Earlier this week, the NFL implemented a COVID protocol that, effectively, is “forcing” players to become vaccinated. The league sent a memo to the clubs: if a game is cancelled and cannot be rescheduled, due to a COVID outbreak from unvaccinated players, then that team forfeits the game and is credited with a loss. Further, players on both teams will not be paid for that game, and the team responsible for the cancellation is on the hook for the financial losses, and possibly, discipline by Commissioner Goodell. The memo specifically states: “Every club is obligated under the Constitution and Bylaws to have its team ready to play at the scheduled time and place. A failure to do so is deemed conduct detrimental. There is no right to postpone a game. Postponements will only occur if required by government authorities, medical experts, or at the Commissioner's discretion.” (Emphasis added.) As it currently stands, players are not required to be vaccinated, but Tier 1 NFL staff are, which has been causing issues such as those with Minnesota Vikings offensive line coach Rick Dennison and New England Patriots co-offensive line coach Cole Popovich. (Check out the article on this). Players across the league have expressed their disagreement with this protocol and the policy poses a particularly complicated situation for players who are choosing not to get vaccinated. After this memo was released, DeAndre Hopkins, in a since-deleted tweet, stated, “Never thought I would say this, but being out in a position to hurt my team because I don’t want to partake in the vaccine is making me question my future in the @NFL.” Hopkins followed this deleted tweet up with “Btw I got about 9 more years in me, y’all have a good day.” If Hopkins chooses not to be vaccinated, now that this policy that has been implemented, and causes an outbreak within the Cardinals, would he be in violation of the conduct detrimental clause? In this scenario Hopkins’ actions would: cause the Cardinals to forfeit and be given a loss for that game; put the Cardinals at risk of covering financial losses and penalties from the Commissioner; AND cause players on the Cardinals and their opponent’s team to not be paid for that game. Conduct Detrimental is a broad clause that gives power to the clubs and the NFL to protect the reputation of the league and those in it. Everyone who is a part of the National Football League (“NFL”) must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL. There have been a number of NFL players in the past that have been penalized for conduct detrimental. According to the NFL collective bargaining agreement, the maximum fine for any conduct detrimental to the club is “an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks.” Terrell Owens (“T.O.”) was suspended for the 2005 season by the Philadelphia Eagles for conduct detrimental to the team and was penalized $191,176 per game for the games he was suspended. The Eagles then “deactivated” T.O. for the rest of the season, ultimately releasing him at the end of the year. T.O. was in his second year of a seven year contract and was supposed to be the final piece for a Super Bowl contending team. In 2004, after three straight NFC Championship losses, the Eagles won the NFC Championship behind a great season for T.O. but lost in the Super Bowl to the New England Patriots. T.O. would never play for the Eagles again after an arbitrator upheld the suspension because T.O.’s conduct was a “destructive and continuing threat” to the team. The Eagles wouldn’t make a Super Bowl run until the 2017 season. If Hopkins causes the Cardinals to forfeit a game, along with his teammates’ and opponents’ salaries, then he could be penalized for conduct detrimental to the club. Hopkins’ choice to not become vaccinated leaves open the possibility for a team COVID outbreak. Thus, his actions could also be deemed a “destructive and continuing threat” to the Cardinals organization. Based on Hopkins’ current contract, he could be penalized $3,055,556, approximately $763,889 per game, under the maximum four game suspension. Hopkins is in the first year of his two-year contract extension signed last year and is a key player for the Cardinals. It is yet to be seen how this protocol and the decision of players not to get vaccinated will play out on the field, in locker rooms or on the sidelines, but in the case of Hopkins, a resulting COVID outbreak has steep monetary and career-impacting implications. Unfortunately, only time and experience will tell as to how this kind of scenario will play out and COVID-19 continues to spur unprecedented change in the NFL. Mike Lawson is an Associate for O'Connell and Aronowitz in Albany, NY He is the Producer of the Conduct Detrimental Podcast and can be reached on Twitter @Mike_sonof_Law

The impending boom in wealth for college athletes benefiting from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) ushers in a newfound excitement for athletes across the country. College athletes like Hercy Miller, who will be an incoming freshman playing basketball at Tennessee State, claims to have a $2 million NIL deal. This should be celebrated as players will reap the benefits universities and conferences have monopolized to themselves. Unfortunately, for every benefit there is a cost. One cost is taxation on these profits. Like most college students, the only time taxes were relevant to me were the times I needed a refund to spend it on “Natty Light.” Beyond that, the terms “income bracket” and “corporate tax” were simply foreign to me. College athletes that benefit from their NIL, will now have to navigate the world of taxes. Depending on the state, some athletes will be obligated to learn the essentials on taxes, others will need to start learning on their own.[1] This is not to say that athletes are better off making $0 than earning an income for their NIL, but there are some additional costs that may factor in. NIL compensation could affect financial aid and Pell Grant eligibility. In addition, the work would be considered independent contract work. The reason this qualifies as independent contract work is since endorsement deals typically do not constitute full-time work but rather specific and “episodic obligations.” However, depending on the state, it has become more difficult for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors. Independent contractors do not see their company withhold income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare; the way employees typically do. Finally, some college programs may benefit depending on the state they live in as state taxes may be more lenient than other states. States like Florida, Nevada, Texas, or Washington may enjoy an advantage due to their tax laws. This would not be seen for a small-scale athlete, but take, for example, Hercy Miller. If Miller were to receive a $100,000 endorsement deal in California, he would owe, $32,820 in taxes, however in Florida, he would only pay $27,600. This may not seem like much, but for college athletes ready to profit on their NIL, every dollar counts. It should be reminded that not every college athlete is treated equally, and while some may go pro, others will need to find a second option for a career. Every dollar counts, but we are just on the cusp of learning the lay of the land when it comes to NIL and taxes. Austin is a Rising third year law student, Washington College of Law, Am. U.; M.S., Finance, Am. U.; B.A., Geo. Wash. Univ. [1] Michael McCann, Texas Joins NIL Fray With College Athlete Pay Law Effective July 1, SPORTICO, https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2021/texas-nil-law-1234631994/, Jun. 15, 2021 (last visited Jul. 23, 2021).

