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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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