As expected, Bauer’s attorneys have zeroed in on text messages by the alleged victim where she is sounds like she was more than ok with the alleged encounters. According to testimony presented at the hearing, between the two encounters, the alleged victim messaged Bauer that the choking “was a game-changer” that “I’ve never been more turned on in my life” and “give me the pain.” Based on that admitted piece of evidence, it would be reasonable to assume if you were Mr. Bauer that the alleged victim not only enjoyed what he allegedly did to her but she was also very much open to the idea of engaging in said behavior again in the future. As she stated on the witness stand yesterday she, “was going with the flow. I wanted to tell him what he wanted to hear. I wanted to create a better experience than the first time.” Under California law, “A man/woman may withdraw consent to a sex act even after the initiation of sexual intercourse.” People v. Roundtree (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 846, 851. Thus, it begs the question, what if it wasn’t possible for the alleged victim to consent. Advance Consent Under case law, “Neither a woman’s actual “advance consent” nor a man’s belief in “advance consent” eliminates the wrongfulness of a man’s conduct in knowingly depriving an unconscious woman of her freedom of choice both at the initiation of and during sexual intercourse. A person who commits the prohibited acts necessarily acts with a wrongful intent.” (People v. Dancy (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 21, 37 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 898]). Put it another way, under the law, a woman cannot consent to any kind of sexual act if during the alleged sexual act she becomes unconscious. That is because for even a mere moment of time, that alleged individual has lost their freedom of choice to decide whether or not that individual wants to continue to engage in this sexual act. It is somewhat similar to a Defendant who chooses to represent himself. Why is that? That is because the Court usually appoints the Defendant’s now-discharged attorney as stand-by counsel. The Court does that because the Defendant can choose at any time to have an attorney represent him because the Defendant has a Constitutional right to be represented by an attorney in just about every kind of criminal case. For example, if the Defendant was convicted by a jury that Defendant still has the right to be represented by an attorney at sentencing because the right to counsel applies throughout the entire trial including sentencing, and appeal. That same Defendant can invoke his/her right to counsel at any time after he/she has affirmatively waived it. The same is said for consent. The alleged victim maintains her right to withdraw consent throughout the sexual act. If that victim is rendered unconscious, she has lost her right to withdraw consent even for a mere moment. Is it applicable to the matter involving Trevor Bauer? Let’s use a hypothetical rape charge to discuss. As stated previously, Mr. Bauer has not been officially charged with anything. The image below is the California Criminal Jury Instructions for a Rape of an Unconscious Woman or Spouse. When prosecuting a case at trial, a prosecutor must be very familiar with the jury instructions because they have the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. First element, Mr. Bauer had sexual intercourse with the victim. That is uncontested. Second, Trevor Bauer and the woman were not married to each other at the time of the intercourse. Again, uncontested. Third, the woman was unable to resist because she was unconscious of the nature of the act. Again, uncontested. Finally, the defendant knew that the woman was unable to resist because she was unconscious of the nature of the act. This is where the opposition is likely to begin. As stated in a previous post, Mr. Bauer allegedly choked the victim unconscious with her own hair and proceeded to have anal sex with her. How does the prosecution prove that Mr. Bauer knew the victim was unconscious? Potentially in comes the alleged 2020 incident. In the alleged 2020 incident, Mr. Bauer allegedly wrote in a snapchat message, “Like the only reason I’d ever consider seeing you again is to choke you unconscious, punch you in the face shove my fist up your ass, skull fuck you and kick you out naked. And obviously I would never do something that that to anyone. So I can’t even enjoy the one thing I sometimes enjoyed with you.” Under California Evidence code 1101(b) Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as knowledge that she would become unconscious by Mr. Bauer choking her with her own hair). Thus, if Mr. Bauer knew the victim was unconscious and it is likely that he did (based on alleged messages where he admits to choking this Ohio woman unconscious) it is unlikely that the Court will conclude that the victim could give consent to that sexual act. That is because in the moments where she was allegedly unconscious, she was without her right to withdraw consent from the alleged sexual act. As we dive further into the Bauer proceeding over the next few days and week, do not lose site of this aspect of the law.