Just a few days before the Alston decision was released by the Supreme Court, another federal antitrust lawsuit handed a victory to a young athlete. Olivia Moultrie is a professional soccer player for the Portland Thorns in the National Women's Soccer League. She plays midfield, and she's very talented-- some say prodigal. She is also only fifteen years old, making her the youngest women's professional soccer player in the United States. However, before June 15, 2021, Moultrie was prohibited from signing a professional deal with any team in the NWSL due to a rule requiring players to be eighteen years old to play. She was, however, practicing and scrimmaging with the Thorns. Moultrie's father challenged the age rule in the United States District Court. The complaint alleges that the NWSL rule violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff (Moultrie) argued that the several teams comprising the NWSL have created a rule that players must be 18 years old to sign a professional contract to play in the league. Accordingly, this violates federal antitrust laws insofar as it is the only women's league that acquires and maintains professional soccer talent. Simply put, the teams colluded to exclude players of a certain age regardless of the player's talent. Without a reasonable alternative, it is unlawful. The complaint further compares similar rules in the men's league, the MLS. Demonstrating that the MLS has no similar rule, and there are a handful of MLS teams that had signed players under 18 years of age. In their motion for a temporary restraining order, which Judge Immergut granted, Plaintiff cites several antitrust cases that they say are strikingly similar and that no other cases oppose their conclusion. On the other hand, Defendant (NWSL), who has appealed the decision, argued that Moultrie was unable to prove "serious irreparable harm." The league also asserts that because there were ongoing negotiations with the NWSL Players Association, the Court would be impermissibly intervening for Moultrie's sole benefit at the expense of the rest of the league's players. Suppose the Player's Association and the League end up entering into a Collective Bargaining Agreement containing the same age rule. In that case, Moultrie could still lose her eligibility to play, notwithstanding Judge Immergut's decision to grant Plaintiff's motion. Meanwhile, Moultrie has already made her NWSL debut in front of tens of thousands of proud fans at Providence Park in Portland, Oregon. If the NWSL wins on appeal it can complicate her future with the club and - perhaps - unwind the historical precedent set by the Thorns. There is no better intersection of sports and law than a good antitrust showdown, and again young athletes are the winners.

It is no secret that women’s bodies can achieve incredible feats, from childbirth to elite athletic performances. Unfortunately, society is still too focused on what women’s bodies look like, rather than what they cando. Last week, the International Handball Federation fined Norway’s women’s beach handball team for wearing spandex shorts, instead of the required bikini bottoms during their bronze medal match at the European Handball Championships. Required bikini bottoms, you read that right. The International Handball Federation requires women to wear bikini bottoms “with a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg.” The side fabric on the bikini bottoms is limited to four inches. In stark contrast, men can wear shorts as long as they are not too baggy and are no longer than four inches above the knee. Since it is permissible for men to wear shorts, it is clear that shorts do not provide an illegal competitive advantage. Thus, there is no reasonable justification for requiring women athletes to wear bikini bottoms when men do not face similar requirements. Even worse, the International Handball Federation was unable to produce any reasoning for the rule whatsoever. This is unacceptable. While the double standard regarding uniforms is abhorrent, it is important to note that banning bikini bottoms will not solve the problem. Unless there is a competitive advantage, an athlete’s clothing choice is none of any athletic federation’s business. As long as there is no illegal competitive advantage, athletes should be allowed to choose whatever uniform is most comfortable for them to compete in. A woman who prefers bikini bottoms should be allowed to sport them without question, comment, or punishment. A woman who prefers shorts instead of bikini bottoms should equally be allowed to do so without question, comment, or punishment. As women’s sports are featured on the global stage at the Tokyo Olympics over the next few weeks, let’s remember to appreciate what women can do instead of focusing on what they can wear. After all, it is what these women have done that earned them spots in the Olympics, not what they wore. It is time to let women dress themselves. Dani Bland is a 3L at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law where she is Editor in Chief of the Sports Law Society Blog. She was a 12-time NCAA Track All American at Emory University. For inquiries, email [email protected] or dm on Twitter at @DaniB_315.

A lawsuit alleging sexual harassment was filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. The complaint was filed by a former batboy for the Birmingham Barons, the Chicago White Sox Double-A affiliate club. As seen in the caption below, the named defendants in the case are Omar Vizquel, the Birmingham Barons, the Chicago White Sox, and Chisox Corp. We have redacted the plaintiff’s name from all excerpts of the complaint to respect his privacy at this time. The plaintiff alleges that Vizquel, then manager of the Barons, engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse and harassment towards him. Specifically, as alleged, Vizquel would intentionally expose himself and force the batboy to wash his back. Notably, this lawsuit calls for a holding of disability discrimination in violation of Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff says he has autism. The alleged facts in the complaint are disturbing. Below are several excerpts: Vizquel, a Venezuelan former major league ball player, had a storied 24-year professional career. After being passed over for the Detroit Tigers’ open managerial job in 2017, Vizquel joined the Chicago White Sox organization. He managed their Class A-Advanced team, the Winston-Salem Dash. In December 2018, Vizquel was promoted to manage the White Sox’ Class AA team, the Birmingham Barons. In 2019, Vizquel was dismissed by the Barons a month before his contract was set to expire. Ken Rosenthal reported an incident occurred between him and a male employee, which resulted in an MLB investigation. The results of the MLB investigation are unknown. When reached by The Athletic, the clubhouse worker, who is no longer with the team, said: “I have to stay silent about this.” Vizquel, when asked about the situation, said: “I can’t really say anything about that because it really — nothing happened.” Not long after, in 2020, MLB investigated domestic abuse allegations against Omar Vizquel. According to a December 2020 report by The Athletic, after six years of marriage, Vizquel’s wife Blanca suddenly fled the couple’s home in Arizona. Less than a week later, she reportedly initiated divorce proceedings. In an Instagram live video posted on Oct. 7, 2020, she announced in Spanish that “no one deserves to have violence against them.” In a statement, Vizquel strongly denied the allegations against him. The couple ultimately filed a joint motion to dismiss any charges, which was granted. In the lawsuit filed on August 6, 2021, Vizquel faces allegations strikingly similar to the reported “incident between him and a male employee.” It is likely the same incident. The plaintiff describes disgraceful, unwanted sexual acts that Vizquel allegedly performed on him. The plaintiff was allegedly warned by his supervisor, the Clubhouse Manager, that “everything that happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse.” When the plaintiff told others in the organization that he was forced to wash the naked Vizquel’s back, the Clubhouse Manager allegedly “took no further action but only laughed, further humiliating [plaintiff]." With that, the plaintiff names the Birmingham Barons and Chicago White Sox as defendants because of their “negligent and/or wanton supervision, training and/or retention." The plaintiff alleges that the defendants not only knew of Vizquel’s revolting behavior, but they enabled it. Further, according to the complaint, Vizquel is a repeat offender and should not have been hired to begin with. In tort law, an employer may be found negligent for providing an employee with the ability to engage in a particular act. An employer can be held liable for a negligent hiring. This is a civil lawsuit, as a private citizen cannot individually bring a criminal action. The plaintiff, in his prayer for relief, requests a declaratory judgment that the employment practices, policies, procedures, conditions, and customs that led to the discrimination by Defendants violate Plaintiff's rights as secured by Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. ("ADA"), and Alabama state law. Additionally, the plaintiff requests an Order requiring the Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by awarding Plaintiff reinstatement, back pay (plus interest), lost benefits, and compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jmorr1.

