA is already showing its affects on college football recruiting with phenom Quinn Ewers. Ewers chose to skip his senior season of high school to enroll in Ohio St. allowing him to capitalize on his growing brand. Like in college football and every other college sport, NIL’s effects on college basketball are in its infancy. Now that college athletes can benefit from their NIL, will more top tier basketball recruits choose college over professional routes? Are universities telling recruits, this is how much you would make from your NIL if you go here? Will NIL help smaller programs attract better players or make the allure of a blueblood irresistible? Only time will give definitive answers to those questions. But two high school basketball recruits decision will set a precedent future recruits may follow: Jalen Duren and Emoni Bates. Duren is the number 1 high school basketball player in the class of 2022 and a purebred stallion who perfectly fits the mold of the modern NBA big. After watching several videos of Duren, Adebayo is the perfect comp to Duren. At 6’10 with a 7’5 wingspan, Duren is mega athletic, can defend positions 1-5, protects the rim, finishes with ferocity, and has the touch to hit floaters and fade-away jump shots with consistency. The combination of Duren’s high floor and sky-high ceiling leaves NBA scouts and college programs salivating. He announced a couple days ago that he will make his decision on Friday, August 6. Memphis, Miami, Kentucky, the NBL, and the G-League make up his top 5 options at the next level. Bates was the number 2 recruit in the class of 2022 and decommitted from Michigan State. The initial buzz was that he was a lock to go pro. However, he just reclassified to the class of 2021 as I was writing this article on August 4 and narrowed his list to Memphis, Oregon, Michigan State, and the G-League. To put it simply, Bates’s player comparison is Kevin Durant. Need I say more? As of now, nobody knows where Duren or Bates will go. Will they follow the trend started by Jalen Green, LaMelo Ball, and many others and go pro? Or will they set a precedent for future elite high school basketball recruits in the NIL era and choose college? I have no idea. But… “Can’t you hear the horses? ‘Cause here they come.” Francis Carlota is a recent graduate of California Western School of Law in San Diego, CA, where he became the ABA Negotiation Competition National Champion and was the Vice-President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society. You can reach Francis on Twitter @SluggaSports or through email, [email protected].

We have all read the stories and seen the pictures. However, what is going on behind the scenes? Every potential criminal case begins the same way: The initial complaint. The initial complaint is where the alleged victim makes statement(s) to law enforcement regarding the potential criminal liability of another person. The exception being if the alleged victim is deceased. In over three years as prosecutor, I prosecuted violent crimes, drug crimes, white collar crimes, and sex crimes. I interviewed thousands of potential victims/witnesses. The goal of every one of those interviews was to get to one thing: The Truth. How does the Pasadena Police Department and (if necessary) the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office get to that? Facts. Remember this saying with any criminal case, facts win cases. However, the criminal case against Mr. Bauer has not filed yet and as such this case is still a civil matter with an independent criminal investigation. This article is the first in a series of articles that will be written case of Trevor Andrew Bauer develops. These articles will explain what happens before a case is filed (with the likely reasons why it was filed), preparing for a domestic violence trial (what goes into it, what challenges will the prosecution likely face), and finally the resolution of the case (whether it be a trial with a verdict, a plea, or a dismissal). Facts as we know them to be: According to reports, on or about April 21, 2021, Trevor Bauer was messaging with a woman from Instagram. That woman stated that she drove from her home in San Diego to Mr. Bauer’s home in Pasadena. They talked for a bit then engaged in sexual relations. Mr. Bauer asked if the woman had ever been choked before and she stated that she had. She stated that she had previously engaged in sexual relations where the other individual applied light pressure to her neck. However, the woman stated that Mr. Bauer put his fingers down her throat in an aggressive manner and she asked him to stop. Mr. Bauer stopped for a moment. He then allegedly wrapped the alleged victim’s hair around her neck and caused her to lose consciousness. The woman allegedly woke up to find Mr. Bauer having anal sex with her. She used the bathroom after the encounter where she realized she was bleeding from her anus and was barely able to walk. However, it is her contention that she did not believe Mr. Bauer to be a threat to her. She stated in her official statement for her restraining order that she never wanted anal sex nor did she ever consent to it. Mr. Bauer allegedly texted, “You feeling a little sore this morning?” in a joking manner. Mr. Bauer and the woman continued to communicate via text and Instagram for the next several weeks. The communications allegedly were about baseball, the woman’s new job, and they also communicated in a sexual nature. On or about May 15, 2021,Mr. Bauer allegedly invited the woman over to his house again and this time they agreed to use a “safe word”. For those who are unaware, a “safe word” is an agreed upon word by a couple engaging in sexual relations where both parties agreed to cease the activity if the other utters the safe word. As stated by the woman, about five minutes into sexual relations, Mr. Bauer began to choke her again and she lost consciousness as well as her ability to speak. When she awoke, Mr. Bauer was allegedly punching her in the head. Mr. Bauer allegedly then flipped the woman onto her stomach and again choked her with her own hair which again caused her to lose consciousness. The day after the second incident, the woman claimed to have sought treatment for her injuries from the Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego on May 16, 2021. As a result of the second incident, the woman reportedly had two black eyes, a bloodied swollen lip, significant bruising and scratching to one side of her face. The woman was allegedly diagnosed with an acute head injury and assault by manual strangulation. Mr. Bauer reportedly attempted to contact the woman on numerous occasions and finally spoke to the woman on the phone with police present. This call is what is called a “controlled call”. A “controlled call” is a call where law enforcement has the victim call the alleged offender and get them to make admissions. That is because, those statements by the Defendant are not hearsay and thus admissible in Court. Additionally, those statements could be testified to by multiple law enforcement officers to corroborate what the victim likely stated in her testimony. The reason is that law enforcement is almost always listening to the exchanges between the two parties and may record the call depending on the wiretapping statute for that particular state. In that call, the woman alleged asked Mr. Bauer, “What did you do to me when I was unconscious?” Mr. Bauer reportedly admitted to punching the woman in the buttocks and when the woman tried to explain to Mr. Bauer that she did not consent to that, he attempted to change the conversation. The Athletic first reported details from the restraining order. Where is the case currently at? The woman