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional level of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! Although this was originally intended to be a monthly series, we will be putting these spotlights on a more frequent basis due to the popular demand by both prospective law students and law schools themselves. In this series, we highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: ● a sports-centric curriculum; ● sports law certifications; ● unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; ● and sports law journals. The focus of this month’s Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Tulane University Law School Keeping with the “Sports Law Blue Blood” theme from the Marquette spotlight, this week’s school has a championship sports law pedigree. Tulane boasts not only the best team logo in college sports (this isn’t up for debate, and I will not tolerate Angry Wave slander) but also an extensive list of alumni spanning every corner of the sports law world; over 60 alumni currently hold positions in the sports industry as agents, scouts, general counsel, athletic directors, and general managers. Furthermore, the director of the Tulane Sports Law Program, Professor Gabe Feldman, forms enduring relationships with each of his students and even hosts his own sports law podcast. In 1993, Tulane Law became the first law school in the country to offer a certificate of concentration in sports law. Since then, over 450 Tulane Law students have graduated with the sports law certificate, including former NFL GM Mike Tannenbaum and Nick Sabella, the current Manager of Football Administration for the New York Jets. After years as counsel for the Minnesota Vikings, Demeka Fields now serves as counsel for New Balance. That’s right: Tulane Lawyers represent everyone from sports franchises to sportswear. If that wasn’t impressive enough, the Tulane Sports Law Journal also holds the distinction as the most widely read legal sports journal in the country. Talk about dominant. When it comes to internships, the Green Wave can either dive into a familiar part of the industry or get their feet wet in a new sports role. You might have noticed each of the alumni I’ve mentioned have experience with NFL teams. With the nearby New Orleans Saints providing externships exclusively to Tulane Law students, these experiences are common at Tulane. Students also enjoy exclusive externships with the NBA’s Pelicans and compliance internships with the Sun Belt Conference, headquartered inside of the Superdome. Tulane Sports Law students may also intern with Altius Sports Partners to educate organizations on how to best address NIL concerns. These experiences and many more ensure Tulane Lawyers have the expertise to address the ever-evolving landscape of both collegiate and professional sports. Members of the Tulane Sports Law Society (TSLS) gain practical knowledge of the sports industry by facilitating roundtables and career workshops, as well as organizing Tulane’s national four sports law competitions: Basketball and Football Negotiation, Baseball Arbitration, and Mardi Gras Moot Court. These competitions feature judge panels with representatives from the MLBPA, NHLPA, NFLPA, ESPN, and countless sports agencies. Participants and organizers alike gain insights into the business of sports, seeing all that goes into the multi-million-dollar contracts populating your Twitter feed and SportsCenter updates. TSLS events serve as prime networking opportunities as well. “You get exposure to professionals at all levels and you never know where those people will end up,” TSLS President Schuyler Corbin notes, “but because the net is so wide with who you can meet through Tulane, you build strong relationships early on and years later you’re a part of their circle… you’re doing what those professionals are doing, and now you’re the one providing opportunities for the next generation just like they’ve done for you.” In short, Tulane Sports Law is rivaled by few but second to none. From exclusive externships to prestigious alumni, this New Orleans institution has it all. If you’re an undergrad interested in a legal career in sports (and hungry for beignets), consider Tulane Law. (Special thanks to TSLS President Schuyler Corbin, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for this article)