Tennis has always been the ultimate noble game. Fans at matches are to be silent whether the match is played at the high school level on a cracked court or especially on the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Nearly every patron knows these rules of respect, and if they don't, the chair umpire will politely tell the rowdy fan to sit down and stay silent. The Wimbledon Championships, in particular, is the epitome of tradition and respect. With 145 years of history and champions and tickets selling for thousands of dollars, Wimbledon is the oldest and most exclusive Grand Slam in tennis. Players and fans alike are even required to carry on the legacy and traditions of Wimbledon's past by wearing all-white clothing to the grasscourt event. Therefore, when a drunken woman was shouting at Nick Kyrgios during the Wimbledon Men's Final against Novak Djokovic, one of the greatest tennis players of all time, it is entirely reasonable that a frustrated Kyrgios pleaded with the chair umpire to quiet the detractor. "She distracted me during the Wimbledon Final … why is she still here?" asked the 27-year-old Australian to the umpire. Kyrgios -- no stranger to controversies, including many wayward interactions with fans -- then pointed to the woman who "looks like she had 700 drinks," and asked for her removal from the stadium. While Kyrgios lost the battle on the court that day, the off-court drama has only begun to brew. On Tuesday, Brett Wilson, LLP, released a statement on behalf of Anna Palus, that the disorderly patron was bringing a defamation suit against the tennis star for his actions which led to her removal. "During the course of the final, Nick Kyrgios made a reckless and entirely baseless allegation against me … to, and read by, millions around the world, causing me and my family very substantial damage and distress," said Palus in the statement. Defamation Cases in the U.K. Although the barrier to prevailing in a defamation lawsuit is historically easier in the U.K. than in the U.S. -- because of the U.S. reluctance to infringe on rights to free speech -- a U.K. Supreme Court case in 2019 raised this burden considerably. In Lachaux v. Independent Print Ltd, the court raised the "Defamation Act 2013 ("Defamation Act") threshold by requiring the plaintiff to show "serious harm" to their reputation. In addition to the heightened burden, the Defamation Act provides that defendants can defend themselves if they can show that "the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true" or that "an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published." The Likely Case for Kyrgios When compiling the events of the Wimbledon Final, it seems very unlikely that Palus will prevail in her case against Kyrgios. In addition to the tennis star's in-match complaint, Kyrgios doubled down in his post-final press conference that the woman "was speaking [to him] between first and second serves." Kyrgios continued, even adding that he can tell when someone is too drunk based on his own experiences, quipping that "[he has] been on a couple of nights out in [his] life and [he knew] she had too many." Moments later, the reporter informed Kyrgios that Palus argued that she only had two drinks and was rooting for Kyrgios in the match -- to which Kyrgios responded that it doesn't matter who she rooted for. The lawsuit seems unlikely to progress any further as Kyrgios' comment will almost interpretively be treated as an honest opinion, if not the truth. In Kyrgios’ comments -- both during and after the match -- he merely stated that Palus was disruptive and appeared drunk. By Palus defending that she only had a few drinks, the court is almost certain to dismiss the case on the defense of honest opinion and possibly even that the comments were substantially true. Either way, Kyrgios will be more than likely to finally put his disappointing day at Wimbledon behind him as he tries to build off his success by conquering his first Grand Slam title in next week's U.S. Open in New York.

On Monday the MLBPA quietly made a move that, if completed, would shake up the entire landscape of Major League Baseball and has the potential to change the business of the sport as we know it. Minor League players received a note this week that was meant to gauge interest in union representation by the MLBPA, which would allow the association to collectively bargain on their behalf as well as major league players’ behalf[1]. For over a hundred years, minor leaguers have been left without collective bargaining abilities, and in recent years there has been a great outcry about player treatment and wages at the minor league level. In a press release, MLBPA director Tony Clark emphasized the importance of minor league players, saying that “Minor Leaguers represent our game’s future and deserve wages and working conditions that befit elite athletes who entertain millions of baseball fans nationwide”[2] . Of course, nearly every current and former (and future) big league player was in the minors at some point, so by providing better working conditions in the minors, the hope is it will produce better big leaguers. If the attempt at unionization is successful, it is expected that the over 5,000 MiLB players would form a separate organization under the umbrella of the PA[3]. This move to unionize comes at a time when the MLB has been under increasing scrutiny about its wage policy for minor league players, with groups like Advocates for Minor Leaguers spearheading this shift. Founded in 2020, when all of MiLB had their season canceled due to the pandemic, Advocates for Minor Leaguers seeks to “provide a collective voice for Minor League baseball players”[4]. They look right on track to do just that with the news Monday and announced that their executive board had all taken positions within the MLBPA[5]. As of the writing of this article, MLB and the commissioner’s office has declined to comment. The league office’s initial refusal to take a stance on the unionization of MiLB players is interesting, especially considering the highly-publicized lockout which delayed the start of the 2022 season. It is well known that Major League Baseball has fought, for years, to deny minor leaguers the ability to acquire collective bargaining powers. Likening minor leaguers to apprentices in other fields, the argument pushed forth by the commissioner’s office has been that once these “apprentices” break into the highest echelon of their trade, they will then be entitled to much higher wages[6]. Nevertheless, legal challenges have begun to pile up, just last month MLB settled a class-action lawsuit backed by thousands of former minor leaguers for a fee upwards of $180 million[7]. Now with the PA taking the step to formally organize a union, it remains to be seen how the league office will respond, and if this move will further sour the relations between the two parties. As someone who has spent the better part of three summers working for a minor league baseball team, it is very easy to understand why minor leaguers are in need of a collective bargaining arm. The chances I would get to speak to players and make casual conversation always went the same way; I would ask “how are you doing? Ready for the road trip/home stand?” to which I would receive the answer of “yea, tired, but excited” in some form. I’m sure “tired” is an understatement for many, with players essentially working 9 to 10-hour days 6 days a week[8], “exhausted” is likely a more accurate word to describe their feelings. And what do players get to take home after working all these hours and days? Well, depending on which level of MiLB, somewhere between $5,800 and $15,400[9]. Of course, many players receive signing bonuses, which are essentially larger sums of cash delivered up front upon signing of a contract by a drafted or international pool player. Still, large signing bonuses are few and far between, with sums in the millions only reserved for the highest of draft picks[10]. So, for the rest of the minor leaguers not