currently has been granted a temporary restraining order or “TRO”. However, the woman and Mr. Bauer will reportedly have a court hearing on the woman’s motion for a permanent restraining order that is set to begin on August 16, 2021. The expectation is that the hearing while last until August 19, 2021. These restraining order hearings are mini-trials. The woman will take the stand and explain to the judge why the Judge should grant her restraining order. Under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), a Court may issue a restraining order to prevent domestic violence or abuse if the party seeking the order “shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. “Abuse includes intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, harassing, making annoying telephone calls to, or disturbing the peace of the other party.” Thus, the Judge would have to find that the woman showed, to the satisfaction of the Court, that Mr. Bauer previously abused this woman. In these hearings, the Petitioner’s attorneys (the woman’s attorneys) have the power to call Mr. Bauer to the stand to testify. Mr. Bauer, if called to testify, has two options. One is that he must answer the Plaintiff’s attorney(s) questions truthfully. The second option is that he could invoke his right against self-incrimination and choose not to answer any question that may incriminate himself. Mr. Bauer might have the urge to try to tell his side of the story. However, it is likely that his attorneys will advise him to respond to every question with a, “On the advice of counsel, I am invoking my right against self-incrimination”. Under the United States Constitution, Mr. Bauer never has to be a witness against himself. His attorneys’ advice might be something similar to this, “This hearing isn’t the whole ballgame. You aren’t ever going to see this woman socially again. If we lose this hearing, it is not the end of the world. This hearing is a long way from a conviction for anything. Invoke your right against self-incrimination. Sure, the decision of the Court will eventually become public and the transcript will eventually find its way to a reporter who will write that you invoked your constitutional right against self-incrimination. Some people might assume you are guilty because you invoked. However, it is your best course of action. I advise you to invoke because this hearing is being recorded. Either the audio is being recorded or a court-reporter is taking down every word you say. Either way, if criminal investigation yields charges for sexual assault and the case ends up going to trial, I can promise you that you don’t want your own words being used against in an aggravated sexual battery trial.” That being said, his attorneys could get aggressive with this matter. That is because they are aware that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office will be monitoring this hearing exceptionally closely. This hearing essentially allows the case (as it is currently developed) to be heard by a judge. Law enforcement and potentially the woman’s doctor might testify on her behalf. The hearing will also be likely be the first time that the woman faces questioning from Mr. Bauer’s attorneys. How she presents as a witness and how she holds up on the stand matters. In the next part, I will discuss the biggest question that law enforcement and the prosecution will have and that is why she went to his house a second time after her life-threatening first encounter with Mr. Bauer. Matthew F. Tympanick is an Associate Attorney at Wicker Smith in Sarasota, Florida. He is a graduate of University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. You can follow him on Twitter @Tympanick20.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional level of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! In this monthly series, we will highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: ● a sports-centric curriculum; ● sports law certifications; ● unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; ● and sports law journals. The focus of this month’s Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Marquette University Law School Known nationally for their stellar basketball program, Marquette is a true Blue Blood of the sports law world. Directed by Professors Matt Mitten and Paul M. Anderson, MU Sports Law has pumped out a list of compliance directors and sports attorneys longer than a Milwaukee bar tab on Thirsty Thursdays. Among them are Mike Sneathern and Greg Heller, CLO for the Milwaukee Bucks and Atlanta Braves, respectively; as of 2021, Mr. Sneathern has more NBA Championship rings than James Harden. Law is a naturally adversarial profession, and law school generally prepares you for that. However, MU Sports Law gets your competitive juices flowing in the specific arena of sports arbitration. The Basketball Negotiation, Baseball Arbitration, Game Day Case Competition, Sports Law Negotiation, and Sports Law Moot Court teams allow MU Law students to compete nationally in a sports law setting. Iron sharpens iron, and when you’re arguing against the brightest future sports lawyers at other schools, you get a chance to hone your sports negotiation abilities against your peers. Caution: while it can get heated, leave the pushing and shoving on the court, not in court. (Photo Credit: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) Affiliated with the neighboring National Sports Law Institute (NSLI), Marquette Law students have the opportunity to earn a certificate from the NSLI upon graduation after meeting a list of requirements. These requirements include completing both the Amateur/Professional Sports Law course offerings and a sports law workshop diving into one of many topics ranging from NCAA compliance and governance to representing professional athletes and coaches. In Fall of their 2L year, students participate in a writing competition to join the Marquette Sports Law Review, one of the premier sports law journals in the country and the nation’s first law review focused solely on sports scholarship. As many firms will tell you, a staff position on a law review is a major resumé booster in the legal job market. Another major resumé booster is an internship, and at Marquette Law, supply outstrips demand. In Spring 2021 alone, sports law students interned with the athletic departments at Marquette, Eastern Michigan University, Fordham University, Northern Illinois University, Northwestern University, Notre Dame College, Temple University, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the UW school system, the University of Wyoming, and Weber State University. Perhaps you don’t wish to work in a particular athletic department and want to oversee the broader national collegiate athletics landscape; Marquette Law students annually secure internships with the NCAA’s headquarters in Indianapolis. If collegiate athletics don’t excite you, perhaps this will: Marquette Law has longstanding sports law internship programs with both the Milwaukee Bucks and Brewers, along with alumni connections in Major League Baseball’s New York offices. Students also secured internships with US Speedskating, as well as various sports agencies and firms. In short, Marquette produces internships in every corner of the sports law community. So there you have it: Marquette University Sports Law is a bona fide Blue Blood in sports law circles. The program commands respect from professionals in the field and provides countless experiences to ensure the next generation of sports lawyers are brighter than the last. If you’re an undergrad interested in a legal career in sports, join hundreds of successful sports professionals and consider MU Law.

