Money truly does make the world go round. Legalized sports gambling is another commodity that has been grabbing headlines over the last decade. The concept is simple, a person places a bet on any amount of various outcomes throughout the course of a quarter, game, or season. However, a simple concept is seldom as straightforward in law. As of May 14, 2018, the federal ban on sports betting was lifted by the Supreme Court of the U.S, allowing each state to decide whether or not they want sports gambling legalized. 3 years later, and there are 22 states with legalized sports betting, 8 with a recent bill passed, 18 with a bill introduced into legislation but not passed, and 3 with no bill introduced[1]. The legal well goes even deeper as the states with legalized sports betting have different prohibitions and methods of gambling permitted. For example, in New York, a resident may place a sports bet in-person at a casino, but may not place a bet over a mobile device using apps such as DraftKings or FanDuel (although a bill on this is pending). Furthermore, 12 states with legalized gambling do not allow betting on local or in-state collegiate teams. So it’s not an all-or-nothing endeavor, legalized sports gambling is a complicated issue and one that must be closely monitored and regulated. Many fans and NFL personnel fear issues of corruption and “throwing” games, especially on the collegiate level. This is a valid concern, however legalized betting will actually reduce the likelihood of corruption as the wagers will be heavily monitored and under strict regulation. This is where the NFL comes in. As of April 15, 2021, the NFL reached an agreement with Caesars, DraftKings and FanDuel as its official partners for sports gambling[2]. The NFL had been adamant in its opposition to the idea of legalized sports gambling especially in regards to their league as commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a letter to New Jersey Court that “[It] threatens to damage irreparably the integrity of, and public confidence in, NFL football”[3]. However as they say, money talks and in this case it was loud. Once the NFL could predict the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the federal ban on sports gambling, it began doing its due diligence in order to see if this is a worthwhile endeavor. The numbers they discovered were staggering as anywhere from $75-$125 billion was illegally gambled in the United States, primarily through mobile devices to offshore sports books. Those numbers are too good to ignore and the NFL quickly changed its position partnering with the three gambling companies and now expecting around $270 million in revenue from sports-betting and gambling with the potential to grow to $1 billion+[4]. The final piece of this gambling puzzle comes with balancing the betting fans viewing experience and the casual fans experience. Bettors are going to want to see live lines and prop bets, whereas the casual fan probably just wants to watch the game undisturbed. Alternate broadcasts and minor changes to the ticker on the bottom of the screen including a points line is the most likely solution, as gamblers can seek out podcasts and shows dedicated to sports betting for a more comprehensive experience. Overall, the partnership is a good thing and something that seemed inevitable. It was going to happen anyway and from the NFL’s perspective they might as well make some money off of it. Don’t be surprised to hear how that pick 6 in the dying seconds of the game might have cost someone their chance of winning or how that touchdown in garbage time affects fantasy football players. Sports and gambling have been and always will be synonymous and now they’re taking the next step towards a symbiotic relationship. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a member of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @ Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] Rodenberg, Ryan. “United States of Sports Betting: An Updated Map of Where Every State Stands.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, April 7, 2021. https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19740480/the-united-states-sports-betting-where-all-50-states-stand-legalization. [2]Nfl. “NFL Announces TRI-EXCLUSIVE Official Sports Betting Partners.” NFL.com. NFL, April 15, 2021. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-announces-tri-exclusive-sports-betting-partners. [3] Maske, Mark, and Ben Strauss. “The NFL Once Viewed Sports Betting as a THREAT. Now the League Wants the Action.” The Washington Post. WP Company, August 27, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/nfl-sports-betting/. [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/nfl-sports-betting/

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and the Jon Jones situation with the UFC is insanity. Jones is undoubtedly one of the most gifted fighters to ever grace the octagon, sporting an absurd 84.5-inch reach and a 26-1-0 record with the only loss coming via disqualification. He could have been up there among the greatest fighters in the UFC ever potentially fighting for the coveted GOAT title. However, his talent inside the ring has been overshadowed by his conduct outside of it. Jones was arrested on charges of misdemeanor battery, domestic violence, felony injury, and felony tampering with a vehicle in Nevada. The alleged facts are that Jones went back to his hotel room where his fiancée, Jessie Moses, was asleep, hit her, and pulled her by her hair when she went to leave the room. A Caesar’s Palace guard and police observed blood on Moses and their bedsheets, a bump on her lip, and Moses claimed she felt unsafe going back to the room. Jones allegedly had a dispute with his fiancée before going to a strip club and ultimately returning later. Their children were in the room during the time of the altercation. NRS 200.481: Battery is defined as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.[1] The evidence and testimony from Moses would suggest Jones has little to no defense against the battery charge. The tampering with a vehicle occurred when Jones smashed his head into a cop car while handcuffed causing more than $5000 in damages, which is the minimum to elevate tampering with a vehicle charge to a category C felony (NRS 193.130). Again, since this was seen by multiple police officers, Jones will have a tough time defending this with the only possibility being a lowering of the charge if his lawyers can prove the damage was under $5000. This is not the first time Jones has gotten in trouble. He was charged with misdemeanor battery in New Mexico and was arrested last year in 2020 for aggravated DWI, negligent use of a firearm, possession of an open container, and driving with no proof of insurance.[2] Aggravated DWI is a driver was operates a vehicle when they have a .16 BAC or higher and it carries a mandatory 48-hour prison sentence.[3] Negligent use of a firearm under NM Statute 30-7-4: Negligent use of a deadly weapon: carrying a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant or narcotic. Police responded to a gunshot fired which was eventually to have found to come from Jones’ car. He failed the three sobriety tests performed on him, had smelled of alcohol, left an open container of alcohol in his car, and had a gun under the seat of his car. All of these facts led to his conviction as the evidence surrounding the circumstances was overwhelming against Jones. Jones has also already been suspended from the UFC 3 times for banned substances (estrogen blockers that usually cover up steroid use) resulting in over 2 years of suspensions from the and his title being stripped.[4] UFC Fighter Conduct policy states discipline may be imposed for misconduct which includes: criminal offenses including… the threat of violence, domestic violence, property crimes, disorderly conduct…[5] UFC Disciplinary process launches an investigation and then can fine, suspend, or completely terminate the contract based on the results. Previous violations may be taken into account. UFC encourages fighters to reach out for mental health help and Jones did live in a trauma facility for 30 days to deal with depression in 2018 which would be taken into account in the UFC’s decision. However, in the grand scheme of Jones’ affiliation with the UFC, it’s time he is let go. UFC owner Dana White has a reputation of being more lenient with prized fighters such as Jones, but his conduct is deplorable and any revenue he would bring in via Pay-Per-View would be trumped by the negative connotations behind allowing him to fight again. Seldom do we see someone so immensely talented in the sports world completely tarnish their career and potential longstanding legacy, but Jones is one such case. It’s time to chalk him up as a phenomenal talent who made more headlines outside of the ring than in it and hope he takes the necessary steps to rehabilitate. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and serves as a 1L Representative of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bills/List (all Nevada statutes) [2] Staff, TMZ. “Jon Jones Arrest, 911 Caller Said Alleged Victim Had Bloody Nose, Mouth.” TMZ. TMZ, October 1, 2021. [3] https://nmml.org/ (all NM statutes) [4] Raimondi, Marc. “Jon Jones Agrees to Plea Deal on Dwi Charge in New Mexico.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, March 31, 2020. [5] Unit4Pt2.Docx - Https\/Canadianmmalawblog.files.wordpress.com\/2013\/04\/Ufc-Code-of-Conduct the UFC Code of Conduct I Chose Is as Follows \u201cderogatory or: Course Hero.”