fortunate enough to be taken in the first round, that leaves them relying on their seasonal pay to make a living. Now, we wait for a response from MLB. If the MLBPA receives signatures from more than 50% of minor leaguers, that would put the league office in a position to voluntarily recognize the newly-formed union[11]. However, the league could still refuse to recognize the union and require a formal vote as well[12]. Certainly, if it were to get to a point where MLB refused to voluntarily accept an all-MiLB player’s union, relations between the league and its players could deteriorate and result in future lockouts or even legal disputes between both parties. Regardless of what the future holds, Monday’s news is incredibly important to the future of baseball and to ensuring fair treatment for all professional players. Greg Moretto is a Pre-Law Student at Boston College ‘23. He is a member of the BC Sports Business Society E-Board. He can be found on Twitter @grejmoretto. [1] https://twitter.com/joonlee/status/1564087436938035202 [2] https://www.mlbplayers.com/post/major-league-baseball-players-association-launches-campaign-to-unionize-minor-leaguers [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/sports/baseball/mlbpa-minor-league-union.html [4] https://www.advocatesforminorleaguers.com/about [5] NY Times [6] NY Times [7] NY Times [8] At the High-A level in the South Atlantic League [9] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-rejects-that-minor-league-players-arent-paid-a-living-wage-weve-made-real-strides-11658337811 [10] https://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/baseball_signing_bonus.shtml [11] https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/08/29/unionize-minors-mlbpa-explainer [12] Sports Illustrated

It's been a tumultuous couple of weeks within the world of Formula One to see the very least. Breaking news is seemingly a daily phenomenon, making it almost impossible to write an article and have it relevant by the time it is published. As we entered the second leg of this season Last week with the Belgian Grand Prix, much was still up in the air, and arguably much still is. However, if I were to wait until everything was settled to write a Formula One update, the article would be dissertation length with long-standing announcements of “old news.” Since things appear to have calmed down a little bit, there is no time like the present to give a thorough update on the world of F1. Let's take a dive into the multitude of relevant and current issues arising within the sport. Alonso’s Move and its Continued Repercussions: The Piastri Saga Continues This huge tumultuous period was kicked off by the retirement of Sebastian Vettel in the surprise move of Fernando Alonso from Alpine to Aston Martin to fill the vacancy left by Vettel’s retirement. This left Alpine with an unexpected vacancy it planned to fill with its current reserve driver Oscar Piastri. this backfired when Piastri publicly declared that he had no contract with the team for 2023, sending the driver market into “silly season.” Several of my other Formula One articles here on Conduct Detrimental examine the repercussions of this in more depth, and if you're interested in my more detailed thoughts, you can read about them in those articles. Direct repercussions This uncertainty also called into question Daniel Ricciardo's seat at McLaren for next year. Ricciardo was contracted to race with the team through the 2023 season, but Piastri was rumored to be linked to the seat he currently occupied after his public statements stating he had no intention of driving for Alpine in 2023. Well, it looks like all of this uncertainty has finally been resolved. Late last week, Daniel Ricciardo announced that he would leave McLaren at the end of the year— a year before his contract was set to expire. This implies McLaren had to reach an agreement with Ricciardo to terminate the contract a year before it was set to—likely including a very large “early termination fee” for the driver. While it is fair to say that Ricciardo has underperformed in his two years in declaring, it still comes as a surprise the team was willing to shell out what one can only imagine as a hefty sum of money to terminate a contract with a driver who still possesses great potential, and it was clear that McLaren was planning on poaching Piastri from Alpine to fill that vacancy. With Alpine being “left” with an empty seat it expected to have Piastri fill without many great alternatives, it might be tempted to resign Ricciardo, who raced for the team for two years before departing for McLaren. While this may be the team’s best short-term option, there's likely a bit of skepticism within the team. After all, Ricciardo was being paid $25 million a year by the team (then called Renault) when he made a surprise decision to switch to McLaren, leaving Renault frustrated at the lack of loyalty by Ricciardo (sound familiar to their statements around Piastri?). But if Alpine doesn’t fill their vacancy with Ricciardo, who do they sign? Gasly to Alpine? Recently, Helmut Marko, essentially the de facto leader of both Red Bull and Alpha Tauri Formula One teams, made a statement that he would not stand in Pierre Gasly’s way if Alpine made an enticing offer to the driver to fill their vacancy. This comes as a surprise, as Gasly has come into his own since his unfortunate demotion back to Alpha Tauri from Red Bull. Another driver that may potentially fill Alpine’s vacancy could be Mick Schumacher. Schumacher is technically controlled by Ferrari as a member of their Driver Academy, but reports have recently circulated that he “wants out” from under Ferrari’s control. whatever the case may be Alpine has limited options and needs to move quickly before those limited options become contracted elsewhere. The End Result: At the time of the announcement that Ricciardo would leave McLaren, this decision seemed very bold considering the outcome of the battle for Piastri was uncertain. as mentioned in an earlier article authored by me, both Alpine and McLaren believed that they had a valid contract with Piastri for 2023. This matter was sent to Formula One’s Contract Recognition Board (CRB), which operates as an independent arbitrator when contract disputes arise between drivers and teams. This board is in place because Formula One is an international entity with teams headquartered within different countries, and having an internal arbitrator simplifies the process of dispute resolution. This morning, the CRB announced its final decision on the contract disputes revolving around Piastri, finding that McLaren had a valid contract with the driver for 2023—confirming my speculation that Alpine had failed to sign Piastri to a deal before a release clause in his contract was activated. This will come as a huge blow to Alpine, which is invested hundreds of millions of dollars into prepping Piastri for a Formula One drive. There is still the option that Alpine try to bring a suit against Piastri in an actual court to recover what they see as a “lost investment” in the young driver, with both the team and Piastri having strong arguments in favor of their positions. However, it is unclear if the team will pursue this, or just accept defeat and try to move on from this public embarrassment. Williams Hung Out To Dry In all of this, it's very easy to forget Williams, who also has a “vacancy” for next year. the team early this year was rumored to have decided to not resign current driver Nicolas Latifi, with the understanding that they were likely to receive Piastri on a short-term loan deal from Alpine. Obviously, this is no longer an option, and their second seat is still very much up in the air. Engine Regulations Finalized In mid-August, Formula One and the FIA approved the new 2026 power unit regulations and specifications. These regulations are a stark departure from current engine specifications, with many key changes. By 2026, the new combustion engines must run on 100% synthetic (“renewable”) fuels. Due