Country clubs have a longstanding reputation for being incredibly exclusionary - which is accurate, as many were created to keep certain groups of people out or to only include another group. As it stands in 2021, there are reportedly still several country clubs across the globe that do not allow women or those of a specific religious group to join. Because country clubs are private businesses, they are typically allowed to make the rules as to who is allowed in, and who is not, even if it is a violation of federal or state anti-discrimination laws. As a result of a womens’ rights movement, Augusta National Golf Club, home of the famed Masters Tournament, began to allow women members to join in 2012, with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice leading the way as one of only three female members of the club. According to reports, male-only country clubs often change who they allow as members because they are holding major championships and want to keep the professional organizations happy. Up until a few months ago, Pine Valley Country Club, located in Pine Valley, New Jersey, was reportedly one of the clubs that did not allow female golfers to join the club. It appears the Club did not decide to change their one hundred year plus status as “male only” to include women out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, they were seemingly forced to do so because the golf course was the focus of a discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit actually arose out of a housing discrimination claim -- the town of Pine Valley allowed only male members of the club to purchase homes in the town. Since women could not become members of the Club -- women were only allowed to play golf on Sunday afternoons as it was -- they could not become homeowners and so the course found itself in a legal battle. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination explicitly states that one cannot deny the sale or rental of housing based on any protected characteristic, including gender. The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights has apparently had their eye on the 23 homes in Pine Valley for years, which culminated on April 30, 2021. The club president wrote that at the Annual Meeting of the Members, they decided to change the bylaws, remove gender specific language, and “move toward inclusion,” which really means: we are moving away from costly lawsuits, so, we will allow women to grace our premises now. Pine Valley has now accepted the memberships of Annika Sorenstam, one of the best female golfers of all time, as well as two decorated golf amateurs. As someone who was denied the ability to play Pine Valley because of her gender, I am particularly happy to see actual change occurring within the golf world, though there is certainly much more that can be done. It is still frustrating that it took 108 years and a massive lawsuit for the club to change but there is hope for the future of womens’ golf. Sources: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://golf.com/news/pine-valley-first-female-members-announced/#:~:text=When%20Pine%20Valley%20Golf%20Club,by%20club%20president%20Jim%20Davis. Photo Source: https://www.nj.com/news/2021/06/elite-nj-golf-club-that-finally-opened-to-women-was-focus-of-discrimination-investigation.html

MLB Structure and the CBA’s Role: Major League Baseball (“MLB”) is governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) negotiated between the Commissioner’s Office and the Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”). The Commissioner’s Office represents both MLB and Team Owners while the MLBPA negotiates on behalf of the players. An important note is that the MLBPA only represents Major League players, which does not include (i) Minor League players who have never been on a MLB 40-man roster, (ii) International free agents (before they reach the major leagues), and (iii) Players who have just been drafted. Major League Baseball’s Minor League infrastructure is unlike anything in the National Football League (“NFL”), National Basketball League (“NBA”), or National Hockey League (“NHL”), which has led to the MLBPA becoming the only of North America’s four main professional sports unions that does not represent all of its players. Because the MLBPA only represents Major League players, there are several important parties that are left unrepresented at the CBA negotiations, such as the three groups of players mentioned above. As a result, the major breakthroughs and compromises negotiated during the CBA discussions do not reflect the interests of all baseball players whose salaries and livelihoods are dictated by Major League Baseball. Current CBA Terms and Impacts on Minor Leaguers: The current CBA, which was agreed upon in 2016 and runs until the end of the 2021 season, included several compromises on behalf of both the MLB and the MLBPA. Still, some issues that should have merited more attention were brushed to the back of the agenda. After all, the two parties to the negotiations (the Commissioner’s Office and MLBPA) each have their own constituents that they must first and foremost look after. For instance, Minor League Baseball (MiLB) labor conditions have been dismal for decades, which has been well publicized (examples here, here, and here), and at times can present an insurmountable obstacle for the hard-working young men looking to achieve their dreams. Before the 2021 season, MLB condensed the amount of minor league teams – cutting down hundreds of previously available jobs for players – and mandated higher wages for the players that remained. According to reports, on average, Triple-A players make $14,700, Double-A players make $12,600, and Single-A players make $10,500 in total salary for five months of work. Those salary figures do not consider that minor leaguers traditionally do not get paid during spring training nor are they compensated for any overtime hours, despite frequently working 12-hour work-days. In the summer of 2018, I worked for a minor league team and lived with as many as six different professional baseball players at once, in a two-bedroom home. Almost all the players slept on couches or blow-up mattresses, and each of them made less than the federal minimum wage in salary. Many minor leaguers work additional jobs in the offseason to supplement their miniscule baseball related income. Yet, the CBA, ratified in 2016 by MLB and the MLBPA, did not mention anything about MiLB labor conditions or wages. It did include, however, an agreement to raise the minimum salary for only Major League Players each season from 2017-2021 (from $535,000 in 2017 to $570,500 in 2021). The amount of that wage increase ($35.5K) is more than double the amount a Triple-A player makes in a full Minor League season. Major League players have the privilege of having the MLBPA to fight on their behalf. Minor League players, many of whom must fight to stay above not only the Mendoza line, but also the poverty line, did not even have a seat at the table. Current Efforts / Looking Forward: Without much financial incentive, it is unlikely that the MLBPA would be willing to absorb minor league baseball players into the union. However, media pressure and increased public exposure to the abysmal labor conditions may lead to further change. Organizations like Advocates for Minor Leaguers (@MiLBAdvocates) and the courageous efforts of former minor leaguers such as Garrett Broshuis in the court of law have already led to progress from MLB teams. As recently as two weeks ago, several Los Angeles Angels prospects disclosed details about the Club’s MiLB conditions. Hopefully the Angels administration can follow the examples set by the Boston Red Sox – who are offering extended training back pay and retroactive housing stipends – as well as the San Francisco Giants and New York Mets, who joined twelve other teams in paying salaries to minor league players at extended spring training, and in turn improve living conditions. Perhaps one day.

