Just over a week after the National Basketball Association (NBA) announced a one-year suspension and $10 million fine as a result of its investigation, Phoenix Suns and Mercury owner Robert Sarver will sell both franchises. The decision to sell the franchises comes after athletes, including LeBron James, other Suns owners, and sponsors, including PayPal, voiced their displeasure with the NBA’s punishment. Sarver, who owns 35% of the Suns, led an ownership group that purchased the Suns in 2004. Last year, after ESPN released a story detailing allegations of racism and misogyny within the Suns organization, the NBA announced an investigation into the Sarver and the Suns. The NBA hired the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to act as independent investigators. The investigators interviewed Sarver and over 300 individuals and reviewed tens of thousands of documents. On September 13, 2022, the independent investigators, members of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, released their report, including details of racism and misogyny within the organization. Specifically, “conduct included the use of racially insensitive language; unequal treatment of female employees; sex-related statements and conduct; and harsh treatment of employees that on occasion constituted bullying.” Two important Bases For Commissioner Silver’s Determination First, the Suns have a policy in place that prohibits harassment on the basis of “race, color, national origin, religion, sex (with or without sexual conduct) . . . .” The policy later notes specific conduct that is prohibited, including “sexually tainted jokes or comments” and “the use of slurs, epithets, or gestures related to an individual’s protected characteristic.” Second, pursuant to the NBA’s Constitution, Sarver is prohibited from “conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the association.” Further, the Constitution grants Commissioner Silver the power to investigate such conduct and impose appropriate penalties. Therefore, the investigators found that Sarver’s statements and conduct were “contrary to common workplace standards, as reflected in the Suns’ Workplace Policy and the NBA Constitution. Thus, after finding Sarver’s conduct “troubling and disappointing,” Commissioner Silver decided to impose the maximum monetary penalty, $10 million, a one-year suspension, and require Sarver to complete a training program on workplace conduct. Sarver’s punishment forced a reaction across the league, with many feeling that the punishment was too light. In 2014, the NBA instituted a lifetime ban and $2.5 million fine against Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling after recordings revealed Sterling using racial slurs. This time, NBA owners did not push for Sarver’s removal; instead, waiting for others to pressure Suns’ leadership to oust Sarver. With Sarver announcing that he is moving forward with selling the franchises, it appears that the public pressure has worked. With an estimated value of $1.8 billion, the Suns will be a sought-after commodity if they hit the open market. Either way, the NBA’s player-led advocacy gets another victory. 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.

Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) deals have paved the way for student-athletes to earn money and build their brands like never before. The past year has illustrated just how important it is for student-athletes to have access to the financial opportunities that NIL deals provide. Student-athletes that bring in millions of dollars for their university are not only experiencing substantial personal development but also creating a foundation for generational wealth. However, there remains a substantial group of student-athletes who have been overlooked in all the buzz about NIL compensation — international student-athletes. According to the 2021 NCAA International Student-Athlete Inclusion Think Tank, more than 20,000 international student-athletes are currently competing at NCAA member schools. Many of these athletes are attending these schools on F-1 student visas. This student visa prevents international students attending a U.S. university from working off-campus during their first academic year and enforces strict guidelines regarding their employment in the subsequent academic years. These employment guidelines are subject to a case-by-case review of “special situations such as severe economic hardship or special student relief.” These guidelines hinder international student athletes’ ability to capitalize on NIL deals as they fear their visas will be revoked for violating USCIS employment restrictions. International student-athletes are likely to face the same kinds of hardships already associated with student-athletes: pressure to perform both in sports and academics, financial issues, and deteriorating mental health. However, being half a world away from their loved ones can further aggravate these hardships. The ability for international student-athletes to receive compensation from their NIL would likely alleviate some of these stressors. The NCAA is in the process of conducting additional forums and meetings with its member schools to address the concerns international student-athletes are facing. In the meantime, some of these athletes are bringing attention to these issues in an incredible way: by gifting their would-be compensation to their fellow teammates. Mason Fletcher, the Australian punter for the University of Cincinnati, decided to gift the proceeds he would have received from purchases of any merchandise branded with his name to the walk-ons of the University of Cincinnati’s football team. Fletcher hoped these profits would help alleviate any financial needs his fellow athletes may be facing. Hopefully, Fletcher’s actions, as well as the concerns expressed by other international student-athletes, will aid in the push for a change in the laws preventing international student-athletes from utilizing their NIL. National and international student-athletes compete on the same level, and they deserve the same right to compensation. The landscape of NIL is ever-changing, but it is important that we do not overlook international student-athletes as we continue pushing for reform in this area. Kate Rosenberg is a J.D. candidate for the Class of 2023 at Texas A&M University School of Law. She can be reached at @Katerosey1 on Twitter.