If you know football, you know about Calvin Johnson. The most dominant receiver of his era racking up 11,000 yards and 83 touchdowns in 135 games and a 2021 induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Much like fellow Detroit Lions legend Barry Sanders, Johnson decided to retire early, still in his prime, in order to preserve his body and mind. Throughout his 9 year career, Johnson suffered an estimated nine concussions, an injury to his foot, ankle, both knees, and a gruesome finger injury that required surgery after he retired. When asked about his concussions, Johnson said he got used to them, “bam, hit the ground real hard. I’m seeing stars; I can’t see straight,” he says. “But I know in a couple minutes I’m gonna be fine. Because I’ve done that plenty of times before.” He also explained “I knew I was concussed because I blacked out. I wasn’t seeing straight. And they wanted me to change my story”1. His decision is logical and it seemed as if no one really resented the fact he had called it an early career. From a fan’s perspective it is a shame to watch such a talent hang up his cleats when he had more to give. In 2012, Johnson signed a 7 year, $113 million extension with $53 million in guaranteed money, making him the highest paid receiver at that time. This included a signing bonus worth $16 million and this is where the problems arose. In 2017, a report was released stating that as a result of his early retirement the Lions asked for 10% of that bonus back ($320,000) which Johnson obliged, albeit with Johnson frustrated with the demand2. Contractually, the Lions could have asked for a settlement worth $3.2 million, but instead demanded Johnson return $1.6 million, not just the 10%. They offered a 500k annual salary plus another 100k to Johnson’s charitable organization of choice if he worked 28 hours of promotional appearances per year which he rejected. Johnson was already frustrated with how the Lions treated him throughout his career and even more so with the original request for 10% of his bonus. This new request only furthered the dismay between the Lions and Johnson with Johnson saying it’s not about the money, but about the principle and desire for the Lions to treat him how he believes he deserves3. The Lions responded to this claiming that they could not give Johnson his money outright since the NFL would audit the payment, a standard practice to ensure NFL teams are not manipulating cap space. The interesting part about this situation is that generally teams do not recall signing bonuses, especially with a player of Johnson’s caliber. The Lions cannot use the money recouped towards current roster signings or to increase their cap space for the upcoming years. It’s more likely a precedent to make sure other players do not believe they will be guaranteed money if they decide to follow in the footsteps of Johnson and Sanders and retire before completing their contract. The fans immediate reaction was to back Johnson as he is an iconic player to their franchise. However, it’s tough to place blame firmly on one side. The Lions handled the situation poorly, but their reasoning is understandable. They don’t need the $3.2 million as the franchise is worth $2.4 billion, but the precedent they set is important. There’s a fine line between honoring the great players of the franchise and establishing a firm rule of commitment to honoring a contract. Johnson has a right to be disgruntled, especially if his allegations against the Lions training staff are true. However, there must be some level of compromise on his side as it seems the Lions are trying to make amends within the guidelines of the league’s rules. The 28 hours a year of promotional material, 5 of which would be based around the Lions' retirement of Johnson’s jersey, seems to be a fair offer. It would be a shame for a legend like Megatron to distance himself from football and the only team in his career, but the situation does not seem like it’s going to resolve itself anytime soon. Hopefully, Johnson will find some middle ground with the organization in order to immortalize him within Detroit by having #81 in the rafters of Ford Field. 1 Dator, James. “Calvin Johnson's Beef with the Lions, and His $1.6M DEMAND, Explained.” SBNation.com. SBNation.com, September 15, 2021. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2021/9/15/22675896/calvin-johnsons-beef-lions-1-6m-payment-nfl. 2 Windsor, Shawn. “It's on the Detroit Lions to Make Amends with Calvin Johnson over PETTY $320,000 Payback.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, May 25, 2017. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2017/05/25/calvin-johnson-detroit-lions-feud/345816001/. 3 Smith, Posted by Michael David. “Report: Calvin Johnson Turned down LIONS' Offer of $500,000 a Year for 28 Hours of Work.” ProFootballTalk, August 7, 2021. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/07/report-calvin-johnson-turned-down-lions-offer-of-500000-a-year-for-28-hours-of-work/. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a member of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter.