to this change, regulation of fuel use will change from limiting the mass volume flow to a calculation of “maximum energy flow” (which is as ambiguous and arbitrary as it sounds). Development of the bottom half of the internal combustion engine will be limited, but the development of the top half of the engine will be expanded. Power output will be increased by the electric components of the v6 turbo hybrid engines to compensate for the expected loss of horsepower from the switch to synthetic fuels. The most important change in regulation though comes in the form of dropping the MGU-H, a complex electrical component completely. While all of that is very technical and not super important to fully understand for a casual fan, the implications of the finalization of these rules are impactful for a number of reasons—The chief reason being Audi and Porsche. Audi and Porsche have long men rumored to enter F1, but only if some of the engine specifications they requested were included, and the delay in formal announcements by both manufacturers was attributed to the fact that regulations had yet to be formally decided. Not surprisingly, soon after the finalization of the new power unit specifications, Audi announced that it would be entering Formula One as a new works team, taking over the Alpha Romeo-sponsored, and Sauber-run team. It was also thought that Porsche would announce soon afterward, as both of these entrants were the worst-kept secrets in Formula One, but there appears to be an issue or two with the proposed Porsche and Red Bull partnership. Red Bull/Audi Merger Shows Signs of Failure Earlier this year there was a document leaked that was filed in Morocco relating to the proposed Red Bull powertrains and Porsche joint venture. Among other things, this document stated that Porsche was going to acquire 50% of the parent company for Red Bull Racing. Personally, I thought this percentage was quite large and didn't quite make sense with the way that Red Bull operates. It seems that my original intuition might also be felt by management within the team as well. There appears to be a rift between the owner of Red Bull (the company that actually owns Red Bull Racing) and the actual management of the team. Sources within the paddock have recently stated that Red Bull Racing itself would prefer to remain more autonomous, especially with the amount of money and effort it is put into starting its own engine at the division to be a fully independent team for the first time. If a large automaker like Porsche were to purchase a 50% stake and therefore control 50% of the decisions, the way that Red Bull operates as a team with the resources of a manufacturer while retaining the freedom of an independent team would be undermined and subject to decisions made by disinterested and uninformed board members in Germany instead of passionate F1 managers as it has been in the past. The fact that Audi announced their entry over a week ago while Porsche has not made any announcement yet points to a hiccup developing within what the entire Formula One community thought was an inevitability, and seriously jeopardizes Porsches’ purported entry into Formula One. This topic deserves an article unto itself, and I will save diving into more detail for a later article. Wrapping Up/Takeaways That was a lot. Let's take a second just to recap the main points here. Oscar Piastri will officially be racing for McLaren in 2023 after the CRB’s final decision was released earlier today. This leaves Alpine to decide who will fill their vacancy—whether that be Daniel Ricciardo, Pierre Gasly, Mick Schumacher, or some other option. Williams, Alpha Romeo, Alpha Tauri, Alpine, and Haas still technically have unsigned seats, meaning that contract silly season is likely far from over. The 2026 engine regulations have been finalized, meaning teams can actually start preparing power units to comply. Audi has officially announced its entry into Formula One by taking over Alpha Romeo-sponsored Sauber (which has its own complexities that deserves a dedicated article), while Porsche has not yet announced their entry which implies trouble in paradise with Red Bull. With so much information and so many topics to cover, I will certainly write more detailed articles describing these instances in the coming weeks. I hope that this “quick” recap has been both interesting and informational. Formula One is a complex world with many interesting questions and issues, and I will dive into as many of them as I can. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

An open question in college athletics in the post-Alston has always been, to put it bluntly, how the heck will the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) try to reign in abuses of name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) compensation to ensure that a not-so-secret regime of pay-for-play is not the ultimate result? Balancing its adherence to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alston with its desire to maintain some level of normalcy in the way it conducted its business was never going to be simple for the NCAA. And, therefore, somewhat wisely, the NCAA took a relatively hands-off approach to NIL for the past year. The NCAA’s interim NIL guidance,[1] issued in June 2021, did not actually provide much guidance: in effect, the guidance only said that college athletes, or student-athletes as the NCAA continues to insist on calling anyone who plays a college sport,[2] were able to earn compensation from NIL (which the Supreme Court had already required in Alston, so no new right was really being granted) and could engage in NIL opportunities consistent with state law, any school requirements, and any conference requirements. In other words, the NCAA punted (sorry) responsibility for NIL regulations to other groups, which is not necessarily a bad thing given the Supreme Court’s firm stance against the NCAA in Alston – the NCAA was likely seeking to avoid further antitrust scrutiny in the wake of Alston by having a light hand on enforcement at least in the immediate wake of the decision. But this is not to say that the NCAA was not concerned about policing improper NIL arrangements. Preventing unfair competitive advantages that would result from pay-for-play arrangements, even if disguised as NIL, remains a primary concern for the NCAA. While there have not yet been any allegations by the NCAA against any member school about violations of NIL arrangements – and the first such allegation will be a nuclear moment in college sports – that is not to say that the NCAA is not looking into possible violations. On August 18, 2022, the NCAA sent a letter to its 1,100 member schools reiterating the fact that its enforcement staff is “actively investing potential abuses of NIL transactions” and imploring member schools to cooperate with such investigations by reporting potential violations. [3] A possible follow-up to this request could be an official NCAA rule requiring schools to share any information about NIL deals that their athletes are entering. It seems, however, that the leaders of the NCAA’s member conferences are becoming impatient with the NCAA’s approach to enforcement. James J. Phillips, Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”), Brett Yormark, Commissioner of the Big 12 Conference (the “Big 12”), Greg Sankey, Commissioner of the Southeastern Conference (the “SEC”), Kevin Warren, Commissioner of the Big Ten Conference (the “Big 10”), and George Kliavkoff, Commissioner of the Pac-12 Conference (the “Pac-12”)[4] sent a letter[5] on August 31, 2022, to Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) in response to the Senators seeking feedback on a bipartisan NIL bill that they would be working together to draft. [6] The Commissioners noted that while they “recognize the rights of students to engage in [NIL for endorsements, camps, and lessons],” they were frustrated with the “piecemeal fashion through differing state laws and NCAA guidance” that NIL has been regulated thus far. [7] Unfortunately, problems have emerged where it appears boosters are inducing high school and potential transfer student-athletes to attend their favored universities with payments inaccurately labeled as NIL licenses, with no connection to the value of any endorsement or NIL activity. This kind of inducement was not what anyone had in mind when NIL was created[.][8] The argument in favor of federal NIL legislation made by the Commissioners essentially boils down to two major concerns: 1) fraudulent NIL deals that are disguised pay-for-play arrangements, and 2) NIL deals that are not correctly valued but are otherwise legitimate, resulting in some level of the compensation being an improper inducement. These concerns are both legitimate: pay-for-play is widely deemed as being a negative for college sports and nothing is prohibiting the NCAA from preventing it. But there has not been any solid indication that either of these scenarios are happening in the current landscape of college sports.