According to Brent Zerneman of the Houston Chronicle, Texas and Oklahoma, two of college football’s blue bloods, have inquired about a potential move from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference. There is no debate that the SEC is the King of College Football. Playing football in the SEC is an absolute cash cow for any athletic department that is lucky enough to spend their Saturdays Down South. Under the conference’s revenue share agreement, each SEC school received $45.5 million last year, whereas, each of the Big 12’s schools only received $34.5 million. In a post-pandemic landscape where athletic departments are scratching and clawing for the extra penny, that $11 million difference could do wonders for any institution (even Texas and their $187 million annual budget). While the college football world is excited about seeing a renewed Texas vs Texas A&M rivalry every year, there are a lot of legal issues that must be dealt with first. For one, both schools will struggle to reach the requisite votes needed to be added as a member of the conference. Additionally, the Big 12 will fight in court to recoup previous distributions to the schools under the conference’s grant of rights agreement and prevent the institutions from joining its rival. Need The Votes The SEC Constitution lays out how the conference members may choose to add another member institution. Under Article 3.1.1, membership to the SEC may only be granted through a vote of at least three-fourths of the conference’s members. Since there are 14 teams in the SEC, a new institution would need the consent of 11 institutions before joining the conference. One thing is definite, Texas can not count on rival Texas A&M’s vote to join. In a statement to ESPN, Aggie athletic director Ross Bjork said that his athletic department wants to be “the only SEC program in the state of Texas.” The Aggie athletic department recently dethroned their Longhorn neighbors as the most profitable athletic department in the country, mostly thanks to its membership in the SEC. Allowing another Texas institution into the conference would affect their ability to recruit, and ultimately, their bottom line. Other institutions with strong bases in Texas like Arkansas, LSU, Mizzou, and even Alabama might not want to see the Longhorn machine mess up their current state of affairs. If Texas does not make it past the vote, it is unlikely Oklahoma will jump ship on its arch-rival. Big (12) Litigation Oklahoma and Texas bolting would be disastrous for the Big 12. The athletic departments are the machines that keep the lights on at Big 12 HQ. As such, the Big 12 requires each of its institutions to sign a Grant of Rights Agreement. The terms of the agreement can be found in Section 3 of the Big 12 bylaws. Big 12 members are committed to remaining a member of the conference for 99 years. If a member voluntarily chooses to withdraw from the conference, the withdrawing member must pay the conference a buyout fee that equals the sum of that institution’s distribution for the previous two seasons. Based on Big 12 revenue distributions for the past two years, it is believed that Oklahoma and Texas would each have to pay the conference $72.2 million in their respective buyout fees. On top of that, any member wishing to leave the Big 12 would also need to pay for the amount of “all actual loss, damage, costs, or expenses” related to the member’s withdrawal. In the end, each school might have to pay over $100 million to leave the Big 12. Other Legal Implications Outside the contractual obligations of SEC and Big 12 institutions, there are myriad other legal issues related to Oklahoma and Texas coming to the SEC. As stated before, the SEC is the King of College Football, and two blue bloods migrating over will only increase their dominance. Tulane Sports Law Professor Gabe Feldman noted the potential implications of the move could lead to the potential determination that the conference has market power and, thus, any of their conference level agreements could pose antitrust issues. While the move to the SEC may seem like a great idea for these programs, their athletes in the age of NIL, and the college football fans around the country, Oklahoma and Texas have some legal hurdles to jump through before the Red Rivalry Rivalry happens on a Saturday Down South.