The NFL email scandal involving the Washington Football Team and Jon Gruden is a twisted web of allegations and evidence. It seems as if every day there is more news coming out about the situation that adds fuel to the fire. The Washington Football Team is being investigated by the NFL after female employees of the team alleged sexual harassment in 2020. After the original accusation, some of the Washington cheerleaders also claimed to have been videotaped while getting undressed and ultimately reached a settlement[1]. The alleged involvement of former WFT president Larry Michael and team owner Dan Snyder were both involved in ordering the videos to be taken[2]. The NFL took over the investigation from Snyder in August after Snyder’s alleged involvement and perpetuation of a misogynistic and discriminatory culture of the organization. The team was fined $10 million, and Snyder stepped down from his duties. All of this has culminated in the NFL diving into the content of 650,000 emails sent to and from Washington Football Team employees and executives. The NFL has yet to release these emails but the NFLPA and attorneys of 40 former WFT employees are petitioning for their release. The most recent domino to fall from this entire investigation is the exposure and immediate resignation of former Las Vegas Raiders’ coach Jon Gruden. Gruden, while working for ESPN in 2011, was sending emails to former Washington Football Team president Bruce Allen containing abhorrent language about race and sexuality, even going so far as to accuse the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell of forcing the LA Rams to draft a player based on his sexual orientation [3]. The exposure of these emails led to Gruden’s apparent voluntary resignation as head coach of the team. Recently rumors are swirling that Gruden might sue the NFL for its role in leaking his emails. Gruden was still owed money from his head coaching contract, and he might be entitled to it. Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports analyzed this issue referencing the fact that if Gruden can prove that he resigned under the pressure of being fired anyway (called constructive discharge) then he would be entitled to the guaranteed money from his contract [4]. Furthermore, Gruden has a variety of torts he may be able to sue the NFL for. Our own Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) listed these potential torts: 1) Invasion of privacy (several types) 2) Intentional infliction of emotional distress and 3) Negligent infliction of emotional distress. The invasion of privacy would stem from the emails sent between Allen and Gruden since at the time Gruden was not an employee of the NFL and had been sending his emails from a private account, while Allen was sending his emails through the WFT address. There is usually some clause or agreement signed by employees about the privacy of emails but even absent an agreement, courts generally rule that employees should not expect to have that level of privacy, and therefore it would not be protected under the reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th amendment[5]. So, while Allen has no defense, Gruden may have grounds for a suit since he was not an employee of the NFL at the time of the emails and used a private email, meaning he would have expected some level of privacy. Regarding intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, they require; (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly (or negligently); (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress[6]. If Gruden can prove the leaks were intentional, he may have grounds for this suit. If he cannot prove the leaks were intentional, he could sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress since leaking emails would be negligent behavior of those supposed to protect them. The intentional or negligent leaking of private emails would be outrageous, the conduct was the cause of Gruden’s firing and subsequent emotional distress, and if the firing and backlash have caused Gruden severe emotional distress he will have grounds for this suit. Whether Gruden pursues legal action, or he and Raiders’ owner Mark Davis settle behind closed doors is yet to be seen. However, don’t be surprised to see more news about the 650,000 emails and Las Vegas, it’s a good bet there’s plenty hiding beneath the surface. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a 1L Representative of the Hofstra Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found on Twitter at @Evan_Mattel21. [1] Salvador, Joseph. “Lawyers Want WFT Investigation Findings Released.” Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, October 12, 2021. [2] Fisher, Mike. “Washington Football Team Reaches Settlement with Cheerleaders over Lewd Videos.” Sports Illustrated Washington Football News, Analysis and More. Sports Illustrated Washington Football News, Analysis and More, February 11, 2021. [3] Benjamin Oct 15, Cody. “Washington NFL Email Scandal: Everything We Know so Far about Investigation That Led to Jon Gruden Resignation.” CBSSports.com, October 15, 2021. [4] Robinson, Charles. “How Much Will the Raiders Ultimately Pay Jon Gruden to Leave? It Depends If He Wants to Fight.” Yahoo! Sports. Yahoo!, October 18, 2021. [5] Team, Findlaw. “Email Privacy Concerns.” Findlaw, June 21, 2016. [6] Richards, Edward. “Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, 1997.

The Sacramento Kings have long been maligned for their inability to evaluate and draft NBA-caliber talent. Over the past decade, they’ve drafted players such as Jimmer Fredette, Thomas Robinson, Quincy Douby, and Tyreke Evans over NBA stars like Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, Kemba Walker, Klay Thompson, Kyle Lowry, and Kawhi Leonard. The most recent Kings blunder came in 2018 when they decided to draft Duke star Marvin Bagley III over current all-stars Luka Doncic and Trae Young. The caveat in this story is that Bagley is not a bad player at all. He is not, and most likely never will be, on the level of Doncic or Young but he’s a solid player averaging 14.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, and about a block per game on 25 minutes in his career. Those stats aren’t getting any all-star nods, but they’re solid enough to be a starter or solid bench piece on most teams in the NBA. So why has he been scratched from the already below-average Kings’ rotation? The Kings have made no statement as to why they have buried Bagley on the bench even though he could likely be a solid starter for the team. The most logical theory is the underlying malice between the Bagley family and the Kings’ organization. During a Kings game on January 2 2021, Bagley’s father Marvin Bagley Jr. tweeted out “@SacramentoKings PLEASE trade Marvin Bagley III ASAP! Love – Coach Bagley” from an account called Team Bagley[1]. Bagley refused to comment on his father’s tweet and only offered comment on his trade rumors in September saying “I’m right where God wants me to be”[2]. The situation has come to a head with Bagley’s omission from the team’s opening game rotation. This is surprising and seems like poor management from the Kings. Bagley is in the last year of his rookie contract with the team. A rookie contract is the initial player contract between an NBA team and their first-round pick and is a binding contract and therefore legally enforceable. Rookie contract stipulations are generally simple with the concept being that the player must show up to practices, meetings, and games and the team provides a salary and the means to play professionally. The contract length is 2 years with a team option for the 3rd and 4th years[3]. Team options grant the team the right to keep the player for another year if they choose to exercise