There has been a long-standing precedent in the American legal system that parties pay their own legal fees. Despite that, 21 Division I conferences that were not named co-defendants in the NCAA v. Alston case are being left with a bill for defendants’ legal fees. The Alston case has been widely regarded as a huge win for athletes and an even larger loss for the NCAA, but recent developments state that the loss will extend beyond the NCAA. Eric Prisbell of On3 recently reported that 90 percent of the $38 million legal bill will fall on the 32 Division I conferences. A confidential memo that was sent to all Division I conference commissioners stated that the NCAA Board of Governors will pay just 10 percent of the bill, while the 11 co-defendant conferences will pay 64.2 percent. The remaining 21 Division I conferences - who were not named co-defendants in the case - will have to put up 25.8 percent of the legal fees associated with the Alston case. According to Prisbell’s report, the NCAA met with Division I commissioners over a year ago to discuss payment for the legal fees associated with the Alston case. The final recommendation from the Finance Committee to the Division I Board of Directors was that the NCAA should absorb the total cost. However, an additional request was submitted should the final request not make it past the NCAA Board of Governors. This secondary request charged the NCAA with 10 percent of the bill, while the remaining 90 percent would be divided amongst the 32 Division I conferences based on each member institution’s maximum grant-in-aid equivalency limits for men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and FBS. Unsurprisingly, the Board of Governors elected to go with the second recommendation rather than paying the entirety of the legal fees associated with the Alston case. Conferences have been told they can pay their share of the fees through a reduction in their revenue distributions over the course of four years, beginning in 2022. An anonymous conference commissioner stated that they were caught “off-guard” by the bill because they thought the NCAA was paying it - after all, they were the primary defendants in the case and make upwards of a billion dollars a year. The anonymous commissioner went on to say they plan to raise the issue with their membership, as “it brings up some serious legal issues.” There was irony in the “#NotNCAAProperty” shirts seen during March Madness, as athletes wore these while participating in the NCAA’s largest money maker - money that was going to be used to fund the case against the athletes. Still, the NCAA’s decision to stick its conferences with the lion’s share of the legal fees will ultimately affect the athletes. For the next four years, athletic departments - many of which took no part in this litigation - will have to adjust their budgets according to the reduction in revenue distributions as a result of this decision. After a big win for athletes, it seems like the NCAA is being a sore loser. Source: Prisbell, E. Confidential NCAA memo details breakdown of Alston case legal fees, On3 (Aug 16, 2021) https://www.on3.com/news/ncaa-panel-reimagine-college-athletics-model-without-current-d-i-athletes/ Rebekah Ansbro is a second year law student at George Mason University where she is the outreach & social media chair and events chair for the Mason Sport and Entertainment Law Association. You can connect with Rebekah about sport and entertainment law on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebekah-ansbro-21a24115a.

Formula One racing is back with the Belgian Grand Prix race weekend. This week several more stories broke surrounding drivers and teams that will shake up the overall look of F1 in the coming years. Daniel Ricciardo Announces McLaren Separation The Australian-born driver and the McLaren team announced they would be parting ways at the end of this season. Given the rumors surrounding younger drivers that have caught McLaren's eye; this is no surprise. It is also no surprise given the performance issues Ricciardo has been plagued with while with the team. It seems that Ricciardo and McLaren are leaving on good terms as Ricciardo stated, “I’ve enjoyed working with everyone at McLaren both trackside and back in Woking and will be giving my all on and off track as we enjoy the remainder of the season together.” The kind words continued with Andreas Seidl, McLaren’s Team Principal, as he stated, “I would like to thank Daniel for his dedication and contribution over the last two seasons so far. Despite the shared challenges, he has always turned up with a fighting spirit and positivity and helped the entire team to always keep pushing forward.” It is uncertain where Ricciardo will end up next, as many teams currently have open seats for the 2023 season. Alpine, Williams, and Haas are all possibilities for Ricciardo. Audi Set to Join Formula One in 2026 Last week, the FIA approved new power unit regulations which will go into effect in 2026. One of the goals of these new regulations was to open the door to more manufacturers who have since been absent from F1. Currently, F1 houses four power unit manufacturers: Mercedes, Red Bull, Renault, and Ferrari. This past Friday, Audi announced they would join the F1 grid for the 2026 season. Audi will be taking over the current Alfa Romeo team. This take over means that the grid will stay at ten teams. “I am delighted to welcome Audi to Formula 1, an iconic automotive brand, pioneer, and technological innovator,” said F1 President and CEO Stefano Domenicali. “This is a major moment for our sport that highlights the huge strength we have as a global platform that continues to grow.” Audi will manufacture