Recruiting has never truly been a “leveled” playing field from year to year, but why should we sit back and allow the lack of legislation to make it worse? "American Top Team," a company owned by Dan Lambert, an avid Miami Hurricane fan, is offering $600 a month to every Hurricane football player for endorsing his company through their respective social media platforms. If all 90 Miami players sign the deal, it would be worth over $540,000.[1] Right now, the current state of college athletics might look a little more like the wild west than anything else. While legislation has indeed allowed players in many states to benefit from their name, image, and likeness, there are not firm and universal legislation or rules on how to regulate such deals in a manner that maintains a "level" playing field for recruiting.[2] The Miami deal is a byproduct of that legislative gap. Simply put, these team-wide deals create a clear discrepancy in recruiting capability. Unlike individual endorsement deals which cannot be guaranteed up front as universally present for all players that attend a certain university, flat team-wide deals like this allow coaching staffs to use such a benefit as a part of their recruitment pitch. Miami’s deal fits the bill as a recruiting advantage and has led some coaches and administrators to question its place among the new NIL world. One such administrator is the athletic director for Baylor University and Sports Business Journal AD of the year (2021), Mack Rhoades. On Sic Em' 365 Radio, Mack expressed his concern over Miami's deal by stating that “when it’s [NIL deals] across the board. . .then it just feels a little different."[3] I agree. I think that NIL is going to outgrow itself in potentially unhealthy ways before it eventually corrects itself. This deal provides an example in the first month of NIL legislation for overgrowth. If this style of endorsements becomes widespread, the handful of universities that are benefiting from it will have a unique advantage, especially for recruits that are on the fence. Let's be clear... legally speaking, Miami has done nothing wrong. I think most will agree with that. However, this is one of those circumstances where legislation or regulation needs to impose itself to reel in one of the major concerns associated with NIL from the beginning – recruiting advantages. There is no need to punish Miami or the players that plan on benefiting from the current deal because they have not broken the rules. Nevertheless, we should use this as opportunity to redirect the endorsement ship as it pertains to team-wide financial gains going forward. Let the players obtain their own individual NIL deals, but do not allow team-wide deals to create what is essentially a guaranteed salary for all players because this in turn creates an unfair recruiting advantage. If these monthly fees begin to stack on one another, we could be looking at a canyon-wide split in what a player could make as a baseline, and that will in turn contribute to the death of “leveled” recruiting. [1] (https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/college/2021/07/09/miami-hurricane-players-offered-nil-deal-head-american-top-team/7919591002/) [2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/college-athletes-now-allowed-to-earn-money-use-their-name-image-and-likeness [3] (https://youtu.be/majxivPx2GU) at 10:31

Hats off to the Syracuse Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team. There has been a large “believe women” movement for quite some time, and very rarely, if ever, have we seen a team actually take a stance regardless of if they have any stake in the controversy. But like all else, there’s a first time for everything and certainly I hope this becomes far more widespread, throughout colleges, professional sports, and everywhere else. Elite Syracuse lacrosse player, Chase Scanlan, was arrested and booked on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge back on May 7th stemming from an incident taking place back on April 17th at a South Campus apartment. The Onondaga County District Attorney said that Scanlan is accused of engaging in a physical altercation with a woman and destroying her phone. As destroying a phone is a fourth-degree criminal mischief charge, Scanlan was essentially permitted to be released without bail because criminal mischief is not a crime that bail could be set for. Furthermore, based on the nature of the offense, destroying a phone, Scanlan could not be charged with assault under state law. In New York, assault requires proof of injury stemming from the altercation. While New York’s laws on the matter are a tad “skimpy,” the team took matters into its own hands to punish Scanlan for these deplorable actions. Under New York Law, a person is guilty of assault in the third degree when 1) with intent to cause physical harm, the actor causes such injury to another or third party; 2) the actor recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or 3) with criminal negligence, the actor causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or otherwise a dangerous instrument. Two days after the incident took place, Scanlan was suspended indefinitely from the team. While Coach Desko, head coach of the Orange, has since reinstated Scanlan, the Orange’s captains gave an ultimatum that players would walk out on April 27th if Scanlan returned and practiced with the team following his reinstatement. To that end, Scanlan spent time practicing, but not with the team. Since being reinstated, Scanlan has not played in any games for the Orange, nor has he appeared on any game logs. While Scanlan maintains that it was “nothing that became something,” credit must be given to the team. No matter what, violence towards women, in any capacity, is absolutely unacceptable, and for the captains to hold firm in their position is commendable. As ally ship is becoming more important than ever, this is a perfect example of zero tolerance for abuse and using one’s position to hold friends, teammates, and members of the community accountable. This action has garnered attention from Vera House, a Syracuse-based shelter for survivors of domestic violence. Vera House has commended the captains for taking a clear and definitive stand against domestic violence. Scanlan’s last game he played was April 17th against the Tar Heels, though their season ended May 15th. To that end, Scanlan’s high school coach suggested that Scanlan explore his options and transfer. One can certainly hope that regardless of if Scanlan stays with the Orange, he has learned the lesson that violence towards women will not be tolerated whatsoever, and to the team… hats off to you! That’s how you stand up for those with a quieter voice; that’s being a *true* team player. Certainly, I hope to see this trend continue in any and every team, league, and sport regardless of level.