When discussing how to regulate (i.e., limit)[1] name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) spending in college athletics, one idea that is constantly brought up is instituting a fair market value (“FMV”) requirement for all NIL deals. The hope is that an FMV requirement, working in conjunction with other proposed restrictions, would help eliminate the types of NIL deals that are nothing more than disguised pay-for-play deals. Whether the NIL requirement would be instituted through federal legislation or by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) is yet to be seen. As discussed previously on Conduct Detrimental, new legislation[2] is currently in the works (although prior attempts at legislation have had no success thus far in the NIL era) and the NCAA is ramping up investigations into abuses of NIL deals, which hints at the likelihood of new NCAA guidelines or rules being put in place sooner rather than later. If an athlete is making more money to, for example, shoot a commercial for a local car dealership than what the FMV would be if the car dealership were to pay anyone else to be in the commercial, the person paying the athlete, so the argument goes, is actually paying the college athlete for their performance as a college athlete rather than for their performance in the commercial itself. But how exactly do you determine the FMV of a person’s name, image, and likeness? And can any methodology accurately be used for the name, image, and likeness of all college athletes in a consistent manner? The concept of fair market value is not a new one. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546 (1973)[3], a 1973 Supreme Court case concerning estate tax treatment of certain property, provided a clean, simple definition of fair market value: “the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” This definition can easily be adjusted to account for other types of property or for services: fair market value is the price at which the services would be provided between a willing recipient of services and a willing provider of services, neither being under any compulsion to request services or to provide services and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. In the NIL space, relevant facts would include the restriction on pay-for-play. FMV exists in several other industries as an accepted concept for determining the appropriate value of something or someone. FMV in the real estate world seeks to determine what a certain property is worth by looking at comparable properties in comparable geographic locations with comparable amenities and comparable facilities in order to decide what a “fair” price might be for the subject property. Looking at the healthcare industry, specifically healthcare real estate, FMV is a legal concept requiring that certain real estate arrangements, including leases and purchase and sale transactions, between providers, must be consistent with FMV in order to avoid certain civil and criminal sanctions under the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, among other regulations. FMV in real estate is more of a guideline to valuation than a fixed method of valuing property: the FMV of a property may be, for example, $300,000, but to a certain person it may be worth $350,000 (and waiving inspections and contingencies, as has been the case in a hot real estate market, for sellers, over the last year and a half or so). If the property is worth $350,000 to that person, there is nothing stopping them from paying above FMV to purchase it. FMV in the healthcare real estate industry, however, is not a guideline to valuation but rather a fixed requirement when determining, for example, the rent to be charged by a healthcare provider leasing space to a source of potential referral sources. Under Stark, a physician is expressly prohibited from making a referral for the furnishing of designated health services for which payment under Medicare or Medicaid may be made to an entity to which it has a financial relationship unless an exception applies – FMV is a requirement of the most commonly used exceptions. Failure to meet FMV and fall under an exception in the healthcare real estate industry subjects the physician to potential civil and criminal liability. What type of FMV requirement would one applicable to NIL deals in college athletics be? Inevitably, an FMV requirement for college athletics would have to be one that functions in much the same way as FMV requirements in the healthcare industry: FMV would be a value that must be illustrated by certain acceptable means and that could not be deviated from in application without violating the restriction. Otherwise, if FMV were just a guideline for determining value in much the same way that it functions in the real estate industry, any deviation from FMV would be permissible and the requirement would be largely toothless in preventing pay-for-play deals disguised as legitimate NIL deals. As an example of this distinction, let’s say that FMV for a college athlete to be in a commercial for a local car dealership is somewhere between $10,000 and $12,500 (FMV is usually shown in an acceptable range of values to allow for certain unpredictable factors and to acknowledge the impossibility of valuing something exactly). Under an FMV requirement similar to the one in the real estate industry, the car dealership could see this valuation and still be completely within their rights – and the requirement – to pay the athlete $15,000 for the commercial if they determine the athlete’s appearance in the commercial is worth that amount. Maybe a rival dealership is willing to pay the athlete $12,500, and no more, and so the athlete’s value is greater because of the opportunity to make sure he/she isn’t representing a competitor. If the FMV requirement mirrors the FMV requirement in the healthcare industry, however, any payment above $12,500 would automatically be deemed impermissible and a violation of the NCAA’s ban on pay-for-play arrangements, subjecting the athlete to a possible suspension and fine, as well as possibly subjecting the university where the athlete plays to sanctions as well. The problem with an FMV requirement for NIL is that there are entirely too many factors that play into accurately valuing the use of an athlete’s name, image, and likeness. An athlete’s NIL value could be impacted by the popularity of the sport they play generally in the United States (or the popularity of that sport in the region of the United States they play in or even just in the city they play in), the number of followers the athlete has on social media, the athlete’s prowess at their particular sport (keeping in mind that an NIL deal cannot be conditioned on performance in college sports, a higher level of performance would add value to an athlete’s NIL), specific attributes of an athlete that help make a certain type of deal work (e.g., Decoldest Crawford’s name being what it is increases his NIL value when the product being sold is A/C units because it makes for a better commercial), how personable an athlete is, or any other number of factors that may have direct ties to the person being a college athlete or that may be completely removed from the person’s status as a college athlete. Crafting an effective FMV requirement for NIL is made even more difficult by the fact that the NCAA has yet to show any NIL deals that were proven to actually be pay-for-play arrangements. As the NCAA continues to up investigations into NIL deals, it is inevitable that it will find sham arrangements that are just geared at getting an athlete to a certain school or keeping an athlete at a certain school. But an FMV restriction is not going to prevent sham arrangements like its proponents believe. Instead, an FMV requirement will put all large NIL deals under immediate scrutiny and force athletes to find ways to justify the value being placed on their NIL. And the difficulty of finding acceptable and appropriate means of determining FMV for NIL deals will lead to litigation (or arbitration, more likely) on the point as athletes and the NCAA bring their respective experts out to battle on what exactly constitutes FMV for that particular athlete’s NIL based on differing methodologies. And, let’s be honest, the NCAA has significantly more financial power and resources to engage in these battles than any athlete does. An FMV requirement sounds on paper like an easy way of weeding out pay-for-play arrangements. In reality, it would create an overly complex regulatory scheme where the NCAA would have a financial advantage over athletes that would cause inconsistent results and artificially lower NIL compensation to athletes. Footnotes: [1] Whether you are pro-regulation of NIL or not, any regulation of NIL will function predominately to limit what college athletes can make. Nobody who is calling for more definitive guidelines on what is considered permissible name, image, and likeness spending is doing so because they’re afraid that college athletes are not being paid enough in their deals. And while there are college athletes entering into deals with unfavorable terms because of any number of reasons, lack of representation being a major one, stories of college athletes being underpaid for NIL deals are virtually nonexistent. [2] Conference Leaders Fire Back at Perceived Abuses of NIL (conductdetrimental.com). [3] United States v. Cartwright, 411 US 546 - Supreme Court 1973 - Google Scholar.

