In the chaotic world of Sports Law, there are times when cases fall through the cracks because the controversy does not break into the mainstream media. The two actions that were filed in Washington, D.C. and New York fit into this category of cases. The cases focus on a business practice by major sports card manufacturers Topps and Panini. Specifically, the complaints focus on the redemption cards placed in both companies’ packs. For those uninitiated in the world of sports card collectibles, it is helpful to provide a background on redemption cards. Normally when someone purchases a pack of sports cards, they are treated with around 12 cards. These cards include a player’s name, team, position, pictures, and sometimes stats. Certain cards range in their rarity, making some more desirable than others. In contrast, the sight of a redemption card would be striking to one unaware of the practice. The redemption cards are blank white cards that contain a sticker. The sticker identifies the card that you could receive from the manufacturer. It will have the player's information, as well as the series the card is from. To obtain the card from the company, the purchaser must go to the website and redeem the card. The company will ship the card to the redeemer when it becomes available. This practice stems from the inability to obtain certain cards or players' signatures in time for the release of the packs. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that the redemption card practice is a “contest which offers a chance at winning a thing of value.” The complaint goes on to point out that Federal and state law requires that any contest at winning something of value must be classified as No Purchase Necessary (NPN). When the company does not allow non-purchasers to enter the contest, it is deemed an unlawful lottery. Now I want to make it clear that the complaints are not claiming that Topps and Panini are running an unlawful lottery. I read many articles that wrongly attribute this as a claim that the companies are running an illegal lottery. The complaints go on to explain that the companies provide information about the contests being an NPN contest. However, the companies display the information in a deceptive way to consumers. The complaint claims that both companies failed to clearly and conspicuously display the information about the NPN. The information about the NPN contest is displayed on the packs inside the boxes of trading cards. The complaint then went on to connect this lack of clarity to consumer harm. “By requiring purchase of the Product and rendering it difficult to impossible for nonpurchasers to obtain the redemption cards, consumers are misled to purchase items they otherwise would not have to, at higher prices.” The complaint went on, “Plaintiff believed and expected purchasing the Product was necessary to gain entry to the contest and gave the purchaser a greater chance at winning the contest because that is what the representations and omissions said and implied.” Finally, “Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions were false, unlawful or misleading or would have paid less for it.” Each complaint establishes two classes: residents of the jurisdiction (i.e. D.C. residents for the D.C. filing) and a consumer fraud multi-state class that includes 18 different states. The complaint filed in D.C. establishes a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code Sec. 38-3901[DC Class Only]; Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts [Multi-State Class Only]; Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; and Unjust Enrichment. The complaint filed in New York differs slightly as it establishes a cause of action under New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 & 350; Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts [Multi-State Class Only]; Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; Unjust Enrichment’; Negligent Misrepresentation; and Fraud. Both complaints are seeking a preliminary injunction along with monetary damages. These lawsuits have the ability to reshape the sports card industry as both Panini and Topps could face heavy damages. Topps and Panini sell cards in Walmart and Target as well as small mom-and-pop card shops across the United States. Topps and Panini have nationwide consumers that could cause the monetary damages from this suit to be very costly to both. 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/.