It is well-known and well-contemplated how the new Name, Image and Likeness laws and regulations will affect the wide world of sports. One effect that may be felt within the coming years is a stifled outlook for the NBA G-League, the developmental league for the National Basketball Association (NBA). The NBA G-League In 2019, the NBA had announced that the G-League would be offering “Select Contracts” of $125,000 to high school graduate athletes they considered to be elite. They would later increase this amount to make themselves a more attractive option. This would offer a new path for high-level high school prospects to develop themselves and get ready for the NBA Draft. The most prominent example was number one overall high school prospect Jalen Green, who signed with the G-League Ignite for $500,000 in 2020 instead of taking the college route. This aspect of the G-League set itself apart from the NCAA by giving elite basketball prospects the opportunity to make money right away. No tired regulations or risks of losing eligibility for endorsement deals, either, as they were allowed to enter into them immediately. It has proven to be an attractive option for some of the nation’s biggest high school basketball stars, but will its advantageous luster fade with the ushering in of the new NIL era? The G-League’s New Top Competitor Though entering into the G-League had its various advantages over the collegiate route, they also had distinct disadvantages. For instance, the only athletes who were initially considered had to be classified as “elite.” This drastically narrows the pool of talent the G League can pick from. Perhaps the NCAA’s biggest advantage lies within media exposure, where the G League pales in comparison. With the opening up of endorsement opportunities, this advantage becomes more apparent than ever. So, how will the G-League separate itself heading into this new era? There has already been a large investment into the advancement of the developmental league. Aside from the large playing contracts, there were promises of paying scholarships, establishing developmental academies, and much more. The G League has spent millions on recruiting these elite athletes and could be losing out on this investment as the NIL era immediately positions the NCAA as the G-League’s top competitor. What’s Next? Luckily, all is not lost for the NBA G-League. It doesn’t look as though the league needs to completely reposition itself. It still has enough power in its current positioning to obtain some of the game’s best talent. Its offerings of financial literacy and life skills training paired with elite basketball development are still miles ahead of many collegiate basketball programs. Being able to play against professional-level athletes is a major advantage, as is the guarantee of playing alongside other top recruits from your class. I believe the G League is primed to make aggressive moves in the near future to compete with the NCAA even more effectively. Few know exactly what these moves will look like. I can speculate, however, that the G League may try to “retool and readjust” itself in multiple ways. Whereas the NCAA promises a new era of NIL, the G League would be wise to frame itself as the “reliable option.” For instance, many states are passing restrictive Name, Image and Likeness laws for college athletes with no active enforcement mechanisms. At the moment, these laws, and the punishments for violating them, remain uncertain. The developments in this could be volatile. The G League provides a virtually restriction-free endorsement market for its athletes, who are not subject to these statutes at the professional level. Additionally, as the NCAA provides history and development, the G-League can point out how history may be moving away from the sport of college basketball. Times are changing and the G-League plans to change with them. The G-League also has endless resources at their disposal to make aggressive pushes towards legendary coaches, scouts, and other development facilitators to separate itself further from the NCAA. Though the Name, Image and Likeness era may seem to be a major roadblock for the G-League, it actually gives it a chance to emphasize its numerous advantages over the NCAA. It also provides a chance for the league to become even more aggressive and push itself further ahead. I, for one, am extremely excited to see what lies ahead. Britton Yoder is a rising 1L at Penn State Dickinson Law For inquiries, email [email protected]