Even before the news came down that the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 to head to the SEC, the SEC was already universally recognized as the premier conference in college athletics. While the other conferences have great collections of athletic programs, the SEC’s slogan stating “It Just Means More” reflects the reality of the landscape of college athletics. In a report from USA Today listing the top revenue generating athletic departments, 9 of the top 17 and 10 of the top 20 were SEC members. This influx of revenue allows these schools to invest heavily into their programs, which strengthens the chances of success on the field. Moreover, adding Texas (#1 on the USA Today report) and Oklahoma (#8) only widens the gap even more. A big reason why the SEC schools generate so much revenue is due to the media rights contracts the league is able to secure. Currently, CBS possesses the rights to SEC football games. The deal might’ve seemed fair when it was struck in 1996, but now has grown to be a tremendous bargain for CBS. Evidence for this comes in the fact that the SEC currently rakes in approximately $55 million per year until the deal expires in 2023. Beginning in 2024, ESPN and ABC will have the rights to 15 football games throughout the season along with 8 basketball contests. In the deal, the SEC is expected to receive around $300 million annually (This could increase with Texas/OU addition), nearly a 445% increase. This figure would blow away any of the other conferences by a long shot. Why does the SEC stand to have such an upper hand in television revenue? The answer may seem a lot simpler than what people make it out to be. In thinking about this issue, we need to focus on where the sources of revenue come from each party involved. In acquiring the media rights for games, networks make their money from selling advertisements to companies. Companies decide to invest in advertising because they believe many potential customers are watching these ads, which generates more sales. So in simple terms, it’s all about getting the most eyeballs on the product as possible. In today’s generation with all of the sources and forms of entertainment, people are watching less live television than ever before. In an era of recordings, Netflix, Hulu, etc., sports are one of the few things people watch as it's happening in today’s environment. So, what drives people to watch a particular sporting event, especially college sports, more than any other factor? Matchups. In the current state of college athletics, there are many games that don’t draw people in because they’re not that interesting. Whether it’s a non-conference matchup between a power program and a mid-major or a conference game between bottom feeders, outside of the fans of those particular teams, people aren’t tuning in. The evidence shows that viewers want matchups featuring two big brands pitted against each other. In the last two seasons, the most watched college football games in each of them reportedly featured the most popular brands in college sports. Alabama, Notre Dame, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, and LSU appear up and down the list. The large majority were top 10 matchups with high postseason significance. In picturing an SEC that includes Texas and Oklahoma, the potential matchups we could see on a weekly basis figure to be amazing. In the other conferences, there are only one or two popular brands that generate a lot of interest from networks or providers. In the Big Ten, it’s Ohio State and Michigan. In the ACC, it’s Clemson and Florida State. In the Pac 12, it’s USC. Quite frankly, the networks are willing to invest in the entirety of those conferences just to get those brands. In taking the two bell cows out of the Big 12, the SEC stands to have a surplus of big brands which will supply matchups that will lead to high viewership. Any combination of Alabama-Texas, Oklahoma-LSU, Texas-Texas A&M, Oklahoma-Georgia to go along with the already popular matchups like Auburn-Alabama, Florida-Georgia, etc. would trump almost any matchup another league could offer with possibly the exception of Ohio State-Michigan. This is the upper hand the SEC has and will continue to have if the other conferences don’t act fast. People were blown away when they saw the SEC’s new deal with ESPN/ABC, but when you break it down to its roots, the deal makes perfect sense because that’s where many eyeballs will go on Saturdays in the Fall. Unless the other conferences find a way to expand or somehow pull Notre Dame out of independence to join their league, the SEC will likely continue to make more revenue which will produce more success on the field/court/pitch. All due respect to certain schools in the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC, and what’s left of the Big 12, the games don’t draw anywhere near the national attention that SEC matchups do, especially in football. It will be interesting to see where things go from here, but it’s looking very profitable for the conference that claims, “It Just Means More.” You can find Brendan on Twitter @_bbell5

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) fired the opening salvo in what should be another transformative shift in college sports, at least in football and basketball. In the Universities of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC scored a touchdown in bringing in two huge brands, fertile recruiting territories and traditions of success. They were the two biggest chips not already aligned into the four biggest conferences – the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC. It also solidified the state of Texas and its major TV markets as “SEC Country,” where football is king and basketball and baseball come in a distant second and third. The move, while glorious for the SEC, also destabilized the rest of college football as another round of conference realignment is inevitable. The Big 12 Conference is the biggest loser here as the conference tethers on the precipice of collapse. The Big 12 was already down to 10 schools when Colorado and Texas A&M bolted. Now, the remaining eight schools lack a clear identity, cache, and major media market power to make them a major selling point for anyone. Is the remaining Big 12 really more powerful than the Mountain West or American Athletic Conference from a business perspective to merit a “Power 5” designation? So, what are their options? With only eight schools left in the conference, the Big 12 would likely need to add a minimum of four new schools to stay relevant. It will likely make overtures to top brands in the neighboring Mountain West Conference and American Athletic Conference. Reportedly, the Pac-12 and Big 12 are also discussing a “partnership” – although it is not likely to be a merger. A Pac-12/Big 12 merger does not make much sense for