Clemente Properties and Roberto Clemente’s three sons have joined a suit against the Puerto Rican government and numerous Puerto Rican officials.[1] The claims arise out of Puerto Rico’s use of a Roberto Clemente mark in the sale of governmental-issued license plates. The license plates were made available to the public for an extra fee upon vehicle registration.[2] The complaint asserts standard claims for trademark infringement, including claims under the Lanham Act. It also raises a number of important legal questions and analyses, including issues regarding Puerto Rico’s sovereign immunity.[3] The Issue of Sovereign Immunity Under the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution, state governments enjoy “sovereign immunity.” This gives states immunity from being sued by their own citizens. However, the following exceptions to the 11th Amendment allow citizens to bring suits against their government under limited circumstances, where: The sovereign has explicitly waived their sovereign immunity related to the claims. The suit is for injunctive or monetary relief against a government official violating federal law. Sovereign immunity does not protect “sub-divisions” of a state, such as municipalities or school boards. The lawsuit is brought under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. All but one of the defendants falls under the second exception above: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Clemente Properties prays for both injunctive and monetary relief against Puerto Rican officials under federal theories of trademark law. However, Puerto Rico’s potential 11th Amendment claim hinges on a singular question: do the courts consider Puerto Rico a state for the purposes of sovereign immunity? The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 11th Amendment centers on the historic common-law theory that all sovereigns enjoy immunity from suit by their citizens without their consent. However, the 11th Amendment explicitly applies only to a state and its agencies. The District Court of Puerto Rico will likely follow the controlling precedent from the First Circuit. The Circuit has repeatedly found that Puerto Rico enjoys statehood for the purposes of sovereign immunity and Section 1983 claims. The District of Puerto Rico has refused to rule otherwise.[4] This precedent seems to be at odds with the Supreme Court’s view of the relationship between U.S. territories and sovereign immunity. It also seems at odds with the Supreme Court’s view on Puerto Rico’s sovereignty. The Supreme Court has refused to give clear guidance on the issue.[5] However, it recently tackled the Commonwealth’s sovereignty in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, ruling that Puerto Rico is not a sovereign separate from the United States for double jeopardy purposes.[6] Federal courts have also ruled against sovereign immunity for the Virgin Islands, due to its territorial status and the control Congress exerts over it (much like Puerto Rico). [7] Though these reviews were obviously limited, the issue could prove interesting if it is ever granted certiorari from the Supreme Court. It is unlikely that Clemente Properties will take this issue before the Court, as a favorable ruling could have serious ramifications on the island of Puerto Rico and its government. The plaintiffs have made clear they do not intend to prejudice the people of Puerto Rico but rather seek fairness and equity in the use of their father’s mark.[8] They also make solid claims against public officials, who are not protected by the 11th Amendment (as explained above). Clemente Properties could very well win a favorable award from these individuals and forget the Commonwealth altogether. Ultimately, it is more likely this reaches a settlement before anything of legal importance happens. Britton Yoder is a 2L at Penn State – Dickinson Law, where he serves as President of the Dickinson Law Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Sources [1]Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 3:2022cv01373 [2] Bloomberg Law, Roberto Clemente Case Puts Puerto Rico’s Broad Immunity At Risk [3] Complaint, Dkt. No. 3:2022cv01373 [4] Jusino Mercado v. Com. Of Puerto Rico, 101 F. Supp. 2d (D.P.R. 1999) [5] Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). [6] Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016). [7] Tonder v. M/V The Burkholder, 630 F. Supp. 691 (D.V.I. 1986). [8] Roberto Clemente Jr. told Bloomberg Law: “This is in no way something that is directed to the people of Puerto Rico. It’s the system that has done wrong.” Bloomberg Law, Roberto Clemente Case Puts Puerto Rico’s Broad Immunity At Risk.

10 months ago an ESPN story broke outlining an avalanche of horrific allegations against Phoenix Suns’ owner Robert Sarver. I wrote on that story when it broke. The NBA employed an independent law firm to launch an investigation into Sarver’s tenure as owner of the Suns. Some of the major findings include: Sarver, on at least five occasions, repeated the N-word when recounting the statements of others Sarver engaged in instances of inequitable conduct toward female employees, made many sex-related comments in the workplace including referencing specific types of condoms and made inappropriate comments about the physical appearance of female employees and other women Sarver unnecessarily dropped his underwear and exposed his genitals to a male employee who was on his knees in front of Sarver performing a fitness check Sarver engaged in demeaning and harsh treatment of employees, including yelling and cursing at them The entire report can be found here. Upon these findings, the NBA announced this week they have issued a punishment against Sarver. The league fined Sarver $10 million and suspended him from all NBA-related activities for a year. Here’s the entire press statement. While $10 million is nothing to sneeze at, it’s important to keep in mind that Robert Sarver bought the Phoenix Suns in 2004 for $400 million. Today, the Suns are valued at nearly $2 billion. Something tells me Sarver will survive swallowing the fine handed down by the league. It’s difficult not to immediately compare the Robert Sarver situation to the last major owner scandal in the NBA. In 2014 audio tapes leaked of Clippers owner Donald Sterling uttering racist remarks talking about members of his team. The tapes created a firestorm across all news outlets and the NBA immediately banned Sterling from all NBA activities for life. After a short legal battle, Sterling was eventually forced to sell the Clippers. So why didn’t Robert Sarver meet the same fate as Donald Sterling who engaged in similar conduct? If you ask the NBA, they will tell you (through their press release) that Sarver’s activities were not motivated by racial or gender-based animus. But when you read the laundry list of cruelties committed by Sarver, you begin to scratch your head as to how actions like that can take place without animus. From the NBA’s perspective, Sarver (despite being 60 years old) is so juvenile and immature that his behavior shouldn’t be taken as an intention to discriminate. He doesn’t harbor any deep seeded hate when he: removes