its power unit at its facility in Neuburg. This means that Germany will once again produce F1 powertrains for the first time in more than a decade. Audi has stated that they already have established test teams for f1 engine testing. Soon F1 fans will see those four famous rings on a Formula One car. Continued Alpine Issues with Drivers Recently, Fernando Alonso may have provided more insight into his surprise move to Aston Martin for next year. When asked about his relationship with Alpine, Alonso gave insight into the support he felt he was getting from Alpine. “[With Alpine] we were moving around in different things and we were not maybe agreeing on the principles. It’s not only what you agree in terms of the duration of the contract, it’s just also the trust that you feel and how you feel wanted in a place… It was always a strange feeling.” Said Alonso.” Finally, Alonso stated, “I felt that it was the right decision to move to Aston because they seemed to really want me and appreciate every performance that I was putting in in the last two years.” Following the departure of Alonso, Alpine announced that they would promote Oscar Piastri to a driver's seat next year. However, Piastri refuted this statement saying he never signed a contract to drive for Alpine next year. Since then, Alpine has stated they will go to the Contract Recognition Board to clear up this situation. Formula One is back! This summer break had its fair share of drama which may continue through the second half of the season. Even though this series is over, stories will continue to be updated here on Conduct Detrimental. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

Typically, when discussing NIL, there’s a presumption that the conversation is only really involving NCAA college athletes. This makes sense since the NCAA is the largest college athletic association in college athletics, but it does not have a monopoly on the space. As a recap, NIL stands for name, image, and likeness, and as of July 2021, has been all the rage in college athletics. In the past, student-athlete “compensation” was limited to scholarships for tuition, books, room, and board, but nothing else. However, this changed in 2021, and in fact, is still changing. As a result of a recent ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, student-athletes at NCAA schools can be paid for the use of their name, image, and/or likeness (“NIL”). What the Court held in Alston v NCAA was that, in short, schools may not limit students’ ability to receive compensation for their NIL, nor may it declare students ineligible for competition because they received compensation. Towards the end of July, a club athlete, more specifically a club lacrosse player, joined the ranks of student-athletes with NIL deals. The Men’s Collegiate Lacrosse Association, or MCLA for short, is an athletic association, much like the NCAA, and has three divisions and numerous participating institutions including big-name schools that do not have NCAA lacrosse programs such as Alabama, and Tennessee, where this story comes from, WVU, The University of Pittsburgh, and Clemson. The MCLA differs from the NCAA in that the MCLA is non-varsity. Varsity teams receive funding, access to facilities, and equipment through the school’s athletic budget as opposed to non-varsity/club teams that rely on funding from student life or otherwise from the members themselves, much like other campus clubs. Additionally, the MCLA does not have a GPA requirement. There may be other differences as well, such as practice schedules, though this is at the discretion of the individual leagues and member institutions. On July 26, 2022, it was announced that Jackson Zimmer, a sophomore midfielder for the University of Tennessee, inked the MCLA’s first NIL deal with Baltimore-based company East Coast Dyes, which is a well-known lacrosse apparel and equipment company. Per Zimmer’s pitch, which can be viewed here, the MCLA is an “untapped market,” and since the news broke at the end of July, more club athletes have been reaching out seeking to tap into the NIL market as well. More companies should take advantage of this “untraditional channel”, given that there are over 150 teams spanning 2 countries in the association. To that very same end, more MCLA players should take a page from Zimmer’s book and look to set up a pitch, send a deck, a video recording, anything really to take advantage of the moment to advocate and bet on themselves. As it relates to the deal itself, NIL generally requires that the athlete advertise the company on social media and in return get some sort of payment though it is not always money. For Zimmer, he gets unreleased gear, which if anyone knows how expensive lacrosse gear can be, is a pretty solid gig. Worth noting is that NIL's perks and profits do not necessarily have to be monetary. For example, while at The University of Pittsburgh, Kenny Pickett had a deal with a local hotel and restaurant The Oaklander, where he would get free meals and treat his team to dinners before games. More students should try pitching to companies to see if there is any interest in having a sponsored athlete. There are plenty of companies that could use the exposure, and again, given that perks do not have to be monetary, can allow even smaller businesses to get some playing time. Hopefully, more businesses will look to sponsor MCLA athletes as popularity in lacrosse continues to grow exponentially. Stephon Burton is a 2022 graduate of Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 2019. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] or on Twitter @stephonburton