the Pac-12, although the Big 12 would leap at the opportunity. None of the remaining Big 12 programs are cultural fits with the Pac-12. The Pac-12’s most recent converts – Utah and Colorado – are still not well integrated into the West Coast culture of the other ten schools. So, how well would these Heartland and Texas-based schools fit into the wine culture of the Pac-12? Secondly, the Pac-12 needs eyeballs to raise its overall clout. None of the remaining Big 12 programs bring significant markets to make it a no brainer for the Pac-12. Even Kansas, with its basketball success and the Kansas City market, will bring more logistical challenges that outweigh the benefits. Baylor and TCU, which also have recent success, don’t move the needle with their smaller fan bases, albeit it in the coveted Dallas-Fort Worth market. Will fans in Los Angeles or Seattle be excited that Iowa State is coming to play? Raiding the Mountain West Conference, likewise, is not the panacea for the Big 12. It does not have enough brands with sufficient strength in football, market size, or national brand recognition to move the needle for the Big 12. Boise State, which may be the strongest brand in the Mountain West, is not a valuable enough piece able to save the Big 12 alone or to keep it in the Power 5 discussion. UNLV has just been terrible in recent years despite being in probably the best market in the conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, and Utah State just don’t have enough value to make them attractive to the Big 12 outside of regional fits. For the Big 12, the Big Ten is the biggest threat right now. If the Big Ten sees value in any of the Big 12’s spare parts, it will further obliterate the Big 12. Though, is anyone left in the Big 12 attractive enough to the Big Ten that it would make overtures? If you look at the Big Ten’s growth strategy, it has always revolved around the Big Ten Network. Maryland and Rutgers were huge prizes because they brought in over 20 million people into Big Ten territory and, more importantly, cable subscriber fees. With a push to streaming now, it is easier to convert current subscribers than to find new ones. Many lamented that the Big Ten made a mistake in letting in a weak Rutgers athletic program, but even a mediocre Rutgers football team still gets solid football ratings in the key New York and Philadelphia markets. The remaining Big 12 schools just do not have the same market power that even a Rutgers had. Kansas arguably can help extend the Big Ten to the Kansas City market for basketball, but is that a big enough prize for the conference to take on a another traditionally weak football afterthought? Kansas does not really offer any other strong sports programs outside of men’s basketball, and for a conference that just sent nine teams to the NCAA tournament, does it really need another basketball franchise? Remember, adding more schools only splits the financial pie more for existing schools, so unless expansion makes the pie measurably bigger, is expansion really necessary? Kansas State would offer the Big Ten a better football tradition, but they don’t present a stronger enough academic profile to fit the Big Ten’s goals for recruiting schools that have the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) academic standing. Iowa State and Kansas are both AAU schools and are in states contiguous to the Big Ten footprint. Iowa State would provide regional rivalries with Iowa and Nebraska, but its closest media markets are already solidly in the Big Ten footprint, so it does not grow the pie. Would the Big Ten be willing to make an overture to a University of Colorado to pair with Kansas to win the Kansas City and Denver markets? With the Pac-12 floundering, the Buffaloes may seize such an opportunity to roam over to the Big Ten. For the Big Ten to make relevant market gains, their best bet may be to look East into New England, which is really an untapped market for college football. Would a school such as University of Connecticut help? If so, wouldn’t it have happened already? The most logical choice for the Big 12 would be to seek out a merger with the AAC instead. As the most vulnerable of the Power 5 conferences, the Big 12 would attract instance attention from the AAC leadership with its access to the College Football Playoff. A straight Big 12-AAC merger would provide 19 schools to create a “super-regional” football conference and also bring complementary pieces. Baylor, Houston and Texas Tech are probably the best football schools in the state outside of the Longhorns and Aggies. TCU and SMU would create an intriguing rivalry in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to make further inroads in the state of Texas (an important one for TV ratings). West Virginia can rekindle an old rivalry with a Cincinnati team that has been a perennial Top 25 team and flirted with an at large CFP bid last year. UCF is a prize by itself, but with South Florida as a natural rival too, it provides a revamped Big 12 Conference with access to the fertile Florida recruiting grounds in addition to Texas and the Rust Belt recruiting. In business parlance, an AAC-Big 12 merger could be seen as a “merger of equals.” The Big 12 can certainly make a run at just those schools, but there would be value to a straight on merger. Even, small school Tulsa would provide Oklahoma State with an instate rival. Add in Wichita State for basketball and even Kansas can get excited. Temple, Memphis, and Tulane also provide the new combined conference additional markets that can prove attractive. (Navy is also a football-only member of the AAC and brings a loyal base.) Of course, even the combined entity might look to shave off some of the weaker programs to get down to 16 schools. It could force some schools such as East Carolina, Tulane and possibly Temple out. Alternatively, it could look to add a few more schools to provide a platform for a 20-24 team conference. With a more strategic footprint, the Big 12 – or whatever it would then be called – would still pale in comparison to the Big Ten and SEC, but it could be a realistic competitor to the ACC or Pac-13 for that #3 spot. It would also provide a platform to innovate with more strategic scheduling options. One way or another, the Big 12 is at a crossroads. Its remaining schools are all looking for greener pastures right now, but the options are just not there overall. So, a Big 12-AAC merger may just be the strategy that makes the most sense for both to fortify their competitive side and balance sheets. Andrew Bondarowicz, Esq. is the principal of Bondarowicz & Associates, LLC and has been involved in business and legal affairs within the sports industry for over 15 years. He has also taught Sports Law at Rutgers Law School since 2012 and the M.S. in Global Sports Business Program since its inception.