[9] The lack of concrete examples of these impermissible situations makes it difficult to effectively legislate against their occurrence. Despite this difficulty, the Commissioners attempted to provide five guidelines to help Senators Tuberville and Manchin in their drafting of federal NIL legislation: Pay-for-play should be expressly prohibited. Protections for student-athletes (the term used by the Commissioners in their letter) should be built in to regulate anyone representing them in NIL deals and to provide that appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms exist in relation to NIL deals. Long-term rights to a student-athletes’ NIL should be prohibited. NIL compensation should be tied to market rates. A mechanism for disclosing NIL agreements to compliance officers at NCAA universities. It remains to be seen if Senators Tuberville and Manchin will have any luck getting their proposed NIL bill passed. Per Sports Illustrated, many, myself included, “believe it to be a long shot to pass in a divided Congress.”[10] At least eight federal NIL bills have been filed since 2019 and failed to gain any traction. Perhaps the best chance that this particular iteration has of being passed is the fact that Manchin is tied to it and, as the frequent swing vote in a divided Congress, might be able to push it through as part of a deal to pass or modify other legislation [1] NCAA adopts interim name, image, and likeness policy - NCAA.org. [2] There is not an easy answer as to why the NCAA insists on referring to college athletes as student-athletes. One explanation is that it represents a linguistic attempt by the NCAA to continue to classify college athletics as an amateur sporting endeavor, amateurism being a major draw to college sports according to the NCAA. [3] NCAA asks member schools to help with NIL violation investigations (espn.com). [4] The ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12 are, of course, the “Power 5” of NCAA member conferences, representing the biggest conferences with the most financial sway and political power. [5] A5 083122 Response To Request.pdf - Google Drive. [6] Tommy Tuberville leading new congressional push for NIL regulation - Sports Illustrated. [7] A5 083122 Response To Request.pdf - Google Drive. [8] Id. [9] Both scenarios are DEFINITELY happening (people like winning way too much to not bend the rules a little); I am only pointing out that we have not yet seen concrete proof that either scenario is happening. [10] NIL: Power 5 commissioners urge congress to take action - Sports Illustrated.

After a news-filled and chaotic offseason, college football returned last weekend with a collection of Week 0 games across the country. While a lot of the conversation was centered around the Big Ten clash between Nebraska and Northwestern in Dublin, there were other lower-profile games that took place. One of those matchups featured North Carolina and Florida A&M. Unsurprisingly, the Tar Heels came away with a lopsided win. However, the developments that occurred pregame and postgame have generated a lot of buzz in the college athletics industry this week. Florida A&M, an HBCU FCS program, was set to depart Tallahassee for Chapel Hill on Friday morning before the 8:15 PM kickoff the following night. However, news began to break on Friday afternoon that the Rattlers would be without upwards of 20 players due to eligibility issues. This led to their flight being delayed into the evening and speculation that the game would not be played. Sources with knowledge of the situation claimed that FAMU players deliberated not playing the game and held a team vote to determine whether they would take the field with their depth chart significantly depleted. As we all know, football is a demanding sport where having a sufficient number of able players every game is an absolute must for the health and safety of everyone involved. While it may have been a tough decision for the players on whether to play or not, it definitely wasn’t a tough decision for Florida A&M administrators. While the Rattler football team was in limbo back in Tallahassee on Friday, FAMU President Dr. Larry Robinson was reportedly already on campus in Chapel Hill Friday and made it clear that the expectation was to play the game despite the lack of available players. Why would FAMU officials be so adamant that the game be played? Well, like many decisions that have been made in college sports lately: it was about the money. As an FCS football program, FAMU is capped at 63 scholarships while North Carolina can currently carry 85 scholarship players. It is a scenario that is often played out in college football called a “buy game.” That’s where a higher-level FBS program takes on one from a lower level and pays them (quite well at the Power Five level) with the expectation that it will be an easy win. In this case, North Carolina was scheduled to pay FAMU $450,000, but only if the game were in fact played. So while the Rattler players ultimately decided to play the game, there definitely could have been added pressure put on them by those in power at Florida A&M. Schools like FAMU don’t receive mega contracts from media rights deals or lots of ticket revenue from filling 100,000 seat stadiums. Playing a buy game is essential for funding, not just the football program, but also the athletic department overall. After the Rattlers fell 56-24 in a spirited effort given their lack of depth, the players inked a demanding letter to the university highlighting a large number of deficiencies in athletics oversight and school leadership. The letter addressed to President Roberts, pinpoints a lack of timely financial aid payments, academic support, compliance, summer housing, meals, representation on the latest athletic director search committee, and ticket allotments for families. This is a move that is somewhat unprecedented in college athletics. Very rarely do you see players calling out university officials for any reason, let alone list a number of significant issues. But as news keeps on coming in about the situation, the players are probably well within their right to be doing this. It was very damaging to the morale of our football team to read on various media outlets, '26 FAMU Football Players Ruled Ineligible,'" the players wrote. "This narrative implies that we are not performing in the classroom. In fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. The issue at hand is not academic performance, but procedural issues within the registrar's office, compliance department, and academic advisement. It has been reported that FAMU has a dearth of compliance staffers in their athletic department, which can obviously lead to a number of eligibility issues that surfaced last weekend for the Rattlers. Prominent attorney Tom Mars told ESPN he has signed documentation that a FAMU star player was advised to take the wrong number of courses this summer, leading to his ineligibility and eventual four-game NCAA suspension. It’s likely that wasn’t the only case