On Thursday, August 25, 2022, an anonymous Jane Doe filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court accusing Bill's punter Matt Araiza, among others, of gang-raping a 17-year-old minor. The plaintiff alleges that this rape occurred during a Halloween party Araiza, who was at the time the punter for the Sand Diego State Aztecs, attended. Along with Araiza, Doe alleges that two other Aztec players were the main perpetrators of the alleged rape. The complaint also includes allegations of gender violence and false imprisonment. Matt Araiza has made a name for himself after being picked up in the 6th round by the Buffalo Bills. He earned the Ray Guy Award, which recognizes the best college punter in the country, and was named the Mountain West Conferences Special Teams Player of the Year. Recently, the Buffalo Bills released its veteran punter, paving the way for Araiza to take over punting duties for the team. Given Araiza's ability to punt the football 70 to 80 yards, he has earned the nickname "Punt God". With the filing of the lawsuit against Araiza, the punter's future is now uncertain. Araiza’s lawyer, Kerry Armstrong, has publicly stated that his client did not rape the teen and that the rape allegation is false. The NFL has seen its fair share of players facing legal controversy, including the more than year-long Deshaun Watson saga and the recent developments with Alvin Kamara facing possible assault charges. Despite these stories, Roger Goodell placed neither player on the Commissioner's Exempt List; the NFL's paid leave mechanism. The Commissioner has the power to place a player on the Exempt List if (1) the player is formally charged with a crime of violence OR (2) "when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above." More specifically, the NFL is looking for those who are "accused of having used physical force or a weapon to injure or threaten another person, of having engaged in a sexual assault by force or a sexual assault of a person who was incapable of giving consent, of having engaged in other conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety or well-being of another person, or of having engaged in animal abuse." So why would Araiza be placed on the Exempt List? In the complaint, Doe accuses Ariaza of rape which squarely fits under the NFL's definition of "sexual assault by force." However, the NFL would not be able to use the first prong as neither a prosecutor nor a grand jury has brought formal charges against Araiza. The complaint filed by Doe is civil, not criminal. This means the allegations are not covered under the first prong of the circumstances that would place a player on the Exempt List. However, the second prong gives Goodell the power to launch an investigation into the allegations surrounding Araiza. This provision in the NFL policy gives Goodell the power to temporarily place players on the exempt list while he investigates the pending allegations. The policy also states that the Commissioner's decision does not reflect a finding of guilt and does not follow the same legal standards of a criminal trial. The recent filing makes a compelling case for Goodell to use his power as Commissioner to place Araiza on the exempt list for a temporary amount of time while the NFL investigates the allegations in the complaint. As the lawsuit progresses, more may come to light that forces Goodell's hand to place Araiza on the Exempt List. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

Everyone, even casual sports fans will have seen the multitude of ads and sponsorships that sportsbooks have found in professional sports leagues over the past couple of years. It seems in every commercial cycle there is at least one commercial for a sports book whether it's Bet MGM or some other service. These advertisements and partnerships with professional sports leagues have boosted sports book revenues to new highs, with revenues growing over 30% during the 2020 and 2021 calendar years. This growth in sports betting and advertisement across the country coincides with stories such as Calvin Ridley, who wagered a TOTAL of $1,500 as a player in the NFL, and upon discovering these bets the NFL suspended him for at least the entire 2022 season. this mind-bogglingly long suspension also shines a direct and stark contrast onto the suspension of Deshaun Watson, whose finalized suspension, which was extended from 6 to 11 games, and included a five-million-dollar fine in response to the 20-plus sexual assault allegations against him. Despite the