Passionate teammates, coaches, and fans are incensed at their favorite player when they turn the puck over in the defensive zone, but seemingly less so when they commit sexual assault. Thereby is the issue we face. Allegations of bullying, racism, sexual assault, domestic abuse, and more have silently followed the National Hockey League for years.[1] While the NHL has previously planned a platform for whistleblowers of abuse and training programs,[2] existing rules in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Standard Player Contract (SPC) have to be uniformly applied for them to have a true impact on player actions and attitudes. Current Issues Logan Mailloux, a top NHL prospect, was charged with defamation and offensive photography in Sweden for an incident that occurred on November 7, 2020. Mailloux asked all 32 NHL teams not to draft him in the 2021 NHL Draft, stating that he did not feel that he demonstrated enough character or maturity to earn the privilege of being drafted.[3] Mailloux was nevertheless drafted 31st overall by the Montreal Canadiens in the 2021 NHL Entry Draft. One must question whether this decision undermines the gravity of the offensive behaviour, and demonstrates the prioritization of on-ice performance over morality. Although the Canadiens have stated that they do not wish to minimize Mailloux’s actions and will provide him with the necessary tools to learn,[4] their decision to draft Mailloux suggests to NHL players and prospects that their off-ice behaviour will result in little to no career-related consequences. Otherwise, news has surfaced concerning the Chicago Blackhawks’ situation. An amendment to a lawsuit has been made stating that former video coach Bradley Aldrich forced a former player into sexual relations. Teammates engaged in “humiliating trash talking” to the player, including slur words, asking the player if he wanted to engage in oral sex for years at practices, with coaches present.[5] The Applicable Rules The SPC and CBA, among other sources, set out rules that govern players’ off-ice conduct. SPC: 14. “The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player [...] if the Player shall at any time: (a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC [...]”[6]. CBA: “18-A.2 Commissioner Authority to Impose Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct. Whenever the Commissioner determines that a Player has violated a League Rule applicable to Players [...] or has been or is guilty of conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey, he may discipline such Player in any or all of the following respects: (a) by expelling or suspending such Player for a definite or indefinite period; (b) by cancelling any SPC that such Player has with any Member Club; or (c) by imposing a fine on the Player [...].[7] 18-A.3 sets out the Procedures for Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct. The Procedures include (a) a league investigation and details on hearings (b-e).[8] Notably, the investigations occur internally between the NHL and its Players’ Association (NHLPA), where an Impartial Arbitrator is only consulted in the event of an appeal (18-A.4).[9] Recommendations Clearly, there are many rules and policies that are in place to prevent misconduct and punish players that engage therein. To little surprise, these are broad rules to allow for case-by-case interpretation. Therefore, the issue is not a lack of rules, but rather, in the application or interpretation of the meaning of said rules. Adam Kierszenblat of The Hockey Writers suggests that the NHL needs to create a policy concerning sexual assault. Kierszenbalt suggests looking at policy created by the Major League Baseball for guidance.[10] Policy, training, and whistleblowers can ensure uniformity in prevention and disciplinary process between organizations. This idea can certainly help, but policy means nothing if it is not followed nor enforced. Perhaps there is too much leniency in what is meant by “conduct that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey”. One must ask whether this leniency may be a result of the internal nature of the investigations and hearings. The NHL’s support for many other noble causes, such as the You Can Play movement, Hockey is for Everyone, and creating the O’Ree Community Hero Award provides a glimmer of hope for the strides yet to be made concerning sexual, and other off-ice misconduct. The NHL and NHLPA must continue with preventive approaches to misconduct. Equally, they ought to hold players, coaches, and organizations accountable to ensure the relevant provisions of the CBA and SPC have a preventive effect. Regardless, these individuals and entities are held to the highest standard on the ice; why should that be any different off the ice? Don’t be mistaken, there are rules in place to punish players for forms of misconduct; they’re just not impacting teams and players in a way that sits well with the public’s moral compass. Therefore, if the NHL does not interpret and apply the rules of the CBA appropriately and change attitudes around the league, it is in the best interest of the league and its players to have decisions rendered by independent and impartial arbitrators at first instance, rather than through the league’s internal mechanism. . [1]See generally Patrick Kane, Slava Voynov, Logan Mailloux. [2] Greg Wyshynski, (ESPN, 2019). NHL Plans Platform for Whistleblowers of Abuse, Training Program [3] Frank Seravalli, (Daily Faceoff, July 20, 2021) . [4] ibid [5] Ben Pope, (Chicago Sun Times, July 22, 2021) [6] Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association, Exhibit 1 Standard Player Contract, article 14(a). [7] Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association, article 18-A.2. [8] ibid, article 18-A.3(b-e) [9] ibid, article 18-A.4 [10] Adam Kierszenblat, (The Hockey Writers, July 9, 2021) NHL Needs to Create a Sexual Assault Policy