professional opportunities from women because they are pregnant spews racial slurs in the workplace told a former black coach that he hates diversity The NBA may point to the forum of racial and sexist comments as another stark difference. Sterling’s audio was leaked by TMZ with little to no warning to the NBA. In a matter of minutes, everywhere in the country you could turn on your TV and hear the Clippers owner talking to his mistress about how he doesn’t like her taking Instagram pictures with black people. The audio was more than just a smoking gun – smoke eventually dissipates. Sterling's racist remarks were captured perpetually, the NBA couldn’t escape them. Amid the chaos, they were forced to hand down the stiffest punishment imaginable. With Robert Sarver, while the ESPN story was appalling, it was mostly filled with anonymous recollections of inappropriate workplace conduct. Reading these allegations left you with a horrible taste in your mouth, but they don’t have the same long-lasting impact as listening to the Sterling tapes. Adam Silver even admitted as much: The timeframe is also important here. When the Sterling tapes leaked, every alarm sounded in the NBA league offices. They needed to act immediately or risk players boycotting NBA playoff games. Adam Silver was thrust in front of the nation to condemn the owner’s behavior. The immediacy of the timeline heightened the public awareness surrounding the controversy. With Sarver, the NBA has had 10 months to carefully formulate a plan, gauge the public reaction, and issue a punishment. They banked on this timeframe mellowing some of the outcries to axe Sarver permanently. Why does the NBA want Sarver to remain as owner of the Phoenix Suns? Well, most people that makeup the NBA don’t. Players, coaches, staff members, the commissioner, etc., almost everyone would applaud if Sarver wasn’t allowed to step foot inside an NBA arena again. But all of these groups pale in comparison to the owners who want Robert Sarver to remain as owner. Unfortunately, the group that wants Sarver to remain is more powerful than the rest. Under Section 13 of the NBA Constitution, a 3/4 vote of other owners are required to remove someone from ownership: Adam Silver vaguely referenced this procedure when speaking on why owners are treated differently than average NBA employees: Silver continued in his press conference Wednesday, “I have certain authority by virtue of this organization. I don’t have the right to take away [Sarver’s] team”. Robert Sarver has brought a black cloud over the entire league. So why won’t the other owners cut Sarver and move on? NBA owners are self-interested. The other 29 men don’t want to set and reinforce a low bar to remove an owner. They are worried about if they become the next one on the chopping block. If that happens, they want security. In 2014, Mark Cuban characterized removing Donald Sterling as a “slippery slope”. That slope would get a whole lot steeper if Sarver was removed. So Robert Sarver gets a year suspension and his fine, while the other owners can breathe a sigh of relief that their assets are well protected. Adam Silver will receive the brunt of the backlash, maybe some of it deserved. Many criticized Silver for stating on Wednesday that Sarver “grew as a person” over the last 18 years. But if you view his comments in light of the NBA procedures, it becomes apparent that Silver is speaking to protect the owner’s decision to keep Sarver. His hands are tied. Adam Silver works for the owners and they hold the power. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate of Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com

In January, Kevin Ollie, University of Connecticut alumnus and former Men’s Basketball Coach, won his arbitration suit against the University of Connecticut (UConn), which resulted in an arbitrator ruling that UConn “improperly fired” Ollie and awarded Ollie $11.1 million. Now, UConn and Ollie have reached another settlement for $3.9 million. The settlement ends the multi-year legal dispute between the university and Ollie. Ollie’s Tenure At UConn UConn hired Kevin Ollie as its men’s basketball coach in 2012, replacing legendary coach Jim Calhoun after the latter retired subsequent to the NCAA ruling UConn ineligible for the 2013 NCAA Tournament. Ollie’s tenure peaked in 2014 when UConn went on a shocking run in the NCAA tournament to win the National Championship as a 7-seed. Subsequently, things went downhill quickly as Ollie and UConn missed the tournament in three of the next four seasons. In January 2018, the NCAA announced an investigation into the UConn Men’s Basketball team. Then, in March 2018, amid team struggles and the NCAA investigation, UConn fired Coach Ollie, hoping to avoid paying the $11 million remaining on his contract. Arbitration Uniquely, a Collective Bargaining Agreement exists between UConn and the University of Connecticut Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The CBA, among other things, governs the grievance procedure when UConn terminates a head coach. The AAUP immediately instituted the procedures on behalf of Ollie. Article 37 of the Agreement governs Athletics, including head coaches. Section 37.12(A) states, “[d]iscipline or dismissal during the term of an employment contract shall be for just cause.” Subsection (ii) states, “[just cause is defined to mean] [i]nsubordination or serious noncompliance with the University of Connecticut By-Laws, (Revised August 15, 2015), with the Code of Ethics for Public Officials (Chapter 10 of the Connecticut Statutes), or with NCAA rules or regulations.” At the arbitration, Ollie’s attorneys argued that Ollie was not fired for just cause because, at the time of the firing, Ollie’s actions did not arise to serious misconduct, and the NCAA had not issued a decision on whether Ollie violated NCAA rules. In turn, UConn took the opposite position, arguing that Ollie had violated NCAA rules and regulations and poor on-court performance justified the firing. Thus, UConn had acted appropriately in firing Ollie. The arbitrator, Mark L. Irvings, partially agreed with the university, noting that the university was justified in firing Ollie. However, Irvings ruled in favor of Ollie because the school should have waited for the NCAA to conduct its own investigation before terminating Ollie. Therefore, Irvings awarded Ollie over $11 million, which the university paid in February. New Settlement In 2018, Ollie filed a federal discrimination complaint in the District of Connecticut against the university, alleging that the university attempted to stop him from filing a racial discrimination claim and former coach Jim Calhoun kept his job after committing violations of NCAA rules and regulations. Judge Kari J. Dooley dismissed Ollie’s complaint, noting that the lawsuit was not ripe due to the ongoing arbitration. Thus, Ollie could pursue a similar claim after arbitration concluded. The $3.9 million settlement is to settle all claims, including any federal discrimination claims. Perhaps most importantly, both sides can look toward the future after putting their lengthy legal battle behind them. 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.