Yesterday, the New York Rangers announced that they agreed to terms with 2-time Stanley Cup champion Barclay Goodrow on a six-year contract. Goodrow is a pesky, versatile 28-year-old winger who can also hold his own in the faceoff dot. Ian Pulver, Goodrow’s agent, reported that the deal holds a total value of $21.85 million over the aforementioned six years. The average annual value (AAV) of the deal will therefore come in at $3.642 million. The AAV of a player’s deal is often very different from the actual dollars the player takes home each year. Below, you will find a layout of Goodrow’s contract structure, provided by the good folks at Puck Pedia [records]. The highlighted rows above are “Cap Hit” and “Total Salary.” Total salary is a player’s gross annual income, and consists of base salary and signing/performance bonuses. Goodrow’s cap hit and AAV have the same, fixed value: $3,641,667. Yet, Goodrow’s base salary varies, starting at $750,000[1] this coming season and reaching a peak of $5,100,000 by the 2023-2024 season. The maximum salary cap allowed of all players counting towards an active roster, or the “salary cap ceiling,” is currently $81,500,000. Goodrow’s contract will carry a cap hit of $3,641,667 (his AAV) towards that figure. That is why fans tend to care more about cap hit than total salary. Once the monetary value and term (length) of a contract are agreed upon, players and corresponding front offices can’t adjust the cap hit and AAV. Those figures are automatically calculated; a simple math equation (total dollars/years) even for a law student like me. Total salary simply represents how much money a franchise owner will pay a player in a given year; it has no effect on salary cap. In the past, teams often tried to “front-load"[2] a contract to minimize long-term risk and entice players to sign. As in most sports, players tend to decline with age, so teams looked for ways to diminish risk with time. For example, in 2010, the New Jersey Devils signed then superstar winger Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year, $102 million deal. Over the final five years of the deal, Kovalchuk’s base salary was set to just $550,000. The AAV was $6 million! The NHL Commissioner’s Office was not at all fond of what it labeled “cap circumvention,” and thus revoked the contract while issuing penalties and fines. NHL franchises with historically low budgets often look to acquire players with modest base salaries owed. Under that principle, a franchise without liquidity concerns would typically be happy to front-load a player’s total salary. Therefore, if that franchise looked to move on from the player in the latter years of the deal, they would undoubtedly have an easier time finding trade partners. The backend years would come with a lower base salary owed for the acquiring team’s owner to have to shell out, even though the cap hit and AAV remain constant. Franchises with real-dollars budgets find value in contracts that carry a larger cap hit than actual dollars owed. The NHL has implemented rules under the current collective bargaining agreement, adding structure to this space. The leading guideline mandates that “[f]ront-loaded contracts in any ‘immediately adjacent years’ can’t exceed 25% variance with the first year of that contract, and any year of the contract can't exceed 60% variance from the highest year of the deal.” With that established, let’s revisit the newest member of the New York Rangers. Goodrow was acquired from the almighty, yet cap-suffocated, Tampa Bay Lightning last week. While it may have made sense to front-load this deal in the past, PuckPedia points out that escrow rates likely led the parties to do the opposite. In the new CBA, years 3-5 of a contract carry the lowest escrow rate (6%), while the first year carries the highest rate (17.5-18%). The most lucrative chunk of Goodrow’s base salary deliberately falls in years 3-5 of the term: 2023-2026. P.S. For those claiming this is an overpay, please see the chart below from Shayna Goldman of The Athletic. The term admittedly raises an eyebrow, though. [1] The 2021-2022 base figure is intentionally low to avoid the NHL’s high first-year escrow rate. Goodrow is set to pocket $1.75 million upon signing along the dotted line as a bonus, in an effort to sidestep the rate. [2] A contract is considered front-loaded if the majority of a player’s base salary is paid in the first half of the contract’s life.