of bad advice, given that 26 Rattlers were ultimately unable to take the field against the Tar Heels. Where things go from here is definitely up in the air. FAMU officials responded with a statement reading “FAMU is committed to upholding high standards and rigorous adherence to NCAA guidelines.” “After the assessments of Spring and Summer 2022 academic progress, the Compliance team exercised its due diligence to complete the certification process on August 11, before the Fall sports season began.” Obviously, something was missing in that certification process, or we wouldn’t be where we are today. In this new era of college athletics with the advent of NIL, the transfer portal, and social media, college athletes have more power than ever before. By writing that scathing letter, the FAMU football team used some of that power for good, highlighting the change that needs to occur for the betterment of their student-athlete experience in Tallahassee. There has been a lot of talk about college athletes becoming employees and receiving direct compensation from their schools, and deservedly so. However, the first and foremost priority of athletic departments across the country is to create the best experience and provide support to their student-athletes. When that’s not the case, change needs to happen. Good on the Florida A&M players for standing up for themselves. Florida A&M takes on Jackson State this upcoming Saturday. Hopefully, they’ll have more players eligible to take on Deion Sanders’ squad in the Orange Blossom Classic. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

The inaugural year of the name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) era has been driven by football, particularly at the football bowl subdivision (“FBS”) level. It was no surprise when Opendorse published its findings on the first year of NIL that football was the top sport for most NIL activities (29.3%), followed by baseball (8.0%) and men’s basketball (7.6%). [i] So, it would be a safe assumption that if there was only one school in a state that sponsored FBS football, baseball, and men’s basketball that such a school would dominate the NIL landscape in that area, right? Wrong. In New York and Colorado, the only school that, respectively, sponsors all three of these sports at the Division I level have combined for zero NIL deals throughout all their athletic programs. Those schools are the United States Military Academy (West Point, New York) and the United States Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs, Colorado). This may be puzzling since it would make sense for America’s finest and brightest to be some of the most marketable athletes in the country. Army head football coach Jeff Monken would agree. “I think the academy would be a good place for those people who would want to spend [NIL] money,” said Monken when asked about NIL. “They’ve got not only a great platform—we’re on national TV about every week—we have great young men who are playing at a high level and winning a lot of football games. They’re going to professionally go on and do great things. They can have a person that goes from being a football player who can represent a product or whatever it is to later as a professional person as well.”[ii] So, why is there a lack of NIL activity at Army and Air Force? As I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, it has to do with the fact that they are federal service academies. Federal law prohibits all athletes at the five “federal service academies” (Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine Academy)[1] from exercising their right to publicity since they are employees of the federal government due to the government paying for their tuition, housing and fees. [iii] The specific statute in play is 5 CFR § 2635.702 (Use of public office for private gain), which states: “An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. . .”[iv] This includes using one’s NIL as a cadet or midshipman for financial gain. Interestingly enough, while athletes at the academies are designated as employees, this is the exact opposite of what the NCAA and many universities are currently pushing for. In the active federal case Johnson v. NCAA, the NCAA is arguing that college athletes are not employees of the schools they attend under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Classification as FLSA employees would entitle college athletes to minimum wage and related benefits, similar to their classmates participating in work-study programs. [v] Will NIL hurt athletics programs in these service academies? Well, it certainly is not going to help. There is no shortage of wealthy alums from these institutions, including Bill Foley (owner of the NHL’s Las Vegas Golden Knights and Army graduate), capable of providing NIL opportunities, and there are many marketable moments for academy athletes such as the nationally televised Army-Navy football game. But, at the same time, people are attending prestigious military institutions like Army, Navy, and Air Force for more than just playing sports. As Monken noted, “We may never have the opportunity to take advantage of [NIL], and that’s OK. Our guys are here for a higher calling. It’s not about individual name, image, and likeness. It’s about playing this sport for them. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be nice to earn something from name, image, and likeness. They don’t have a desire to do that. It’s not part of who we are as an institution. I commend our guys. They know that. They have a chance to check out if they want to, but they stay. It speaks to the type of people they are and the commitment they’ve made to this institution to be leaders in the Army. They have a brotherhood.”[vi] Perhaps the Pentagon will issue a policy in the future permitting athletes at the federal service academies to monetize their NILs. It was only a few years ago that Defense Secretary Mark Esper issued a policy allowing college athletes graduating from the service academies to delay their service requirements to play professional sports, so perhaps the door has been opened to create more leniency for star athletes at the academies. [vii] However, there may not be an appetite for engaging in NIL opportunities among the cadets at the United States Military Academy or the United States Air Force Academy, or the midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy, considering the grueling nature of the schooling and training at those institutions. Either way, with the Black Knights, Midshipmen, and Falcons’ respective 2022-23 football seasons about to kick off this Saturday, we can all look forward to watching arguably the last “traditional” college athletes partake in the sports we love. Daniel S. Greene is an attorney based in Syracuse, New York. He has been published by The Sports Lawyers Journal and New York State Bar Association’s Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, and has guest lectured on various sports law topics at Syracuse University’s College of Law and School of Sport Management, as well as at Cazenovia College. [i] “N1L: One Year of Name, Image, and Likeness”, Opendorse, https://opendorse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/N1L_Full_063022_3.pdf, page 7. [ii] “Army West Point’s All-American commitments ineligible for NIL”, Shanahan Report, https://tomshanahan.report/2022/06/army-west-pointss-all-americans-ineligible-for-nil/. [iii] “Senior military colleges” (e.g., The Citadel, Texas A&M, VMI) can partake in NIL. [iv] 5 CFR § 2635.702 found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702. [v] “NCAA Ushers Dog Groomers, Strippers Into Athlete Employee Case, Sportico, https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2022/ncaa-argues-against-college-athletes-as-employees-1234686299/. [vi] See endnote ii. [vii] “Military academy athletes can get waivers to delay service, go pro”, ESPN, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/28081051/military-academy-athletes-get-waivers-delay-service-go-pro.