After the news that Texas and Oklahoma were departing the Big 12 for the SEC in the summer of 2021, there was a significant domino effect of movement across the country in the subsequent months. From the Big 12 poaching the American Athletic Conference to replace Texas and OU to the American poaching Conference-USA to replace UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati, the trickle-down effect was unprecedented. The landscape was altered from the highest level of Division I college athletics all the way down to the D2 and D3 ranks. This summer, more landscape-altering news dropped when USC and UCLA announced they were leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. Initially, many in the media and around college athletics pondered that the Pac-12 wouldn’t survive the blow of two of their flagship institutions departing. Speculation that Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford would follow the Los Angeles schools to the greener pastures of the Big Ten was rampant. Reports circulated that Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah were being aggressively pursued by the Big 12. However, nearly three months removed from the bombshell announcement, there haven’t been any additional moves to this point. Where do things currently stand on the conference realignment front? Let’s dive into the developments that have either already occurred or will surface in the coming weeks and months. College Football Playoff Expansion Just before the start of the college football season kicked off at the beginning of the month, the College Football Playoff’s board of managers unanimously voted to expand the CFP from four to 12 no later than 2026. While many believed expansion was inevitable, the announcement was still significant news for the sport, especially in this climate of conference realignment. Even more important than the addition of eight teams to the CFP is the format. The current four-team playoff simply selects the four “best and most deserving” teams in the country, regardless of what conference they’re in. In the new format, 12 teams will consist of the six highest ranked conference champions and six additional at-large teams. The four highest-ranked conference champions will receive a first-round bye, leaving the five through 12 seeds to play to advance to the quarterfinals. Playoff expansion has long been viewed as a positive thing for the health of college football. Since the beginning of the CFP era in 2014, many have complained about the sport’s lack of parity, and rightfully so. Through seven years, only 13 different programs have made the four-team field. Programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Georgia have separated themselves from the rest of the sport because many recruits believe they had to commit to one of those powerhouses to compete for a championship. As a result, many schools and conferences were left with little hope to ever crack the CFP. In the newly expanded playoff, conferences and schools have something they’ve lacked in the past: access. With six bids reserved for the highest-ranked conference champions, every team in the FBS conceivably has a path to the national championship. Sure, the most well-resourced and talented programs will win in the end in most years, but the power of hope in college athletics is very strong, and the CFP expanding only increases that sense of hope. In terms of realignment, the six highest ranked conference champions piece is huge. The narrative around college athletics in the aftermath of USC and UCLA’s move was that we were living in the era of the “Power two” with the Big Ten and SEC dominating the landscape. The thought was if you weren’t in any one of those two leagues, you would fall behind. Even though that might be true from a financial perspective in terms of media rights deals, it’s not necessarily true in terms of championship access. Teams now don’t have to join the Big Ten or SEC to compete for a CFP bid. In fact, the path to the playoff might be easier in the Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, and the group of five leagues. Sure, the “Power two” will gobble up most of the at-large bids, but the depth of talented teams in those leagues will make every SEC or Big Ten team’s schedule incredibly difficult. With six spots reserved for conference champions, at least four bids will go to teams outside the “Power two.” Could the expansion of the CFP slow conference realignment? I believe it’s a strong possibility. If you are Oregon or Washington, are you more inclined to stay in the Pac-12 now? It’s an interesting dynamic. Instead of going through Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, etc. in the Big Ten, you would only have to beat out the likes of historically good, but not great programs like Arizona State, Stanford, Utah, and Washington State to win the Pac-12 crown. Of course, the revenue gap between the SEC and Big Ten to the other conference is not insignificant, but does the better path to the CFP outweigh it? It will be fascinating to watch play out. Speaking of the revenue gap between the “Power two” and the rest of college athletics, here’s the other important factor in the current state of conference realignment. The Pac-12 and Big 12’s New Media Rights Agreement Shortly after USC and UCLA departed for the Big Ten, the Pac-12 decided to expedite the process to negotiate their next media rights agreement. The current deal with ESPN and Fox is set to expire in 2024. Obviously, with USC and UCLA leaving along with the presence of the Los Angeles market, the deal won’t be as lucrative as it would’ve been with those two in the fold. With that being said, there is still some optimism within the Pac-12 and their remaining ten institutions that their next deal will be sufficient to stay competitive moving forward. Similarly, even though the Big 12’s current media rights deal doesn’t expire until 2025, they recently announced they were opening their negotiations with networks ahead of schedule. One of the few advantages the Pac-12 had was that it was next in line among the major conferences to sign a new deal. When the Big 12 smartly opened their negotiations, that advantage went out the door. Ever since reports circulated that the Big 12 was rumored to be targeting Pac-12 schools, there has been a lot of tension between those two leagues. During media days, new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark claimed his conference was “open for business” in regards to adding new members. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff clapped back with "With respect to the Big 12 being open for business, I appreciate that. We haven't decided if we're going shopping there yet or not." Given ESPN lost out on bidding for the Big Ten rights, many believe the Worldwide Leader will play a huge role in deciding the future of the Big 12 and Pac-12. Is ESPN more interested in securing the rights of the new look Big 12 or the new look Pac-12? Could they sign deals with both? These are all questions that will shape the next round of realignment. Andrew Marchand of the New York Post recently reported that the Pac-12 and ESPN are “hundreds of millions of dollars apart.” If this is true and the remaining Pac-12 schools are unsatisfied with the negotiation process, would they look to jump? It’s possible. Another variable to point out on the media rights subject is the presence of Amazon or other streaming services. We’ve seen the NFL dip their toe into streaming with Thursday Night Football, but how would it work in college athletics? The Pac-12 Networks are often criticized for a lack of distribution, so would the upside of potentially getting more revenue from an Amazon or Apple be offset by the lack of visibility? With the Big Ten and SEC having nearly all of their games on cable television, would it be wise for the Pac-12 to be the only major conference on streaming services? Probably not. George Kliavkoff has expressed optimism about the conference’s ability to sign a good deal and keep its remaining members, but as we know, actions are a lot more powerful than words in conference realignment. All in all, while we haven’t seen the immediate trickle down like we saw after Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC, there is still a lot to be sorted out in the coming months. The CFP expansion could definitely lessen the incentive to jump to a more profitable league, but everyone needs to keep an eye on the media rights agreements signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12. I believe college athletics are better when all regions of the country are relevant and regional rivalries are present. We can still have that, but there’s a lot to be decided in the near future. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The application process for Official World Golf Ranking (“OWGR”) certification takes anywhere from one to two years. Additionally, a tour that applies for certification must meet certain mandatory criteria for a minimum of one year before the application is submitted. LIV officially applied for OWGR certification on July 6, 2022 – just three months ago – and less than one month after its first event. Despite that timeline, LIV golfers are reportedly growing “agitated” that OWGR officials are “slow playing” their application. To that end, they have penned a group letter to the OWGR Governing Board asking for LIV to be included in the ranking system. Not only does the letter ask for the OWGR to certify LIV significantly faster than any other tour in history, but it also requests that the points be applied retroactively to past LIV events – a move that has no precedent. Even if the OWGR dramatically altered its processes and timeline to fast-track LIV’s application, there are significant hurdles that make certification unlikely considering some of OWGR’s compulsory elements. Those elements are discussed below. OWGR Application Criteria An embrace of inclusion and promoting non-discriminatory practices. Many people dismiss LIV’s ties to Saudi Arabia and its track record of human rights abuses when defending the insurgent tour, however, those ties may very well impact their OWGR application. Although it is far more likely that OWGR is referring to inclusion and non-discriminatory practices as it relates to the tour itself, it is not out of the question that the OWGR Governing Board considers the parent company and funding source of LIV golf. Competitions contested over 72 holes, except for developmental tours, which are permitted to be 54-hole events. The name “LIV” did not fall out of the sky – it is the roman numeral representing the number 54, for its signature 54-hole event tournaments. Greg Norman’s primary pitch for LIV is that it is an alternative to the PGA that will allow golfers to make more money while playing less golf. LIV would have to completely reverse course on its business model – and likely change its name – in order to meet this criterion. Additionally, many golfers who believed they were signing up for 54-hole events will not be happy. An open qualifying school held before the start of each season. LIV’s members are handpicked by Greg Norman. There are no qualifying schools or other criteria whereby a player can make it onto the LIV tour. Instead, they must have some kind of star power for LIV to choose them. See: Tiger Woods turning down $800 million to join LIV. A field size on average of 75 players over the course of a season. Another major selling point of LIV golf is the limited size of the fields, which are just 48 players. This is far lower than the field average required by the OWGR. It is not out of the realm of possibility that LIV expands its field size to meet this criterion. Although Greg Norman has routinely spoken of the exclusivity of LIV being just 48 of the top players in the world, adding 30 more bodies seems a small price to pay for OWGR points. A 36-hole cut, whether playing 54 or 72 holes. Yet another pillar of LIV’s business model is that everybody who plays makes money. Their tournaments have no cut, a stark contrast from the traditional 36-hole cut system found in the majority of PGA Tour and other tour events. For golfers who are not high on the annual money list, missing the cut on the PGA Tour can prove costly since their travel and lodging are not covered. This has been a major criticism of the PGA Tour, and two of the most significant changes recently unveiled aim to alleviate those costs. First, the Tour is adding a $5,000 stipend for each missed cut to non-exempt Tour members. Second, the Tour is implementing a $500,000 minimum salary for all exempt members that play at least 15 events (one less than the 14-event LIV schedule). Despite these changes, the no-cut format is understandably appealing for many golfers and it would make little sense for LIV to transition to a 36-hole cut, especially considering the small