Deshaun Watson, Houston Texans quarterback, has been accused of sexual misconduct by several massage therapists. The investigation continues with no new answers or timeline in the lawsuit he is facing. Watson is facing 22 active civil lawsuits, each filed by women who accuse Watson of sexual assault and harassment. According to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN, Watson has not engaged in any discussions about settling with the women who are party to the lawsuit. Furthermore, he isn’t scheduled to give his deposition until February 2022, after Super Bowl LVI. While the legal battle seems to be far from over, and with training camp right around the corner, the NFL may be forced into making a decision about Watson’s playing status for the 2021-2022 NFL Season. The NFL has two choices, either the NFL allows Watson to play, or he is placed on paid leave pursuant to the Commissioner’s Exempt List. As NFL.com points out, the NFL Commissioner’s Exempt List is a “special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances” including those players “who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic.” In other words, Commissioner Roger Goodell has broad authority and discretion in matters of this nature. However, when deciding if a player should be on the exempt list, the “Leave with Pay” section of the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy comes into play: “A player may be placed on paid administrative leave pursuant to the Commissioner Exempt List under either of the following circumstances: First, when a player is formally charged with: (1) a felony offense; or (2) a crime of violence, meaning that he is accused of having used physical force or a weapon to injure or threaten a person or animal, of having engaged in a sexual assault by force or against a person who was incapable of giving consent, or having engaged in other conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety or well-being of another person. The formal charges may be in the form of an indictment by a grand jury, the filing of charges by a prosecutor, or an arraignment in a criminal court. “Second, when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above, he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so. This decision will not reflect a finding of guilt or innocence and will not be guided by the same legal standards and considerations that would apply in a criminal trial. “Third, in cases in which a violation relating to a crime of violence is alleged but further investigation is required, the Commissioner may place a player on the Commissioner Exempt List on a limited and temporary basis to permit the league to conduct a preliminary investigation. Based on the results of this investigation, the player may be returned to duty, be placed on the Commissioner Exempt List for a longer period or be subject to discipline.” The first paragraph of this section is irrelevant unless Watson is formally charged with criminal charges. While a criminal investigation has been launched for Deshaun Watson, no formal decision about charges has been made. The second paragraph becomes vital to Watson and his playing status. If the outcome of the investigation causes Goodell “to believe that [Watson] may have violated” the Personal Conduct Policy by engaging in any one of the acts described in the first paragraph, Goodell is permitted to place Watson on paid leave. In other words, Watson would be paid his salary, but is not counted as a member of the active roster and cannot practice or play in games. The third paragraph applies when there are accusations but there is no opportunity for the NFL to investigate those accusations before the player takes the field. Throughout the NFL’s history, a number of players have been placed on the NFL’s exempt list. Most notably, Michael Vick was on the list from August 24, 2007, to July 27, 2009, after his dog-fighting incident. Ben Roethlisberger was also on the exempt list for the first six games of the 2010 NFL season because of a sexual assault allegation. Overall, the policy of putting a player on the Commissioner’s exempt list gives Goodell broad discretion. Unless Watson settles the 22 lawsuits, the decision as to his playing status looms large over the Houston Texans, the NFL, and ultimately, Deshaun Watson. And even if Watson settles the cases, the NFL might still take him off the field. He does not control his own destiny at this point. Jordan Inver is a 2L at Villanova Law and can be contacted at [email protected]

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.