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.

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case that could have a major impact on the sports and entertainment world. The case, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith, explores the limits of the fair use doctrine, which the Supreme Court also examined in 2021 in Google LLC. V. Oracle America, Inc. The big question in Goldsmith is “[w]hether a work of art is “transformative” when it conveys a different meaning or message from its source material.” Case Background In the 1980s, photographer Lynn Goldsmith licensed a photograph of Prince to Vanity Fair Magazine. Vanity Fair magazine commissioned Andy Warhol to design a cover for Vanity Magazine using the photograph. Warhol utilized the photograph to create fifteen additional works. After Prince’s death in 2016, Goldsmith notified The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. of the alleged violation of Goldsmith’s copyright in the original Prince photograph. In 2017, the Foundation sued Goldsmith for a declaratory judgment that Warhol’s works were non-infringing or fair use of Goldsmith’s original Prince photograph. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Warhol’s use of the photograph was fair use. Goldsmith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Circuit Court ruled that the District Court erred and Warhol’s works are not fair use. Fair Use Defense First codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 details the four factors for the fair use defense: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The Supreme Court’s analysis will focus on the first factor and whether Warhol’s works are transformative. The District Court found Warhol’s work to be transformative because the works “can reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure.” The Circuit Court disagreed. Specifically, Warhol’s works “retain[] the essential elements of the Goldsmith [p]hotograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements.” At oral argument, the Supreme Court Justices utilized pop culture references to illustrate scenarios that may or may not constitute fair use. For example., Justice Thomas asked whether adding “Go Orange” (referencing Syracuse University) as a banner on Warhol’s Orange Prince would have sufficiently transformed the work to satisfy the first factor. Attorneys for the foundation indicated that Justice Thomas’s banner would not have sufficiently transformed the work. Where to draw the line? That is the big question in front of the Justices. Any ruling will have a major impact on the sports and entertainment industries as companies try to determine what can constitute fair use. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

It has been reported by Richard Childress Racing that Tyler Reddick has been bought out of his Richard Childress Racing (RCR) contract by 23XI Racing, allowing him to compete for the team in 2023. In July, it was reported that top NASCAR driver Tyler Reddick was leaving RCR to head for Michael Jordan – owned 23XI Racing in 2024. The move caught owner Richard Childress and the team off guard, as in NASCAR it is unusual for a driver to have a contract done a full year before leaving their current team. The last time this situation occurred was in 2014, coincidently with Kevin Harvick parting ways with RCR to head for Stewart-Haas Racing. Richard Childress has made it publicly clear that he was not happy with Reddick’s antics or the fact that he was leaving in 2024. In the past month, RCR has signed two-time Cup champion Kyle Busch to drive the #8 Chevy. When the announcement was made, it was overshadowed by the question of what the team would do with Reddick. At the time, Childress stated that the team would field a third car for Reddick alongside Busch and Austin Dillion. The news was made public after Kurt Busch announced that he would not be returning to 23XI in 2023. Reddick will be taking the place of Kurt Busch, who has been out of competition since July due to a concussion sustained at Pocono. In his press conference, Busch stated, “I know I am not 100% in my ability to go out and race at the top level in the NASCAR Cup Series.” The 2022 season has marked a decline in the safety of race cars in NASCAR. Drivers have become increasingly worried about the safety of the “next-gen” model after several drivers sustained concussions from rear-end collisions, apparently due to the design of the rear of the car. Reddick will join Bubba Wallace to complete the 23XI stable for 2023. This leaves Kyle Busch and Austin Dillon at RCR. At this time, it is unclear if RCR will seek to expand to a three-car program or if the idea of a third car was merely a tactic in negotiations. This is an outcome that many industry members believed was inevitable with Kurt Busch’s concussion and Kyle Busch joining RCR. This resolution will allow both programs to focus on the future without the looming distraction that would have been present if Reddick had stayed at RCR in 2023. Jack Bradley is currently a Law school student at Duquesne University School of Law and an alum of Georgetown University (MPS) and Penn State University (BA). Jack is also the Co-founder and President of Poppy Packs, a 501c3 charity, and former Head of Marketing and Communications within NASCAR. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackwilliambradley/ Twitter @JackWBradley Sources: https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2022-10-15/concussed-nascar-champion-kurt-busch-to-step-away-from-sport https://nascar.nbcsports.com/2022/10/15/tyler-reddick-to-drive-for-23xi-racing-in-2023-kurt-busch/ https://tobychristie.com/2022/10/11/report-23xi-racing-has-bought-out-tyler-reddicks-rcr-contract-for-2023/ https://nascar.nbcsports.com/2022/07/16/no-time-for-rcr-tyler-reddick-to-look-back-focus-turns-to-track-austin-dillon-richard-childress-kevin-harvick/ https://nascar.nbcsports.com/2022/07/12/tyler-reddick-will-join-23xi-racing-in-2024/

The Pac-12 Conference has had a rough go of it over the past few years. From missing out on the College Football Playoff each of the past five seasons to losing USC and UCLA to the Big Ten this past summer, it's clear that the premier conference on the West coast is going through tough times at the moment. Amid the adversity, the last thing the Pac-12 wants to see is a problem with its own network. Nonetheless, the Pac-12 Network filed a lawsuit this week against a major television provider for a breach of contract. According to Jon Wilner of the Mercury News, the network has filed a lawsuit against Dish for “withholding payments and violating the terms of their distribution agreement.” The dispute stems from the 2020 football season heavily impacted by COVID-19, especially in the Pac-12 where many schools didn’t even play half of the normal 12 regular season games. Wilner notes that the Pac-12 is seeking damages and injunctive relief in order “to both recoup the license fees Dish has already improperly withheld and to prevent any continued withholding of fees due under the parties’ agreement,” per the suit. Both Dish and the Pac-12 declined to comment on the matter, and two sources with backgrounds in sports media contracts tell Wilner that the redactions in the suit make it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. For example, the two sides agreed on a rebate for the 2020 season “calculated pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon rebate provision.” However, Dish, per the suit, “also inexplicably demanded from the Pac-12 additional rebates for the two contract years before 2020-21.” The explanation for Dish demanding additional rebates is redacted. Because of the redactions, Wilner’s sources were left wondering how Dish concluded that the shortfall in 2020 impacted the prior years and, therefore, prompted the decision to withhold present-day payments. The Pac-12 obviously contends that Dish’s position is improper and unreasonable because Dish could not possibly have suffered losses during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 contract years from COVID-19-related football shortfalls occurring one to two years thereafter. The Pac-12’s complaint includes a demand for a jury trial, so it will be interesting to see how this case plays out moving forward. The future of the Pac-12 Network is certainly up in the air at the moment along with the future of the conference as a whole. The Pac-12’s media rights deal just went to the open market after its exclusive negotiating window with Fox and ESPN concluded. Anyone interested in college sports law should pay attention to not only the resolution of the lawsuit but the Pac-12’s new media rights deal as well. Even though commissioner George Kliavkoff has expressed confidence that the remaining 10 members are committed to the conference, nothing can be set and stone until a new media rights deal with a strong grant of rights is signed. There is a lot of speculation that the Pac-12 could go heavy into streaming with Amazon or Apple with hopes to maximize revenue to keep its members from looking toward the Big Ten or Big 12. The college athletics landscape is shifting every day with lawsuits, conference realignment, transfers, and changing leadership. Add this lawsuit to the long list of business and legal issues facing the industry in this crazy time. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5