field sizes. A clear opportunity to progress to a full member tour. LIV has positioned itself as the anti-member tour and this element is somewhat of a lost cause. Nobody who is playing on the LIV tour has goals of someday making the PGA Tour. They are on LIV because they have chosen to play a different type of golf. Many people point to LIV’s affiliation with the Asian Tour (an OWGR Member) as satisfying this element. However, golfers who sign up for LIV are not doing so because they want to play on the Asian Tour. In short, LIV is not a feeder for the Asian Tour. Reasonable access for local and regional players (Monday qualifiers) at each event. As mentioned, the LIV field is set at 48 players who are handpicked by Greg Norman. There is no opportunity for Monday qualifiers or regional players to enter their exclusive fields. However, in July, LIV did announce plans to add relegation and a qualifying tournament to its format beginning in October 2023. The plan is essentially that the bottom 4 players over the course of the LIV season will be relegated (lose their tour card). In October, LIV will then host a tournament whereby four players will earn their way onto the full tour the following season. Although this change may satisfy the qualifying tournament element, it won’t be in place until at least October 2023. Since the OWGR explicitly states that elements must be in place for one year prior to submitting an application, the earliest that this move could pay off for LIV is October 2024. A 10-event minimum schedule. At the time of its application, the LIV tour was scheduled for 8 events. Next year, they will be hosting 14 events. This is ironic since many golfers who defected cited that playing fewer tournaments than the PGA Tour’s 15-event minimum was the biggest draw for them (not the money, of course). Now, they’re required to play all 14 LIV events, and, if they are eligible to play in Majors, they will be playing close to 20 times next season. Regardless, although LIV could not satisfy the 10-event minimum at the time of its application, it will by next year. The Bottom Line Clearly, LIV faces some significant hurdles in gaining recognition from the OWGR. The most prominent one being that their application seems to be very premature since almost none of the mandatory criteria are met at this point and only a couple more will be met by next year. Additionally, it should be noted that the LIV golfers only want OWGR points to be able to qualify for Majors. However, the PGA Championship – one of golf’s four majors – has no OWGR-based eligibility. Even if LIV gains certification from the OWGR, there is nothing stopping the other three Majors from following suit. In short, the Majors hold the trump card. Some golf commentators have inquired about whether LIV will simply adopt a four-round, 36-hole cut format or increase the field sizes to gain certification from the OWGR. However, from the very beginning, LIV has branded itself as different. Fewer rounds, no cut, more money, loud music. For a tour that has done everything in its power to be anti-establishment, they are spending an awful lot of time, money, and effort to align itself with the Majors and OWGR. As Judge Beth Freeman stated in her opinion last month: “if LIV Golf is elite golf’s future, what do [LIV Golfers] care about the dust-collecting trophies of a bygone era?” John Nucci is an Associate at Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP in Rochester, NY and a graduate of Penn State Law. He can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter at @JNucci23.

In 2021, The University of Southern Mississippi, Marshall University, and Old Dominion University announced that they accepted invitations to join the Sun Belt Conference (SBC), leaving Conference USA (CUSA) no later than July 1, 2023. In February, the departing schools moved up the date to join the SBC to July 1, 2022, which CUSA opposed due to the conference’s by-laws requiring 14 months’ notice prior to exiting. After multiple court filings and arbitration filings, the conference and departing schools reached a resolution in March, allowing the schools to join the SBC in 2022. Initially kept confidential, the settlement agreement has been released to the public, detailing the costs of exiting CUSA and showcasing that any conference exit can occur—for the right amount of money. According to CUSA by-laws, the exit fees for teams leaving the conference equals two years’ worth of revenue distribution, equaling about $1.5 million per year or $3 million total. The settlement agreement dictates each school must pay $1.75 million to CUSA for an early exit. In turn, CUSA agreed to pay the universities certain amounts from the NCAA for the 2021-2022 academic year, including amounts received from the academic enhancement fund, academic performance fund, student assistance fund, sports sponsorships, and grants-in-aid. Additionally, the departing schools would receive any bowl expense reimbursements. Except as enumerated in the agreement, CUSA withheld all other distributions (although the settlement agreement did not specify what distributions CUSA withheld). Not only did the departing schools pay $1.75 million to CUSA and lose out on approximately $1.5 million in media distribution money from the conference for the 2021-2022 academic year, but the schools also will not receive any television revenue from the SBC during the current academic year, which is around $1.2 million per year. Paying $1.75 million to exit the conference and missing out on $1.5 million in revenue for over $3 million in losses is a costly amount to pay for athletic departments that earn total revenues between $27 million (Southern Miss) and $41 million (Old Dominion). For the schools, help should be on the way in future years. The SBC and ESPN announced an expanded media rights agreement shortly after the schools joined the conference. Additionally, the geographic benefits of the SBC should save on travel costs and other expenses. For CUSA, six more schools are exiting at the end of the current academic year to join the American Athletic Conference (AAC). Each school is expected to pay roughly $3 million in exit fees, putting the conference in a solid financial position as it adds four schools. As for everyone else, as conferences continue to realign, this settlement agreement lets us know that anything can happen for the right price. 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.