Seemingly overnight, Minor League Baseball is changing. Major League Baseball elected to recognize the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) as minor leaguers’ union representative (avoiding an election), and an arbitrator validated the union-authorization cards. Now, the MLBPA and Major League Baseball, through their respective negotiators, will work together to draft a new collective bargaining agreement for the newly-unionized players. How We Got Here Consistently subject to low wages and difficult living conditions, minor league players have been pushing for better working conditions for years. In 2014, multiple players filed a class action lawsuit, Senne, et al. v. MLB, et al., on behalf of thousands of minor league baseball players that were not paid during spring training or received salaries below the poverty line. The lawsuit had multiple amended Complaints and multiple Class certifications, including the final classes encompassing players from California, Arizona, and Florida. The allegations included violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state minimum wage laws in California, Arizona, and Florida (Florida and Arizona are the locations for Spring Training). In response to Senne, in 2018, Congress passed the “Save America’s Pastime Act.” The Act exempted minor league baseball players from FLSA protections. Thus, under federal law, teams were allowed to pay minor leaguers below minimum wage. Prior to the 2021 baseball season, Major League Baseball restructured Minor League Baseball teams by eliminating over 40 teams and hundreds of roster spots. Shifting to 2022, fortunes began to turn for minor leaguers. Due to consistent advocacy from players and organizations alike, including Advocates For Minor Leaguers, Major League Baseball began requiring teams to provide housing for minor leaguers, among other better living conditions. Further, in March, Judge Joseph C. Spero ruled in Senne that minor leaguers are year-round employees. Moreover, Major League Baseball violated or failed to comply with state minimum wage law requirements. The ruling eventually led to the parties reaching a settlement, including Major League Baseball paying over $120 million to players. In June and July, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Advocates for Minor Leaguers and Major League Baseball questioning Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption on Minor League Baseball and its players. First established in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, Major League Baseball’s exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 has allowed Major League Baseball to control nearly every aspect of Minor League Baseball, including wage-fixing and other working conditions, leaving players little opportunity to negotiate salaries due to lengthy contracts with minimal pay increases. Thus, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee sought to reconsider the exemption. With the fortunes turning, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the MLBPA, determined that it was the right time to push unionizing for minor leaguers. The Future The MLBPA has already added all employees of Advocates for Minor Leaguers and will now focus on organizing the player-leadership for minor leaguers and work on negotiating a new CBA after the season. With most minor leaguers earning a salary between $4,800 and $14,700 per year, expect player wages to be a focal point of the CBA negotiations. Other topics could include upgrading facilities, improving travel and scheduling, and adding meals. The increase in costs will leave teams seeking new ways to finance the future. With the national success of summer baseball teams like the Savannah Bananas, teams should push to generate more media revenue through television or streaming networks. Either way, all 120 Minor League Baseball teams have signed Professional Development Licenses with Major League Baseball until 2030. Thus, any effort by Major League Baseball to downsize will have to happen at a later date. Changes to Minor League Baseball are approaching rapidly. Now, players will have the opportunity to shape a new future that includes higher wages and better living conditions. 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.

For many attorneys and law students aspiring to utilize their legal degrees to work in the sports industry, an in-house position with a professional organization is considered the peak of an arduous climb to the top of the sports law world. Oftentimes, legal positions in some of the mainstream sports in America, namely football, basketball, and baseball, are typically those that are sought after by the sports enthusiasts in the legal world. Nevertheless, due to the exponential growth of its popularity and the constant expansion of its professional leagues, the path toward in-house positions in American soccer has never appeared more open for those aspiring to work within the beautiful game. As an incoming law student who ultimately hopes to attain an in-house counsel position within professional soccer, I wanted to learn from those who are currently in positions toward which I and several others passionate about the intersection of soccer and the law aspire. Accordingly, I have decided to start a process that I wanted to document by way of Conduct Detrimental to share with all who are interested – an interview with a member of the legal counsel at every MLS club. From these interviews, I hope to be able to provide insight into the nature of legal counsel positions in professional soccer. And at the end of this process, I hope that we will all be more knowledgeable on what it requires to successfully convert our greatest passions into a dream occupation. For my first interview, I was fortunate to speak with Joe Kennedy – General Counsel of Nashville Soccer Club. A graduate of Duke University and Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Kennedy worked in both private practice and in-house for an NBA franchise before transitioning to the MLS. His words were incredibly insightful, and it was a pleasure to learn from him. Without further ado, here is the interview with Nashville Soccer Club General Counsel, Joe Kennedy: BG: Tell us a bit about your story – what led your interest in working in-house within soccer to develop and the career steps you took that eventually placed you in your current position. JK: I graduated law school in 2009 and went to work at a law firm in DC doing healthcare regulatory work. After about three years, I lateraled to a firm in Atlanta doing transactional work in healthcare. After about two years in my firm in Atlanta, I got a call from Scott Wilkinson, CLO of the Atlanta Hawks, who asked if I wanted to interview for a junior lawyer position that just opened up in his department. At that point, I was ready to leave the law firm life and was very lucky to end up getting the job. I was there for about six years before I got a chance to come here to Nashville and have enjoyed every moment of it. As far as interest in sports, I have always been a sports fan since I was a kid. I played every sport I could growing up and was eventually lucky enough to play lacrosse at Duke University. After that experience, I had a pretty good idea that I’d eventually like to work in the sports world at some point in my career. BG: What does a typical workday look like for you as General Counsel at Nashville SC? Is your position more of a consultancy role, or do you primarily serve as the club’s representative in all pertinent legal matters? JK: The fun part of my job is that there is no typical day. Because I get to oversee all of the club’s legal issues; I have the opportunity to get exposure to different types of matters with all different departments. I get to work with a lot of great people from each area of the business, including sponsorships, marketing, ticketing, soccer ops, etc. Each one of these departments has their own challenges and faces different types of legal matters. This makes each day unique. BG: I noticed that you also served as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for the Atlanta Hawks. What are the differences that you’ve found between the role of General Counsel of an NBA and MLS franchise? JK: The general business of an MLS team and NBA are pretty much the same: ticket revenue, sponsorship revenue, event revenue and media revenue. That being said, the main difference I’ve noticed is in coming to a new expansion team vs. an established one. Nashville SC played its first MLS game about a week before COVID shut everything down. I arrived a bit over a year after that and so in many ways, we were starting a team from scratch even when I arrived. That process is much different not only because you’re doing everything for the