the option, meaning Bagley has had no opportunity to enter free agency[4]. Unfortunately for Bagley, the team had and continues to have complete control over him for the first 4 years of his career since they have picked up his team option in both the 3rd and 4th years and have shown no interest in trading or releasing him. The Kings are running out of time to figure this out. They are on their last year of team control and can only offer an extension, a qualifying offer, or let Bagley test free agency. A qualifying offer is a one-year contract and if it’s rejected, Bagley enters restricted free agency where any team can offer him a contract which the Kings can match and re-sign him if they want[5]. ESPN’s Bobby Marks mentioned a clause in Bagley’s contract that states if Bagley does not start 41 games or play 2000 minutes, his qualifying offer drops from 14.8M to 7.3M[6]. If the Kings are restricting his minutes to lower a potential qualifying offer, that seems immaterial because all indications point toward Bagley declining any offer from the Kings. Unfortunately for Bagley, he has no legal avenue to void the contract. By signing the rookie contract in 2018, he essentially committed to the team for 4 years regardless of how the Kings utilize him. Bagley’s agent is understandably upset, but ultimately powerless to resolve the issue until the season ends unless his client decides to retire (unlikely) or sacrifice his salary and hold out with the hopes of forcing a trade. The Kings’ handling of the situation is perplexing, to say the least. There seems to be no mutual interest between the team and Bagley, so after this year it’s likely Bagley looks elsewhere to continue his career. At this point, his trade value will only diminish as he remains on the bench. It is possible in the upcoming CBA agreement that certain rookie contract clauses will be implemented to provide players with more power to be moved if they are being underutilized. However, the balance of power between player and team is delicate and likely not to be disturbed. Regardless of the Kings’ decision, their mismanagement of the situation must inspire skepticism of any players considering Sac-town in free agency and the Kings’ crown will continue to get heavier until they clean up the handling of their young talent. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a 1L Representative of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] Staff, CBS13. “Father of Kings' Fox Chimes in after Bagley's Dad Deletes Trade Request.” CBS Sacramento. CBS Sacramento, January 3, 2021. [2] Anderson , Jason. “Kings’ Buddy Hield, Marvin Bagley III ... - Sacbee.com.” SacBee.com , September 28, 2021. [3] “NBA Contract Types.” CBA Breakdown. Accessed October 20, 2021. [4] Schuhmann, John. “2021 Free Agency: Options and Qualifying Offers.” NBA.com. NBA.com, August 2, 2021. [5] Id. [6] Sara, Arlos. “Marvin Bagley in Danger of Losing $7,500,000 after Kings' 'Baffling' Decision.”

Sports are inherently physical in nature. Football, basketball, soccer, and hockey are the first examples that come to mind when someone mentions a “contact sport.” The rules allow for contact, and it is a fundamental part of their game. However, the type of contact allowed is not always the one seen. It is common to see fights in sports, especially in hockey where it seems to be a normal part of the game. However, far too often there are actions taken by professional athletes with the intent of retaliation or injury against an opposing player. Whether it be Ndamukong Suh’s stomp, Grayson Allen’s tripping, Chase Utley’s slide into second, or most recently, Nikola Jokic’s shove on Markieff Morris, there is no place for this sort of behavior within sports. It crosses the line of competitive fire into reprehensible action with potential legal consequences. The idea that one athlete could and would sue another is admittedly taboo. Fights and seemingly unnecessary physical altercations are usually written off as competition boiling over and heat of the moment situations. However, there is legal precedent for this. Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals Inc. is a case describing such a situation. Dale Hackbart, former NFL player for the Denver Broncos at the time, filed suit against an opposing player, Charles Clark, and Clark’s team, the Cincinnati Bengals. Hackbart was playing in a game against the Bengals when Charles Clark punched the back of Hackbart’s head and neck. Neither player complained to one another or the officials and returned to the sidelines. Hackbart sued Clark and the Bengals for injuries sustained as a result from the punch and the District Court’s initial ruling was in favor of Clark and the Bengals. Their rationale was that football is an inherently violent sport and players assume the risk when agreeing to compete in the sport. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit reversed this decision and remanded the case for a new trial stating that while football is inherently violent, there are official NFL rules preventing this type of behavior (the unnecessary roughness rule that can lead to an ejection and possible suspension) meaning the scope of implied consent while playing football does not expand to physical violence outside of the field of play[1]. The Hackbart case was supported in Gauvin v. Clark, a case involving a hockey player hitting another player with the stick causing internal injuries and hospitalization. The court concluded that “participants in an athletic event owe a duty to other participants to refrain from reckless misconduct and that liability may result from injuries caused a player by reason of a breach of that duty”[2]. The rationale behind these decisions is a deterrent for players who are looking to retaliate on the field and escalate already unnecessary and reckless violent acts any further. Allowing litigation based on the aggressors negligently reckless conduct or intentional acts gives the victim an outlet to recover for damages sustained as a result. Basketball also has rules against fighting in Section V-Conduct in the official NBA rulebook. “Fighting” is penalized by assessing a technical or flagrant foul which can result in ejection, suspension and a fine[3]. The existence of this rule in the NBA means that the recent Markieff Morris/Nikola Jokic situation could potentially end in a lawsuit against Jokic. Although unlikely to ever result in a suit, if Morris could prove damages based on the shove from Jokic, he could have a case. Morris did technically initiate the altercation with an elbow, but Jokic escalated it to a point of potential injury. I am not advocating for stricter officiating or discouraging contact within sports, I enjoy a minor altercation, I think it can add to the passion of the game. However, there needs to be stronger punishment for players acting recklessly or intentionally. A suspension and fine are usually common and can work, but they are rarely substantial enough to create adequate deterrence for future actions (i.e., Jokic only received a one game suspension). I don’t think every fight should result in litigation, but it’s important that players understand the potential consequences of their actions. Contact and competitive flare is what makes sports intense and enjoyable, but potentially season or career ending injuries stemming from violent conduct is unacceptable and has no place in sports. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a 1L Representative of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, (U.S. App. 1979) LEXIS 14111, [2] Gauvin v. Clark, 537 N.E.2d 94 (Mass. 1989) [3] “Rule No. 12: Fouls and Penalties.” RULE NO. 12: Fouls and Penalties, January 1, 98AD. https://official.nba.com/rule-no-12-fouls-and-penalties/#fightingfouls.