The MLB is having a grand finale to the 2022 season. Aaron Judge is on pace for an all-time season, potentially being capped off by winning the Triple Crown and breaking the American League Home Run Record. In the National League, all-time great Albert Pujols looks to cap off his exceptional career by hitting the 700 home run mark. As of today, September 22 pre-game, Judge sits at 60 home runs, one off the current record of 61 held by former Yankee Roger Maris, and Albert Pujols sits at 698 total home runs. Beyond the media hype surrounding Judge's feats, including ESPN tuning in to every Judge at-bat and Apple TV discussing a scenario in which Michael Kay announces Judge's home run on Apple TV (if it were to fall on this Friday), there is a substantial buzz going around New York and the sports world about the prospect of catching number 61 and 62 of the Yankee slugger's home runs. Pujols on the other hand, could very likely hit 700 in enemy territory, as he only has 3 games left in St. Louis. However, I think opposing fans will be just as happy to get a chance at that milestone ball. Presumably this buzz stems from reports that Judge's 61st and 62nd home runs have been valued In the millions, essentially making Aaron Judge's home run balls into winning lottery tickets launched into a crowd of waiting New Yorkers. Pujols is estimated to be a bit lower than Judge but will be a substantial value to anyone who catches it nonetheless. These home runs are almost an inevitability given Judge and Pujols have 14 games to hit two home runs, so what happens if those balls land among the crowd? The obvious case to look at here is Popov v. Hayashi, the legal battle over current MLB home run record holder Barry Bonds' record-breaking shot. This case caused quite a stir in the sports and legal worlds as the facts were unique and had to be approached from a new perspective. The basic premise is that as Bonds' record-breaking ball sailed into the stands, Popov caught it in his glove, and was almost immediately knocked down by others clamoring for the jackpot that had just landed in the stands. When he was knocked down due to the illegal, borderline assaultive actions of the fans around him, he lost possession of the ball and Hayashi scooped it up and ran to safety. Popov, rightfully upset, filed an action for conversion (when a party takes the tangible, personal property of another with the intent to deprive them of it) against Hayashi claiming he had a right to that ball. Hayashi defended that he had a right to the ball because he legally picked it up and walked away with it. In an unusual result, the court ruled that both men had a right to the ball. Popov through his pre-possessory interest when he caught it, and Hayashi through his actual possession had equally compelling arguments. The conclusion was that the ball would be sold with the men splitting the profits equally. It sounds like history could repeat itself as the Yankees finish out their season at home. With tickets at Yankee Stadium in home run areas like the bleachers already ascending to absurd prices like $600 per ticket, you can bet the crowd at Yankee Stadium is chomping at the bit to get their hands on this ball. Something tells me there will be a severe deprivation of personal space, and a departure from civil norms if/when that ball lands in the stands. The same goes for Pujols' potential milestone home run, although New York seems to be drawing a majority of the attention. Yankee Stadium has been sitting over 40,000 fans per game in attendance during the homestand with a significant electricity throughout the game. Here's some advice from a baseball fan who will be watching at home. If you find yourself in the unlikely position to walk away with one of these money balls, dont' commit assault, don't announce it or show it off, find security, and maybe call a lawyer. Evan Mattel is a 2L at Hofstra Law, Vice President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, and Representative for the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment and Sports Law Section. He can be found at @Evan_Mattel21 on Twitter or on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-mattel-93a871182/

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? That is the question. The COVID vaccine has been a staple in media headlines since its inception, and sports is no exception. The latest of which involves the Jacksonville Jaguars and their head coach Urban Meyer’s recent comments about vaccination status factoring into recent roster cuts. To give some context, Urban Meyer is a former accomplished college football coach for Ohio State who recently transitioned into the NFL for the first time. He also had the privilege of drafting top quarterback prospect Trevor Lawrence in this year’s NFL draft. As such, the sports world has been fixated on the new head coach and his prized quarterback’s first season in the NFL. Meyer drew even more attention a result of his comments during a press conference discussing roster cuts where he was quoted as saying “"Everyone was considered," Meyer said. "That was part of the [considerations such as] production, let's start talking about this, and also is he vaccinated or not? Can I say that that was a decision-maker? It was certainly in consideration.”