first time, but you’re also participating in a startup environment. So we had to complete the tasks of building a team (stadium construction, community outreach, ticket sales, etc.) while also implementing internal processes to make sure we were operating efficiently. You can contrast that experience to an established business like the Atlanta Hawks where you may be engaging in new business ventures but you have an existing infrastructure in which to do it. For me, that’s been the biggest difference. BG: If you could list 3 of the most important skills necessary to work as in-house counsel for an MLS club and provide a brief explanation for their importance, which skills would you choose? JK: Business-focus: the biggest difference between a law firm job and an in-house job is that you have to have a business focus in addition to a legal focus. I like to think of myself as a businessperson who has a legal background. It doesn’t help my company if I dig into minute details of a contract for three weeks and hold up a transaction for highly unlikely events. However, it does help if I can identify the likely risks and mitigate those quickly so we can see the upside of a deal as soon as possible. Generalist: most MLS clubs are small to mid-sized businesses. Because of this, lawyers for the clubs have to tackle all kinds of matters such as intellectual property, litigation, contracts, MLS rules, etc. In order to be successful, you have to be able to know each one of these areas enough to adequately protect the company. Relationship builder: this is somewhat abstract, but an in-house lawyer is an employee of the company who practices law. To do that effectively, I think the lawyer needs to have a personality fit with the company and the club. It’s important that the people around the general counsel trust her or him enough to come to that person with highly sensitive matters. For that to happen, I think it’s important that other employees have a great relationship with the lawyer. It’s also crucial that the lawyer establish external relationships with sponsors, other teams, the league, player agents, etc. BG: How did you prepare yourself for a career in the sports industry whilst in law school? JK: I think there’s more sports and entertainment offerings in law schools now than when I was in school. Of course, it helps to take sports law classes and get internships if you can. However, I’d suggest taking as many different classes as you can and getting as much exposure to various areas of law as possible. It’s also important to have a transactional background so getting law firm exposure to any type of business transactions is helpful. BG: What is the one critical piece of advice that you could offer from your experience to law students aspiring to work in-house not only in soccer but in sports as a whole? Additionally, what is one piece of advice that you could offer about the industry to law students that you wish you were given when you were in law school? JK: I think that when law students first get into the practice of law, there is a period of a few years where they have to learn the actual skills of the legal profession. For example, a litigator has to learn how to draft pleadings, where to stand in the courtroom, etc. For those, unfortunately, you just have to put in a bunch of time and effort. But, what’s been interesting to me is the process of growing after those few years of learning the trade. I find that as I get older, there is more of a demand for leadership skills, empathy and establishing relationships. One of the exciting aspects of this for me has been the process of trying to improve myself outside the office. Therefore, I make sure I take time away from work to travel, experience new things, meet new people with different backgrounds, read books, exercise and take on new hobbies. I find there’s always new things I can learn and other ways I can get better as a lawyer and human being. So, all that being said, my advice to law students in general would be to work hard but also make sure to develop yourself as a person and be curious about the world outside the law. It’s easy to get caught up in the track of trying to make partner, make more money, get more prestige, but I’ve found that those things can be draining if you don’t devote energy to other areas of your life. To quote one of my favorites, Ted Lasso: “Be curious. Not judgmental.” Special thanks to Joe Kennedy for taking the time to participate in this interview. He can be found on LinkedIn at Joe Kennedy. Bryce Goodwyn is a 1L at Regent University School of Law. He is a member of the Honors Program and works as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the East Region Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

Montrezl Harrell is a seven-year NBA veteran with career averages of 12.9 PPG and 5.3 REB. Alongside Bill Walton, Harrell is one of only two centers in NBA history to have ever been named the “NBA Sixth Man of the Year.” Yet, only two years after receiving such a prestigious honor, Harrell’s NBA career was in limbo, stemming from his May 12th, 2022, felony drug charge. Following a routine pullover, police found three pounds of marijuana in the backseat of Harrell’s vehicle. For first-time offenders in Kentucky, possessing eight ounces to five pounds of marijuana is considered a Class-D felony. Class-D Felonies can result in a one-to-five-year prison sentence or a fine totaling up to $10,000. Pending these charges, Harrell remained unsigned, and doubt began to creep in on whether we had all witnessed him play his last NBA game. Then, on August 31st, Harrell’s career trajectory changed. Madison County District Court held that his Class-D Felony would be reduced to misdemeanor possession. Additionally, these charges can be expunged from his record in 12 months, providing he remains in good legal standing. Fast forward a week, and on September 6th, a little over two years after being named the 2019-2020 NBA Sixth Man of the Year, Harrell finally received a two-year, $5.2 million deal from the Philadelphia 76ers. Harrell, having played for Head Coach Doc Rivers and Assistant Sam Cassell on the LA Clippers, knows the ins and outs of their system. In fact, it is under Rivers that Harrell won the aforementioned award. Additionally, the 76ers have long sought a reliable backup center for perennial MVP candidate Joel Embiid, who, while possessing game-changing skills, has had durability concerns throughout his career. Harrell is a solid reinforcement and will be a player to watch this season. It seems that Montrezl Harrell has finally received some “brotherly” love. About the Author: Brandon Blumer is a 2L law student at New York Law School. You can connect with him via https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonblumer or via Twitter @BlumerBrandon

On September 13, 2022, the National Basketball Association released a statement announcing the suspension of Sun’s majority owner Robert Sarver. The NBA's statement stemmed from an internal investigation following an ESPN article published in November 2021. The law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz acted as the independent party conducting the investigation. The investigation included interviewing current and former employees as well as the evaluation of documents including text messages, emails, and videos. The report stated that Mr. Sarver “engaged in conduct that clearly violated common workplace standards, as reflected in team and League rules and policies. This conduct included the use of racially insensitive language; unequal treatment of female employees; sex-related statements and conduct; and harsh treatment of employees that on occasion constituted bullying.” The statement released by the NBA outlined the key findings from the investigation as follows: Mr. Sarver, on at least five occasions during his tenure with the Suns/Mercury organization, repeated the N-word when recounting the statements of others. Mr. Sarver engaged in instances of inequitable conduct toward female employees, made many sex-related comments in the workplace, made inappropriate comments about the physical appearance of female employees and other women, and on several occasions engaged in inappropriate physical conduct toward male employees. Mr. Sarver engaged in demeaning and harsh treatment of employees, including yelling and cursing at them. The statement from the NBA describes the consequences of these findings. The first consequence is that Sarver will be suspended from organizational activities for a period of one year. Alongside this suspension, the NBA stated that Sarver will complete a training program that they state is “focused on respect and appropriate conduct in the workplace.” The second consequence is that Sarver will be fined $10 