Major League Baseball is in the middle of a lockout with the potential to miss Spring Training and possibly regular season games. From the fan’s perspective, the “millionaires fighting with billionaires” narrative has been thrown around as the motto for these negotiations between owners and players, and it’s not inaccurate. The common fan does not want to see major league players and owners deprive the nation of baseball over dollars and cents. However, the issue runs somewhat deeper than that. So how did we get here? Well, the MLB and MLB Players Association’s (MLBPA) Collective Bargaining Agreement expired on December 2, 2021. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract between the MLBPA and MLB establishing the structure of employment and financial compensation[1]. The MLBPA is made up of an Executive Director and four Associate Representatives who will negotiate on behalf of all major league players. The MLB side of these negotiations is constructed of the 30 owners of each MLB team respectively. To simplify it; the players and the owners are disputing what labor terms, salary structure, and general rules of baseball should be for the next 5 or so years. The main demands on the players’ side include an earlier opportunity to enter free agency and arbitration, an increase to the luxury tax, higher salaries for rookies and young players entering the league, and some policies to discourage teams from “tanking”[2]. That’s a lot of baseball jargon so let’s break each one down. Free agency and arbitration in baseball is a complicated topic and could be an article on its own, however in the simplest terms; a player brought up from the minor leagues must spend 172 days on the major league team’s roster to gain one year of service time. After three years of service, the player gets the minimum salary ($570,500/yr) and then following that year they become eligible for arbitration, where salary is increased or decreased based on the player’s value/contributions, for at least the next three years unless the team wants to bypass arbitration and sign the player long-term[3]. Finally, after a minimum of six years of qualified service time, the player may enter free agency. Teams can further their control over a player by keeping them below the 172 days of service by optioning them back and forth between the major and minor leagues. As you may see, the players are somewhat justified in their gripes in this area. A team may control a player for at least six years before they can obtain a long term or more lucrative contract. Young players who rise quickly to stardom such as Aaron Judge or Juan Soto are compensated far below their value and with no guarantee of long-term financial security. In the most recent proposal, the MLB proposed draft pick rewards for teams that do not manipulate service time and give more money to all players with two or more years of service. The MLBPA was reportedly unhappy with the proposal and rejected it[4]. An increased luxury tax and policies to discourage tanking go hand in hand. Tanking is a team’s lack of effort to win and succeed, either to secure high draft picks or save money in salary. The luxury tax is a percentage tax on a team if their payroll exceeds different thresholds (210 million, 230 million, and 250 million). An increased luxury tax and the implementation of a salary floor (minimum amount of money spent on salary) would appease the players and discourage tanking, but likely aggravate owners who do not want to be forced to spend a certain amount of money nor pay players more per year. As probably evident, the MLB lockout is a well that runs quite deep. The fundamental issue is player compensation and their ability to control their financial gains. Fans are left in the dark on an issue that could deprive them of the very sport they pay to watch. Prepare for a long winter and possibly a longer spring as each side counters negotiations and hopefully finds a middle ground before the start of the season. Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law and a 1L Representative of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter. [1] “Collective Bargaining Agreement,” Collective bargaining agreement - BR Bullpen, accessed January 14, 2022 [2] Halicke, Chris. “Report: MLB, MLBPA TO RESUME CBA Negotiations on Thursday.” Sports Illustrated Texas Rangers News, Analysis and More. Sports Illustrated Texas Rangers News, Analysis and More, January 11, 2022. [3] Velayos, Diana. “Who Is the Lowest-Paid Player in the MLB? Is There a Minimum Salary?” AS.com. AS En, January 13, 2022. [4] Passan, Jeff. “Why MLB's Labor Negotiations Have Gone Nowhere -- and Baseball's Path Back.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, January 5, 2022.

Angel Hernandez is one of, if not the most, recognizable umpire in the MLB. Unfortunately, for all of the wrong reasons. The Original Suit Much maligned for his inconsistencies on the field, Hernandez put his name at the forefront of the sport when he filed a discrimination claim against the MLB in 2017 alleging that there was not enough diversity among major league umpires. This claim was originally tossed by the courts in March of 2021 and Hernandez promptly filed a motion to reconsider, citing a misapplication of the law by the jury. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York originally ruled that it is impossible to statistically prove racial discrimination based on the small sample size of major league umpires. Oetken also denied his motion to reconsider citing the fact that Hernandez was advocating for policy change rather than something that can be remedied by the courts. The Current Claim Fast forward another year to the present day and Hernandez's lawyers have filed a claim to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to overturn the summary judgment of Judge Oetken, this time citing that the MLB allegedly manipulated Hernandez's performance reviews in order to deny him an assignment to high profile games such as the World Series. Hernandez and his lawyers focus their argument around the concept of "the inexorable zero." The inexorable zero first arose in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States which was centered around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from discriminating based on race or national origin. The precise meaning of the "inexorable zero" is still lacking a firm standard, however, it references the complete absence or a negligible amount of minorities hired by an employer. Judge Oetken rejected this sentiment in the original claim stating, "Hernandez attempts to rely on the inexorable zero,' or the notion that courts should set aside statistical analyses in circumstances where few minorities or women have been employed. While the inexorable zero may be compelling in the case of a larger employer who has hired or promoted no minority candidates, it is less compelling in the present context, where both the pool of umpires and the number of available promotions are small." Hernandez and his lawyers reject this argument, stating that this sort of rationalization is an avenue for smaller employers to discriminate and not be subject to Title VII regulation. Is Hernandez Right? (Kind of) Whether the claims of Hernandez and his lawyers are legitimate in reference to the overall hiring and promotion practices of Major League Baseball, in Hernandez's case he is far from deserving a spot in high-leverage games. It's easy to point to the three overturned calls in game 3 of the 2018 ALDS between the Yankees and Red Sox as the glaring example of poor performance. However, it's not just one bad day. For the 2022 season, Hernandez is in the bottom 10 in accuracy, bottom 5 in consistency, and bottom 5 in wrong calls, with 126 in 11 games behind the plate. All of these statistics are taken from Umpire Scorecards, a website dedicated to using analytics and statistics to determine the performance of an umpire during each individual game and throughout the season. Umpire Scorecards is not affiliated with the MLB and therefore is a valuable neutral source of reference. With all that being said, Hernandez's claims could at least raise valuable talking points for the MLB. There are only 2 minorities crew chiefs out of 19 total and there are statistically worse umpires than Hernandez who have been promoted to crew chief. Whether the claim is successful or not, players and fans alike should be pushing for the best umpires to become crew chiefs. The information is there and provided to the public by a neutral party. There are plenty of phenomenal umpires in the league like Venezuelan-born Edwin Moscoso, who since 2019 is 6th in accuracy sitting at 94.6% and is up to 94.4% consistency this season (11th best), or Mexican-born Alfonso Marquez, who is first in consistency (95%) and 3rd in accuracy (95.2%) for the 2022 season. So while Hernandez might not be the ideal head of this movement, the idea behind it has legitimate merit. There should be more pressure on the MLB to have the best umpires as crew chiefs, and the best of those crews umpiring the highest leverage games of the season and postseason. Following this practice would seem to take positive steps towards remedying the alleged lack of diversity, as there are minority umpires currently sitting atop the stats. Either way, Hernandez's claims could have a positive impact on the league going forward and at the end of the day, fans, players, umpires, and the MLB just want to see the best product possible. Evan Mattel is a rising 2L at Hofstra Law and VP of Sports of the Hofstra Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He is also an editor for Conduct Detrimental. He can be found on Twitter at @Evan_Mattel21.