In late 2020, more than a dozen Miami Gardens residents filed suit against Miami-Dade County and Mayor Carlos Gimenez for racial discrimination, seeking to prevent Formula One races from being held at Hard Rock Stadium, where the Miami Dolphins play. The plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights as well as state, county, and city laws were violated by the large-scale, car-racing event at the Hard Rock Stadium in their city. Liberty Media, the entity that owns and controls Formula One, announced, in September 2016, its goal of expanding Formula One racing to Miami. The plans initially contemplated a long weekend of racing in 2019, through the streets of downtown Miami, near Bayfront Park and the Port of Miami, among the city's restaurants, shops, and residential areas. In May 2018, Stephen Ross, the owner of the Miami Dolphins and the owner of the exclusive franchising rights to Formula One races in South Florida, expressed the goal of Formula One, "[i]n cooperation with the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County," to "deliver yet another global event that will be a destination for people from around the world and drive economic value to South Florida." Close to one-hundred Miami Gardens residents attended a October 29, 2019 commission meeting to express their opposition to Formula One racing in their neighborhood. Various residents and city leaders voiced their concerns about the myriad of negative impacts the racing would have on Miami Gardens: "catastrophic health impacts"-namely, hearing damage and air pollution, disruption to their daily lives, not being able to access their homes during races, unacceptably high noise levels, and extreme traffic congestion. The Miami Gardens residents and community leaders also highlighted the unprecedented outcry from the Miami Gardens residents, the Dolphins' lack of effort to engage them in the process, the community's historical lack of representation in and influence on the County, and the apparent double standard between the Defendants' response to the downtown Miami residents' opposition to the race as compared to, in contrast, the Defendants' disregard of the Miami Gardens residents' similar outcry. Formula One agreed to a $5 million pact with Miami Gardens over the next 10 years. In an effort to garner support, F1 proposed a community benefits package which includes priority hiring of Miami Gardens residents, the creation of a STEM program for children and other concessions to address residents’ concerns. Still, nearby citizens felt strongly in opposition and unsuccessfully attempted to overturn the election of a city council member who supported F1's proposal. The council would eventually vote to approve F1's offer, leaving this lawsuit as the residents' last chance. After much deliberation, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued its decision on July 7, 2021, holding for the defendants, F1 and the Miami Dolphins. Ultimately, the residents' suit was dismissed because they did not state a claim that was plausible enough to lead to relief. The court reasoned that the defendants were grounded in their reasoning for holding the race at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens. Said rationale was to eliminate the need for a formal street closure, which would have been required at other proposed locations, such as Bayfront Park. As for the plaintiffs' 14th Amendment equal-protection claim, the court held that the allegations did not amount to a plausible showing that the County specifically targeted Miami Gardens because it wanted to inflict harms associated with the event specifically on Black residents. "While it is certainly plausible that the harms alleged will disproportionately impact Black residents, simply by virtue of the fact that 73% of Miami Gardens' population is Black, that alone is not enough to show discriminatory intent." "[O]fficial action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact."). In order to allege an equal-protection claim, a plaintiff must set forth facts showing not only a racially disproportionate impact, but a racially discriminatory intent or purpose as well. The latter fell short here. Excerpts from the court opinion are depicted below:

The world of Formula One continues to develop constant controversies and interesting legal issues and questions, with the second half of this season it being no exception. I've covered many of these in previous articles, but these “constant controversies” continually evolve, changing as soon as you think it's “over.” With the divisive opinions surrounding Red Bulls' “breach” of the cost cap in 2021 and continued comments around the Oscar Piastri Saga, let's get into the most recent developments with legal implications in Formula One. Red Bull found to be in “Minor Breach” of 2021 Budget Cap On the forefront of everyone's minds right now is the finding that Red Bull exceeded the budget cap during its 2021 campaign, where Max Verstappen controversially won the World Drivers Championship. Accusations from Mercedes and Ferrari have been circulating for a while now, but recently the FIA declared that Red Bull did in fact breach the budget cap during their 2021 campaign. More specifically, the FIA determined that Red Bull committed a “minor” breach of the regulations, limiting teams to 145 million dollars per year, with certain exclusions. Based on current governance, an overspend of less than 5% of the overall cap (or approximately 7.25 million dollars) is considered “minor,” and subjects a team to a number of potential sanctions by the FIA. These include: A fine in an amount to be determined on a case-by-case basis A public reprimand A deduction of Constructors' Championship points was awarded [for 2021 in this instance] A deduction of Drivers' Championship points awarded Suspension from one or more stages of a competition Limitations on the ability to conduct aerodynamic or other testing; and/or reduction of the cost cap As of the writing of this article the FIA has not announced which of the available sanctions it will levy against Red Bull, with leadership at Mercedes and Ferrari, among others, advocating for the harshest possible penalties against Red Bull. This is particularly contentious because of the circumstances in which Red Bull and Max Verstappen were able to secure the World Drivers Championship last season, in light of controversial decisions made by then-race director Michael Masi. The discovery that Red Bull has breached the cost cap has reignited Mercedes fan's criticisms of last year’s championship and is also important as the first real challenge of enforcement for the FIA in the cost cap era. What will the punishment be? Speculating on the exact extent of the reprimand faced by Red Bull is complex and challenging, especially when looking at it from as much of a neutral perspective as one can. The FIA has a delicate balance it needs to strike with the punishment it decides to hand down to Red Bull—the FIA needs to make sure that the punishment is strong enough to set the proper precedent to deter teams in the future from breaching the cost cap, but not “so harsh,” as this is the first breach which occurred (during the first year of the cost cap era) and was relatively “minor.” With the 2021 title already being as contentious as it is, I don't think that the FIA will choose the nuclear option of deducting drivers’ championship points from Max Verstappen to an extent that changes the result of the championship for 2021. That would just add more fuel to the fire and bring more attention to a controversy that Formula One and the FIA are trying to move away from, and to me (being as neutral as possible) seems a little bit harsh for a “minor” infringement during the first year of an implemented budget cap. At the same time, simply doing a public reprimand (the least