[1] . This may seem like a standard vague head coach answer, but Meyer’s comments caught the attention of the media and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), who has launched an investigation. The NFL has a policy that a team may not cut a player based on vaccination status. This issue first popped up in May when Buffalo Bills GM Brandon Beane stated he’d hypothetically cut an unvaccinated player because it would provide more freedom within team facilities and make the offseason more manageable. An anonymous source with knowledge of the league’s directive responded and told the Associated Press “A team may not release a player solely due to vaccination status.”[2] As a private company, the NFL would be well within its rights to mandate players and staff within the organization to get the vaccine. There has been some rumblings in the media that the NFL might try to implement a mandate for the vaccine, however they would need the NFLPA approval or risk a partial or total strike from players. However, at the moment they have not made such a mandate and instead have established a different set of rules for the unvaccinated players. Vaccinated players will be tested weekly and are not considered to be “high risk” close contacts. If they come in contact with anyone deemed high risk, they must wear a mask around team facilities and take receive a negative COVID test result for 5 days straight. If they do contract COVID they must quarantine for 10 days or show proof of 2 negative COVID tests, separated by 24 hours. On the contrary, unvaccinated players must be tested daily and test immediately if they are deemed high risk or in contact with a high risk individual. Even if that test comes back negative, they still must miss 5 days before being able to return. If they test positive, they must complete a 10 day quarantine plus another 3 days to return to play.[3] This disparity between regulations for vaccinated and unvaccinated players is extremely relevant for this upcoming season as any team that must cancel a game due to a COVID outbreak would forfeit that game. Meyer had informed the team about the benefits of the vaccine and encouraged players to get vaccinated but ultimately said the decision is a personal one. He did also mention that protocols for unvaccinated players would impact the team’s chances to win. Earlier today (September 1, 2021), Meyer held another press conference where he said no players were released because of vaccination status [4]. This was an important clarification to make, but not a necessary one. The devil is in the details of the NFL’s rule as it states cutting a player on the sole reason of vaccination status is not allowed. Meyer never stated it was the only reason, just one of the factors. From a coach and general manager’s perspective, is it really unfair to consider vaccination status when making these decisions? A potential COVID outbreak could not only impact star players availability, but this year it could directly impact their record, standings and health of other players and staff. Meyer’s comments were not in violation of the NFL’s policy and from the perspective of management, this is a responsible practice with the underlying motivation being the overall success of the team and health of its players. Meyer’s comments will grab headlines, but most likely nothing else. Don’t be surprised to see more controversy arise out of the NFL’s COVID policies, and if the mandate is established, the floodgates will open. *Reporting on the Jacksonville Jaguars situation was first reported by Michale DiRocco at ESPN* [1]https://DiRocco, Michael. “NFLPA Opens Investigation after Jacksonville Jaguars' Urban Meyer SAYS Vaccination Status a Factor In Roster Cuts.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, August 31, 2021. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32121794/jacksonville-jaguars-urban-meyer-says-vaccination-status-factor-roster-cuts. [2] Wilner, Barry. “AP Source: No Cutting Players Because They Are Unvaccinated.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, May 7, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/buffalo-bills-coronavirus-pandemic-nfl-health-sports-33fedd03a0c2551a52fa729579dbe2fe. [3] Shapiro, Michael. “Report: NFL Adds WEEKLY Testing To Covid-19 Protocols.” Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, August 30, 2021. https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/08/30/nfl-updates-covid-19-protocols-weekly-testing-vaccinated-players. [4] DiRocco, Michael. “Jacksonville Jaguars Say No Players Were Released Due To COVID-19 Vaccination Status.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, September 1, 2021. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32126156/jacksonville-jaguars-say-no-players-were-released-due-vaccination-status.

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/

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 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.”

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.”

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.

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.