The Build-Up to Now: A lot has gone on with the Deshaun Watson story in the past month. After being traded to the Cleveland Browns and given a lucrative contract guaranteeing $230 million over 5 years plus a $44 million signing bonus, Deshaun Watson addressed his game plan for the lawsuits against him. When asked if Watson would settle the lawsuits he stated "That's not my intent, my intent is to continue to clear my name as much as possible, and that's what I'm focused on." Fast forward to June 21, 2022, and 20 of the 24 suits have been settled. Settling the lawsuits Is not an indication of Watson admitting guilt, it is likely that the process of going to trial for 24 suits would be too time-consuming and too costly for both parties. The actual figures and reasoning of why these 20 plaintiffs settled are confidential and according to Tony Buzbee, there won't be any further comment on the matter. The interesting thing is that the original suit including Ashley Solis is still on track to go to trial after March 1, 2023. Buzbee and Hardin agreed not to go to trial between August 1, 2022, and March 1, 2023, presumably so Watson can potentially play the NFL season if he avoids a season-long suspension (which is a big if). It was reported last week that Deshaun Watson and his team are bracing for a "significant suspension" for breaching the NFL's personal conduct policy (significant is likely to mean the entire season). The policy relating to Watson's case states "Even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses." Apparently, Watson had met with 66 different massage therapists over the course of 17 months and used Non-Disclosure Agreements to keep it "professional." The plot thickened even further when Buzbee named the Houston Texans as defendants in the case after it was alleged that the team set up a place at a hotel in Houston for these massage therapy sessions and that the NDA used by Watson was given to him by a Texans employee. Watson's lawyer, Rusty Hardin, drew the public's ire after he went on SportsRadio 610 in Houston and stated "I don’t know how many men are out there now that have had a massage that perhaps occasionally there was a happy ending, alright? Maybe there’s nobody in your listening audience that never happened to. I do want to point out, if it has happened, it’s not a crime, OK? Unless you are paying somebody extra or so to give you some type of sexual activity, it’s not a crime.” While technically "correct", Hardin does not win many bonus points in the PR department. So where are we? A grand jury in Harris County and another grand jury in Brazoria County decided that they would not bring forward any criminal charges against Watson for the alleged behavior. Watson has settled 20 suits and has 4 more still on pace to go to trial after March 1, 2023, including the original plaintiff Ashley Solis. The NFL has finished its investigation and now faces significantly more pressure as the Texans were named defendants. The problem now escalates from an individual player's behavior to an organizational level of misconduct. The NFL must decide a proper punishment for Watson in the form of a suspension, fine, or both, as well as if there will be any action taken against the Texans organization as a whole for their role in this case. Watson will likely be suspended for at least 6 games, probably the entire 2022-2023 NFL season. As for the Texans, if they are found to have facilitated Watson's behavior they could face further disciplinary action by the league. The Cleveland Browns look like they'll have to wait a year to see Watson under center in the orange and brown, but considering they structured his contract to only pay him $4 million this year, it seems they expected this result. My Opinion: I, as well as all NFL fans and all sports lawyers, will be intently watching this case unfold. Personally, I think a year suspension is far too little for the overall context surrounding Watson's case. However, the NFL has not been exactly harsh with punishment (See Donte Stallworth). Watson is a talented player and was one of the league's most exciting talents out of college, but I find it hard to believe anyone outside of Cleveland will be rooting for him. As for now, only time will tell the outcome of this whole situation and Watson's punishment, all we can do is wait. Evan Mattel is a rising 2L at Hofstra Law and VP of Sports of the Hofstra Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He is also an editor for Conduct Detrimental. He can be found on Twitter at @Evan_Mattel21 and on LinkedIn.