million. The NBA will send that money to organizations that address “race and gender-based issues in and outside of the workplace.” The statement concluded with quotes from NBA Commissioner Adam Silver summarizing the NBA’s position on the matter. “The statements and conduct described in the findings of the independent investigation are troubling and disappointing,” said NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. “We believe the outcome is the right one, taking into account all the facts, circumstances, and context brought to light by the comprehensive investigation of this 18-year period and our commitment to upholding proper standards in NBA workplaces. “I am hopeful that the NBA community will use this opportunity to reflect on what this great game means to people everywhere and the values of equality, respect, and inclusion that it strives to represent. Regardless of position, power, or intent, we all need to recognize the corrosive and hurtful impact of racially insensitive and demeaning language and behavior. On behalf of the entire NBA, I apologize to all of those impacted by the misconduct outlined in the investigators’ report. We must do better.” Finally, and maybe most importantly for the NBA regarding transparency, the NBA included a link to the full 43-page report compiled by David Anders and Sarah Eddy, the partners leading the investigation. This statement highlights a big difference between the NBA and the NFL. Both the NFL and NBA have had controversies surrounding an owner of a team in their respective leagues. However, one league has demonstrated complete transparency. The other league, however, has been investigated by Congress regarding its handling of the investigation into its owner. Those who follow both know which one is which. The NBA has been a model for transparency since Adam Silver took the helm as Commissioner in 2014. While people may not be happy with how harshly the NBA handled Sarver. The transparency of the NBA allows those comments. The 43-page report goes into the process and findings following the investigation in more depth than the NBA's statement. The transparency also allows the NBA to handle questions and point to a document that can justify their choices in punishment. The NFL has shown that they are doing almost the exact opposite when it comes to the investigation and punishment of their owners. The NFL has refused to release a full report of its investigation into the Washington Commander’s owner, Dan Snyder. They have been so secretive with the report surrounding its investigation that Congress had to step in. Congress initiated its own investigation which included a voluntary appearance by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the issuance of a subpoena to Dan Snyder. Snyder has since refused to comply with the subpoena. The report remains a secret. This story and its comparison to the NFL’s handling of Dan Snyder reminds me of one lesson I learned in my Sports Law class in law school. Adam Silver, a lawyer, heads the NBA, and Roger Goodell, a businessman, heads the NFL. This difference in professional background could be one reason we see a difference in how the NBA and NFL handled their respective investigations. The NFL could learn many lessons including transparency and promptness following this statement from the NBA. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

Hours before the start of week one, the College Football Playoff (CFP) Board of Managers unanimously voted to expand the college football playoff to a 12-team model, finally drawing an end to discussions that have been ongoing since early 2019.[1] The Board of Managers is now tasked with overseeing the new format’s implementation by 2026. Some hope the expansion will take place sooner, maybe as early as 2024, dependent on feasibility as determined by the CFP Management Committee. The Committee is appointed by the Board of Managers and made up of ten conference commissioners and the University of Notre Dame’s Athletics Director. In the coming months, the Committee must determine game dates and locations, broadcast rights, and revenue allocations.[1] The 12-team field will consist of “the six conference champions ranked highest by the selection committee (no minimum ranking requirement), plus the six highest-ranked teams not included among the six-highest-ranked conference champions.” [1] The first-, second-, third-, and fourth-seed teams will receive a first-round bye, and the remaining eight teams will play in the first round, with the higher seed hosting the lower either on-campus or at a site chosen by that higher seed.[1] Many are happy to see the new model and believe it will create more room at a table that has been largely dominated by two conferences for the past decade and a half - the SEC and the Big 10. The SEC has won five of eight national championships since the CFP’s introduction in 2014, including three straight titles.[2] This dominance has created challenges, namely recruiting difficulties and a lack of national appeal, especially when considering other collegiate championships, like men’s college basketball’s March Madness tournament. March Madness has become a national phenomenon, with millions filling out brackets and following the action, watching first-round upsets, and rooting for Cinderella teams to make deep runs in the tournament. In contrast, college football has continued to condense into regional powerhouses, and recent conference realignment has created even more concern that the rich get richer and continue to edge out other programs. With the expanded model, the hope is that the additional playoff access boosts national appeal and teams in additional conferences move from afterthoughts to actual contenders. The tentative timeline has the first-round games scheduled for the second or third weekend of December, with twelve days between conference championship games and playoffs. The Committee is set to meet in the coming days to begin discussing implementing the new model, possibly by 2024. The automatic bids for the highest-rated champions are a huge shift, almost ensuring entrance for the Big 12, ACC, and Pac 12. This system creates added playoff opportunities for additional Group of Five conferences like the Sun Belt. The at-large bids also increase the opportunity for one- and two-loss teams to remain in contention.[3] While the new model has been largely met with enthusiasm, there are concerns. The extended season touches a lot of areas: greater interference with fall semester finals and the beginning of spring semester; the December signing period will likely be pushed back; with players looking at a 16/17 game season, there is an increased opportunity for injury; additional games will likely compete for airtime with NFL playoffs. If the model is implemented before 2026, existing contracts with media partners and venues will need to be considered. There are concerns with adequate accommodations and ticket availability, as well as questions concerning the new revenue distribution model. Nearly 80% of the current CFP revenue is allocated to the Power 5, with the remaining 20% going to the Group of Five.[4] Following expansion, the annual revenue is projected to triple to nearly $2 billion; however, little has been released regarding a new payout plan.[5] Additionally, questions remain surrounding media rights, playoff locations, and how current bowl sites will be integrated into the new format. Following a weekend of week two upsets, with two Sun Belt teams upsetting AP top-ten teams (Marshall handed No. 8, Notre Dame, their second loss of the season and Appalachian State defeated No. 6 Texas A&M), discussions surrounding CFP expansion feel even more important and timely. The Board of Managers and Management Committee have a lot to iron out in the coming months.[6] Julie Chambers is a 2L at New England Law, where she is President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Organization. She can be reached at LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-chambers-38a3401b8/. Sources: [1]https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/07/12-team-college-football-playoff-issues [2]https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/first-and-10-good-luck-getting-sec-to-play-ball-on-16-team-playoff/ [3] https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/2022/9/2/bom-votes-12-team-playoff.aspx [4] https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/07/12-team-college-football-playoff-issues [5]https://apnews.com/article/college-sports-football-business-entertainment-college-football-e2e2beb24fac0b8782b96e841cfb9b40 [6]https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34562517/week-2-top-college-football-trolls-app-state-roasts-texas-marshall-celebrates- upset-win.