During his Wednesday morning press conference, PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan made it evident that the PGA Tour has zero intention of abandoning its 501(c)(6) tax-exempt status after he announced upcoming changes to the PGA Tour structure in response to the ever-growing LIV threat. “Never,” Monahan replied when asked if the PGA Tour contemplated abandoning the 501(c)(6) statues. Monahan went on to say, “The 501(c)6 status and the integrity of that and all it does for us, that’s always going to be a central fabric to who we are as an organization.” However, it may not be up to Monahan whether the PGA Tour ultimately retains its tax-exempt status when those changes begin to materialize. Like the majority of the world, you probably don’t know what a 501(c)(6) status is or why it matters. According to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), “IRC 501(c)(6) provides for [tax] exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and professional football leagues … which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.” This tax-exemption that accompanies the IRC 501(c)(6) status is pivotal for the PGA Tour. According to Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), “the PGA Tour in 2019 took in $1.5 billion in revenues, profited more than $250 million from 2016 to 2019, and skirted about $80 million in federal corporate taxes.” Many professional sports leagues and/or organizations have claimed 501(c)(6) status at one point in time, most notably the NFL and MLB. But what are the requirements to qualify for 501(c)(6) status? To meet the requirements of IRC 501(c)(6) and Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-1, an organization must possess the following characteristics: It must be an association of persons having some common business Organization interest and its purpose must be to promote this common business interest; It must be a membership organization and have a meaningful extent of membership support; It must not be organized for profit; No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; Its activities must be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business (discussed under “The ‘Line of Business’ Requirement,” page 21) as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons; Its primary activity does not consist of performing particular services for individual persons; and Its purpose must not be to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit, even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining. These characteristics are critical as the IRC states that “an organization must possess all the above characteristics to qualify under IRC 501(c)(6).” It is also important to note that, “the characteristics are interrelated and an organization that fails to meet one characteristic will probably fail at least one of the other characteristics.” So, now the question turns back to the new plans announced Wednesday and whether those planned changes violate any of the necessary characteristics to qualify as a 501(c)(6) organization. While we could spend hours if not days analyzing every requirement individually, let’s set our focus on the characteristic that is most likely to come into question, characteristic number four, “No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;”. What is an inurement and when does that inurement affect the association’s exempt status? According to the IRC, an Inurement results from "an expenditure of organizational funds resulting in a benefit which is beyond the scope of the benefits which logically flow from the organization's performance of its exempt functions." G.C.M. 38559 (Nov. 8, 1980). The IRC provides examples of cases where the exemption was denied because of inurement of earnings such as, “an organization that used its funds to provide financial assistance and welfare benefits for the members.” (Rev. Rul. 67-251, 1967-2 C.B. 196). That example should be extremely troubling to the PGA Tour as one of the major factors in the PGA Tour’s ongoing battle with LIV Golf is the newfound demand for guaranteed earnings in professional golf, as shown in the recently proposed changes in the form of the “Earnings Assurance Program” that will guarantee a league minimum of $500,000 per player on tour. That Earnings Assurance Program may not seem like an issue at face value, but that view changes when you investigate the way the program will allegedly operate. Per the most recent proposal released by the PGA Tour, any PGA Tour member who fails to earn $500,000 on the course in a given year, the PGA Tour will split the difference to help the player reach the $500,000 in yearly earnings. (Example: Player A makes $250,000 in a year from tournament play, thus, PGA Tour pays the player the other $250,000) Bringing it back to the inurement of it all, the argument can definitely be made that this Earnings Assurance Program is a bona fide inurement as the PGA Tour would be utilizing reserve funds “to provide financial assistance and welfare benefits for the members,” because the sole purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to players when they cannot make enough money during a given year. While lawyers and regulators can, and surely will, have heated arguments on whether the new PGA Tour changes constitute an inurement, and therefore, its 501(c)(6) should be denied, it should be noted that the over-arching theme of the proposed changes and the evolving PGA Tour-LIV Golf arms-race to secure top players may lead to unintended consequences like the PGA Tour ultimately losing its IRC 501(c)(6) tax-exemption status. As of now, the IRC has backed the PGA Tour’s 501(c)(6) status pointing to the furthering of a common interest in accord with Section 1.501(c)(6)-1 of the Income Tax Regulations which states, “a business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit.” Specifically, regarding the PGA Tour the IRC said, “the organization was formed to promote interest in a particular sport, to elevate the standards of the sport as a profession, and to sponsor and conduct tournaments for the encouragement of its members.” Many avid golfers, have associated this promotion of the sport of golf with the phrase “growing the game.” Whether you agree that the game is actually being grown, the PGA Tour will definitely lean on this theme going forward because the IRC stated that Section 1.501(c)(6)-1 of the Income Tax Regulations “provides that the activities of the organization should be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons.” The “growing the game” theme can be seen in Monahan’s statements during his Wednesday press conference. “Every single member of the PGA TOUR is going to benefit from the changes that we're going to be making,” Monahan said. “The TOUR is going to continue to grow by having the best players in the world committed to it, by us continuing to lean into and invest in our ethos, which is the single-best competitive platform.” For now, Jay Monahan said that the Tour will try to create for-profit subsidiaries that could create additional value for the members. One possible for-profit subsidiary was announced immediately after Monahan’s press conference, the TGL, a primetime, tech-driven league concept that will debut in January 2024 led by Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy. Only time will tell whether the PGA Tour and Jay Monahan can weather the brewing storm, but it surely never hurts to have Tiger Woods (the bona fide needle) on your side. (P.S. – was Phil right???) Benjamin Kaner is a 2L at New York Law School with a passion for sports and law. Benjamin is passionate about all sports but especially Golf, International Football, and Formula 1. Benjamin is interested in working with sports leagues and teams in the future. You can find Benjamin on Twitter and Instagram @BenKaner.