Tampering. We hear about it all the time and we know as sports fans that tampering is not allowed and usually results in some sort of punishment in the form of a fine, revocation of draft picks, or prevention of trades. But what exactly constitutes tampering and why are the Knicks under investigation for it? What is Tampering? The NBA's tampering rule states that "an owner, executive, coach, player, or any member of the organization cannot speak to a player signed by another franchise in the hopes of persuading him to join their team." The rule at its base is vague and it might be left that way intentionally. What constitutes persuasive speech? Can a member of an organization simply have a casual conversation with a player? Can players themselves spend time together during the season or in the offseason? We've certainly seen examples of this with the Banana Boat Crew (Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Paul) and in the numerous player interactions in the NBA Bubble during the shortened season. In a 2018 News Conference, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver stated that tampering is "not always a simple, bright line...I think it's a little bit you know it when you see it." While Commissioner Silver may think he knows it when he sees it, there still must be a formal investigation with tangible evidence of tampering. The room for interpretation comes with how the evidence gathered is analyzed. Examples of tampering violations include: 76ers President Daryl Morey was fined $75,000 for tweeting "Join 'em" about Steph Curry joining his brother Seth in Philadelphia Draymond Green was fined $50,000 for simply suggesting Devin Booker leave the Suns Heat President Pat Riley fined $25,000 stating he would leave a "key under the mat" if LeBron James ever wanted to come back to Miami As you can see, there is a broad range of statements that can be interpreted as tampering and the fines seem more like a preventative slap on the wrist, rather than a harsh punishment. Why are the Knicks Being Investigated? This offseason, the Knicks made their big free agent signing with former Dallas Maverick guard Jalen Brunson. Brunson had been linked to the Knicks before the official first day of free agency as the Knicks needed a consistent starting point guard. However, these ties became much stronger and no doubt caught the eye of the NBA when the Knicks hired Jalen's dad, Rick Brunson, as an assistant coach. Well, that seems like a pretty slam-dunk piece of evidence right? The Knicks hired Brunson's dad to get to Jalen through him. Well, the ties may run deeper than just the surface. The Knicks have seen two assistant coaches come and go since the original hiring of head coach Tom Thibodeau in 2020; Kenny Payne and Mike Woodson who were both lured away with head coaching jobs for their alma mater. Knicks' current assistant coach Johnnie Bryant is still on staff but had been linked to the Utah Jazz as a potential head coach candidate and although he didn't get the job, it wouldn't be surprising to see him moving on from the Knicks in the coming years. As a result, Thibodeau and the Knicks are constantly searching for another talented assistant coach who is not only a valuable contributor to the team's success but also someone Thibodeau can trust. Enter Rick Brunson. The former NBA player was on Thibodeau's Chicago Bull's coaching staff as an assistant coach from 2010-2012 and again with Thibodeau as an assistant on the Minnesota Timberwolves from 2016-2018. This could simply be a case of a head coach wanting a trusted assistant on the staff. Now, I'm not oblivious to the obvious connection between the Knicks signing Rick Brunson and following that with signing his son. So, let's analyze what could hurt the Knicks in this case. Beyond the father-son connection, reports of Brunson's signing were released by Shams Charania on Twitter at 5:02 PM on 06/30, an hour before free agency officially opened. The signing was made official by Adrian Wojnarowski at 9:33 PM on 06/30. This comes on the back of weeks of stories surrounding the Knicks and the Brunsons, so the media was primed to jump on the story. Furthermore, animosity came from the Mavericks who stated they never even got the chance to offer Brunson a contract. In the Knicks' Defense Full disclosure, I am a Knicks fan, but beyond that, I'm an NBA fan. Even if I wasn't rooting for the Knicks every year, I'd have the same stance on the issue. The Knicks tampering investigation is ridiculous. The NBA has been inconsistent with handing down punishments for tampering and the definition of tampering is too vague for teams and their members to abide by any regulation. Tampering happens every offseason in the NBA. When the banana boat crew was hanging out together, I find it hard to believe Lebron and Wade didn't float the idea of teaming up with Paul and Carmelo. DeAndre Jordan was signed by the Denver Nuggets this offseason at 6:00 PM on June 30, the exact minute that free agency officially opened. While I think that NBA teams are pretty good at negotiation, I don't think they're making free agency deals in less than 60 seconds. Is it outlandish to think that during the Olympics or in the NBA bubble that players were talking with each other about teaming up in the future or making pitches about when and where to join forces? The Knicks' hiring of Rick Brunson is suspect from an outside perspective, but it's plausible Thibodeau just wanted a trusted assistant. Furthermore, before Rick Brunson was hired, he could have talked to his son about free agency, and when he was hired, is he not allowed to talk to his son at all? The Mavericks' displeasure in all of this is unwarranted as they not only had a chance to offer Jalen an extension and Jalen even stated on The Old Man and the Three that he told his father he planned on being with Dallas for his career. Their inability or unwillingness to match Jalen's desired contract is why they lost him to New York, not because New York had been dealing under the table. Conclusion I don’t know if the Knicks tampered with the Brunson signing or not. The optics of signing his father and then him in the offseason are not great but there are factors that would suggest the two signings are unrelated. It seems odd for the NBA to pick out this specific signing as the one to go after. It’s widely assumed that teams are negotiating with players before free agency officially opens and players are constantly trying to recruit others to their team. I’m not advocating for the elimination of tampering as a whole, I just think that the NBA needs clearer guidelines for what constitutes tampering and be strict in their enforcement. At the moment, it seems unfair for the punishments to be sporadic and inconsistent. I will eagerly await the results of the investigation and update this article when the findings and potential punishment are released. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law and VP of Sports for the Hofstra Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found on Twitter at @Evan_Mattel21 and on LinkedIn.