Earlier this year and in one of my first articles for conduct detrimental, I covered the suspensions and defections of current PGA Tour players to the new, “upstart” LIV tour. since then, much has occurred that warrants revisiting the issues, and evaluating the veracity of my predictions. One of the predictions I made in that article was the possibility of antitrust action being taken against the PGA for the way that they were approaching this newfound competition. Well, it seems that that prediction was spot on. As reported by ESPN, the Wall Street Journal, and others, The US Department of Justice has opened an investigation into potential antitrust violations by the PGA. Additionally, Mickelson, DeChambeau, and nine other “ex” PGA members filed a lawsuit in federal district court in northern California—also alleging antitrust violations—and seeking a temporary restraining order to allow them to compete in the upcoming rounds of the PGA tour. Since news of that lawsuit first broke, several of the golfers have dropped out of the suit (bringing the total number down to 7), but, interestingly, LIV Golf Inc itself joined the suit. (see article detailing this here). LIV joining the suit makes sense from the perspective that they purport to stand for golfers who want more freedom as to where and how they play golf, and joining the lawsuit is a great way to bolster this “value” in the eyes of the public. The PGA: Unchanged Rhetoric and Attitudes Despite these lawsuits, the PGA has not softened its position regarding players who leave to play in the LIV tournaments. In a memo from PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan (as reported by ESPN), Monahan states: “Fundamentally, these suspended players—who are now Saudi Golf League employees—have walked away from the Tour and now want back in. With the Saudi Golf League on hiatus, they're trying to use lawyers to force their way into competition alongside our members in good standing.” I have a number of issues with this statement. First, I don’t fall for the rhetoric that suggests that the golfers who left for LIV are trying to “force their way back” into the PGA. Yes, they are trying to re-enter, but they shouldn’t have been expelled in the first place—because 1) PGA members are independent contractors, which gives them the freedom to “work” elsewhere, and 2) the PGA has the discretion to grant up to three releases per year (per golfer) to compete in events other than PGA tour events if there are conflicts—yet no releases of any kind were offered to golfers who “defected” to LIV. They were suspended immediately and for no other good reason other than “we don’t like the tour you’re playing for” (you could argue that not all the suspended players attempted to get a release, but I think it is pretty clear the PGA wouldn’t have granted it). Second, it calls attention to the fact that the players who have signed contracts with LIV are considered “employees”—an ironic and duplicitous statement coming from the PGA. As mentioned in my first article on the subject, the PGA consciously CHOOSES to have golfers not be recognized as employees but instead views them as independent contractors—meaning they legally can't prevent or bar members from competing in other tours, and ESPECIALLY can't penalize them for doing so (both of which the PGA has attempted to do). While it does appear that LIV has something more analogous to an “employment” contract with its golfers—contracted players are obligated to play in all events on the tour, including if the tour expands the number of events—there is no evidence that these contracts would preclude LIV contracted golfers from playing in PGA events. While obvious to me, the PGA seems to forget that it could have avoided this entire issue, including the antitrust (and likely federal labor law) suits if it had chosen to recognize members as employees—but it was more interested in saving itself money. While the PGA may be “confident” that it will prevail in these lawsuits, I think there is a high probability their past and continued hostile attitude and “punishments” to golfers who “defect” will cause them to lose the antitrust lawsuits already instituted, and a high probability of being found in violation of federal labor laws (if a suit is brought alleging they are treating “independent contractors” as employees are instituted—and I think one could [and should] be brought). Their continued rhetoric and actions in the face of these real possibilities of losing are bold, to say the least, and could very realistically be aiding in their defeat. The Big Picture—Positive Impacts No matter if you are “Team PGA” or “Team LIV,” if you take a step back, you have to conclude that this conflict will create positive change. Ultimately, this conflict can be boiled down to player rights and freedoms, which most people agree are good things to have. Before LIV, the PGA had no competition, and regardless of what the DoJ decided, the PGA was at least “acting” as a monopoly. It was “their way or the highway”—and “their way” maximized their own profits while giving the lowest it reasonably could to golfers to still incentivize them to play. Now, the PGA has competition, which is causing it to have to shift some of its hoarded revenue to the players—which is what they all wanted in the first place. Mickelson has said that the changes the PGA announced (increasing the purses and adding some events with guaranteed payouts) are “welcomed” and a good sign—but these forced changes are ultimately why the PGA is so upset. They want to keep their power (and their money) close at hand, and they have had to relinquish some of both. I think this is a good thing—competition makes the market (in this case for talent and golf content that is interesting) more efficient, still allowing the PGA to make money, but giving golfers more of their share. I think this is something golf fans should be happy about, no matter which side they are on in this ongoing LIV/PGA debacle. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with 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. Sources: https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/34227586/us-department-justice-investigating-pga-tour-behavior-towards-liv-golf https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/34341768/phil-mickelson-bryson-dechambeau-11-golfers-file-antitrust-lawsuit-pga-tour https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/34508592/phil-mickelson-says-feedback-liv-golf-pga-tour-competitors-appreciative-new-windfall-sport https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/liv-golf-joins-player-led-lawsuit-against-pga-tour-as-two-more-golfers-drop-out/