severe punishment in my opinion) isn’t going to deter overspending nearly enough going forward. Personally, I think this is why the FIA is taking its time determining the punishment. They're having to weigh these thoughts and considerations to decide not only what is an appropriate punishment for Red Bull now but set the precedent for what will be considered reasonable punishments for similar breaches in the future. I suspect that the FIA will choose an option somewhere in the middle—maybe implementing a fine, including a public reprimand, and imposing a restriction on testing for Red Bull. While they could in my mind foreseeably reduce Max's total points for the year, I don't think they're going to choose this option for a couple of reasons. One of which I've already mentioned is that they're unlikely to deduct points in such a manner that it would upset the championship standings for last year, and the second reason is if they only reduce his points by a small margin, they're setting a precedent that they are not going to easily be able to deduct more points from a driver or team that does this in the future. The other thing that will ultimately affect the severity of the punishment will be the extent to which Red Bull actually breached. punishments available to the FIA under a minor breach are the same if the team over spins by a few thousand dollars up to that 7.2 million mark—it would follow that if Red Bull was closer to the low end of a breach the punishment would be less, and if they were closer to that higher end that the punishment would be stronger. Without knowing exactly how much their overspending as it is difficult to predict exactly how severe the punishment will be. Once we know more about the size of the breach and the FIA's final decision regarding the punishment it will be worth the revisit, but until then too much is up in the air. I do not envy the people tasked with coming into this decision and I can only imagine the difficulties they are having with weighing all of the variables, and I hope that they are able to accurately find that elusive middle ground for “proper” punishment. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

I've covered the tumultuous Alpine and Oscar Piastri debacle in a number of previous articles— but in light of continued comments by Alpine and now Mercedes Team Principle, Toto Wolff, I felt it warranted another examination. Wolff is on record saying that the Piastri situation sets a “dangerous precedent” for Formula One teams and their junior programs by supporting the ability of a driver to be “disloyal” to a team that has substantially invested in their career. His comments suggest that the actions by Piastri (which were upheld as valid by the FIA’s Contract Recognition Board) will negatively impact teams that have junior programs and makes signing young drivers into these programs less appealing. I don't buy it. Wolff is saying this because of his close relationship with Alpine’s Team Principal, Ottmar Szafnauer, but I don't think he really believes this statement. Formula One is a calculating, emotionless place. When a team decides that you are no longer worth keeping as a driver, they make “harsh” but necessary decisions to cut drivers all the time (see Daniel Riccardo this season, Pierre Gasly/Alex Albon at Red Bull). Piastri made a similar decision, and it just so happens that this time it was the team that got the short end of the stick and not a driver. Also, the CRB found that at the time of his signing with McLaren, Piastri had no valid or enforceable contract with the Alpine, who was dragging their feet and finding him a seat because of uncertainty surrounding Fernando Alonso. Ultimately the blame for losing Piastri lies strictly with Alpine, who failed to recognize that he was out of contract and free to explore other options. This shouldn't be discussed as a “loyalty” question, but as one of contract management and drafting and should serve as a lesson to teams to make sure they're on top of that. Sources close to Formula One have said that Alpine’s contract department is only three or four people, which for a team that claims to be a “major force” within F1 and with an extensive junior program is not enough. This understaffing certainly played a role in the drafting of Piastri’s original contract, which did not keep him contracted for long enough and gave him this contractual out. It also certainly played a role in the fact that Alpine was “blindsided” that Piastri was able to sign another contract and that they missed their own contractual provision that allowed him to do this when evaluating options for the future. It is insane to me that Alpine was/is operating with such a limited contract department, and if anything, this situation should serve as a warning and less into teams to make sure their contracts say what they think they do, last for as long as they want them to, and are actively managed, especially as they get close to expiring or certain contractual options become available. This situation is a real-world and expensive lesson in contract drafting and management, not “driver loyalty” as Alpine wants it to appear. Teams like Red Bull and Mercedes also have extensive junior programs and don't have this issue because they properly manage these contracts and have a robust department devoted to them. For example, Pierre Gasly, who has been a driver in Formula One since 2017, is still on his contract with Red Bull which was signed when he was a part of their junior program. Red Bull saw his value and decided to protect it with a long contract so that they could reap the benefits of their investment in him. Apparently, Alpine didn’t do the same with Piastri. It's not like this issue is a new one or one that is out of the normal course of dealing for teams in the sport. By failing to maintain adequate personnel and practices, Alpine is fully to blame for creating this situation. Piastri Was rightfully frustrated and found an offer that was immediate and certain, something that Alpine was unwilling to give him. Just because it is the driver getting what they want instead of a team does not make this a huge problem that sets any “dangerous precedent.” If my frustration with the continued victim narrative being proffered by Alpine wasn’t already obvious, I honestly hope the drama around the Piastri saga is mostly behind us. The CRB has issued its final decision that Piastri’s McLaren contract is valid, and he will be racing for the team next year. If the roles were switched, Alpine would have had no qualms about cutting ties with someone they invested in if it was on their terms. Hopefully, all sides can move forward and stop dragging this out and attempting to characterize the situation as a “breach of loyalty” when it isn’t and instead is a result of failing to properly manage contracts. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.