The tragic and untimely death of former Los Angeles Angels Pitcher Tyler Skaggs was a blow to the sports world and something not soon forgotten. From the surface, the situation is messy with the Angels under public scrutiny for employing Eric Kay and being unaware of the distribution of opioids throughout the organization to an estimated total of five players, plus Kay himself. This has all culminated in a wrongful death suit from the Skaggs family claiming the Angels were negligent in allowing Kay, who had previously had a history of opioid abuse, to have access to players without proper supervision[1]. This leads us to the latest media headline: Angels Refusing Cooperation in Subpoena. Of course after reading that sort of headline, the immediate reaction is disapproval with the Angels organization. However, the situation is not as it may seem and provides opportunity to dive under the surface of this case. A subpoena is a court order and in this case they’re ordering the Angels to hand over more information in regards to “any of all documents, records, reports, and information made, commissioned, or obtained by Angels Baseball, LP regarding the distribution of drugs by any Angels Baseball, LP employees or contractors or otherwise within the organization.”[2]. So why are the Angels allegedly not cooperating? Well to start, the Angels have already been cooperative in this case. An Angels team attorney, John Cayee was quoted saying, “In short, Angels Baseball has always met and conferred in good faith, responded in accordance with agreed upon deadlines (and often well in advance of those deadlines), and produced what was requested. The only documents Angels Baseball has refused to produce are those protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product protections, including those relating to its internal investigation arising out of [Skaggs’] death.”[3] So it’s not as if the Angels have been fighting the investigation this whole time, there are certain documents that the Angels are not legally required to share. Attorney-client privilege keeps all communications between legal attorney and their client private and work product protections means that the opposing attorney’s may not use written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in legal preparation[4]. Furthermore, it’s expected procedure to oppose a subpoena of this manner. Federal prosecutors have been aware of the Angels’ investigation since February 2020 and they only recently issued the subpoena in July 2021, so the Angels must be granted time to challenge it. The rationale of opposing the subpoena is to mitigate any additional liability stemming from the lawsuit from Skaggs family. The lawsuit is against the organization itself for negligence in the situation and the Angels don’t want to be held liable for the actions of a single employee. More than likely, Kay was a bad apple in an otherwise professional organization and should bear the brunt of legal justice. Still, it should be an interesting situation to follow. The recent revelation of five other players who were also allegedly given opioids by Kay are apparently willing to come forward to testify and they should provide valuable insight that the subpoena may not. The drug situation could run deeper than just Kay and if so the Angels could face serious negligence charges in allowing it to develop within their organization. It’s already been proven through text messages and emailed obtained in the investigation that Kay ran his distribution in the Angels' stadium and even offered memorabilia as payment for the drugs. Prosecutors are also trying to prove Kay used Skaggs as a middleman for drug distribution, but that has not come to fruition at the moment5. For now what the Angels are doing is a standard legal procedure and only time will tell how this situation unfolds. *News and updates about the Tyler Skaggs case was first reported by the LA Times* (1) Quinn, T.J. “Pitcher Tyler SKAGGS' Family Files Suits against Los Angeles Angels, Former Employees.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, June 29, 2021. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31731359/pitcher-tyler-skaggs-family-files-suits-angels-former-employees. (2) Fenno, Nathan. “Prosecutors in Tyler SKAGGS CASE Accuse Angels of Not Complying with Subpoena.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2021. https://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/story/2021-08-24/tyler-skaggs-prosecutors-angels-investigation-eric-kay-drugs (3) Fenno, Nathan. “Prosecutors in Tyler SKAGGS CASE Accuse Angels of Not Complying with Subpoena.” (4) “Attorney Work Product Privilege.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed August 27, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney_work_product_privilege. (5) Fenno, Nathan. “Prosecutors in Tyler SKAGGS CASE Accuse Angels of Not Complying with Subpoena.” Evan Mattel is a 1L at Hofstra Law School and can be found on Twitter at @Evan_Mattel21.

As reported by AJ Perez of Front Office Sports, a former head of Mississippi’s welfare agency agreed to terms on a plea with federal and state prosecutors on Thursday. John Davis agreed to cooperate with investigators as part of the $70 million in misappropriated welfare funds in Mississippi which has the highest level of poverty in the nation. Another co-conspirator Nancy New pled guilty in April to thirteen felonies in her role in the fraud in April. As a note, Brett Favre has not been criminally charged with anything; however, I would strongly suggest to Mr. Favre that he needs to hire an experienced Federal Criminal Defense Attorney. I cannot stress that enough if I were Brett Favre. As I stated on the Conduct Detrimental podcast last week, federal investigations work differently than state investigations. A potential criminal case begins with federal law enforcement officers investigating a potential lead. They speak with witnesses and comb through mountains of evidence. An FBI agent then meets with an Assistant United States Attorney (or AUSA) and presents his case. The AUSA decides whether or not there is enough evidence to seek a criminal indictment. The AUSA must convene a federal grand jury to seek said indictment and only once a true bill is returned (meaning the grand jury determined there is enough evidence to support the charges) the indictment is unsealed. Federal law enforcement does not make arrests until the indictments have been sealed. They usually make said arrests or serve search warrants at roughly 6 am. Why? That is because that is when people are usually at home and asleep. It allows the FBI to catch the potential suspect off-guard and minimize any safety risks. The FBI and US Attorney’s Office start arresting the individuals who connect the dots. However, they are usually not the main focus of the investigation and often cut plea deals that include a condition that would “cooperate with the investigation” which is just another way of saying they are going to testify against whomever the US Attorney’s Office asks them to. That is because the US Attorney’s Office needs to have their facts and ducks in a row before they indict the true focus of their investigation. In this matter, that likely is NFL Hall of Famer Brett Lorenzo Favre and former Governor Phil Bryant. The overarching theme of this potential criminal case is Welfare Fraud. The Federal Government can use the Mail Fraud Federal Statute and the Wire Fraud Federal Statute to potentially prosecute the case. Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1341 “There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing or attempting to execute the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts),” Schmuck v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954). That can be achieved by simply a scheme to defraud which is relatively clear based on what is being reported in the media and using the mail to execute. One can send a letter advancing the scheme or simply send a check in furtherance of the scheme. That charge is entirely plausible. However, I think Wire Fraud might even be a stronger case. Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343 There are four elements. (1) That the Defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used. That can be succinctly stated as there was an intentional scheme to defraud another of money using interstate wire communications (i.e. telecommunications like a cell phone or computer). This exchange right here (if proven to be true and authenticated at trial) is a potentially devasting piece of evidence. It likely shows a scheme to defraud money from someone using a cellphone with intent to defraud. Since Nancy New is allegedly on the other side of this communication, she would have to authenticate these text messages before they could potentially be admitted into evidence at trial. Now Nancy New is a cooperating government witness so I would expect her to testify in any potential criminal case against Favre. As of right now, Brett Favre hasn’t been charged with anything. He hasn’t been arrested with anything. However, whenever the FBI comes to speak with you and asks you a seemingly random question, you likely are the subject of a federal criminal investigation. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com