NFL publicly saying this is the “steepest penalty” handed to a player seems to ignore Ridley’s, which is for “at least” the entire 2022 season for an activity that harmed no one, including the league while he wasn’t actively playing football. Now, I am not an expert, but you would think that there would be harsher penalties for domestic violence than gambling which is essentially “chump change” on games while you're on the injured list, but for some reason, the reality is that we live in has these two reversed. Let's dive into the sports betting question to discover just how crazy these rules are in the modern era, and my hot take solution. The Dark History of Players Betting: Every sports fan in the United States has probably heard of the black Sox scandal in 1919, where eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing the 1919 World Series in exchange for a payment from a gambling syndicate. This event is repeatedly discussed and cited as the reason that the players shouldn't be allowed to bet on games. At the time that this occurred, baseball was certainly the number one sport in America, and this scandal caused people to lose faith in the integrity of the game at a time when sports betting was not nearly as organized or regulated as it is today. The impact of this scandal is still felt today in baseball as well as most other professional sports through their prohibitions on players betting. Breaking Down Current Rules Currently, according to the NFL CBA, NFL players can bet legally on all other sports besides the NFL and must disclose these bets if requested, while team personnel is not allowed to bet on ANY form of professional sports. The NBA has similar policies, as does the MLB (with added caveats that it can’t be illegal betting, i.e. if your state doesn’t allow betting—which needs updating as online betting becomes a powerhouse). Whenever these questions are brought up it's always that people are afraid of the “insider information” these people could have and utilize. So, let's say that I hypothetically found a job working for an NFL team after graduating law school, working as their in-house transactional attorney, or handling advertising contracts. Technically, I am a member of the front office for this team at this point, and thus would be prohibited from betting on any other professional sports, even if it's the NHL championship, one that I have absolutely nothing to do with in my daily course of business. what insider information could I realistically have about the NHL? Or, more generally, what insider information am I going to have that Vegas isn't already aware of even if it is on an NFL game? Isn’t the whole point of having a sports book and operating it well to set the odds in ways based on all possible information gathered that will lead to still making a profit? Let's say that betting on NFL games was allowed if you were a member of the front office/player for a team, but only with contests that did not include the team that you're currently playing/working for. If the odds given by the sportsbook are in fact representative of the actual probability of the occurrence/non-occurrence of a specific event within the game, how am I going to have better information about two teams that I don’t work for just by working with an unaffiliated team? If casinos are doing their jobs and setting the odds properly, and as long as I'm not betting on a game in which the team that I play for/work for, I don't see a huge ethical issue. It sounds to me like we're actively trying to protect casinos and sportsbooks, you know because they are only making “marginal profits.” Complications: Despite my above feelings regarding the complete prohibition on betting for front office staff, I understand and respect the reasons active players are currently prohibited from betting on games within their leagues. It would open up a preverbal “can of worms” that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to address. I also understand why there is such a negative connotation to betting by players and teams because of things like the Black Sox Scandal. But it still boggles my mind that in 2022, betting on a few games while you’re not an active player carries a longer suspension than one handed down to a player with over twenty documented domestic violence allegations. The message dichotomous situations like these highlight a lopsided system of enforcement that has serious flaws. As much as I don’t agree with the Ridley suspension personally, he did break the rules—he was aware of the rules, violated them, and there should be consequences. But is potentially being suspended for over a full season for wagering $1,500 on games you weren’t actively participating in really proportionate to be suspended for that long? Ridley used what is essentially public knowledge (I can go watch film, breakdown the team’s performance, and decide what a good bet is on my own—this is literally what ESPN does with all of their football content) to legally bet on sports contests—Watson sexually assaulted over 20 women. But Ridley’s suspension is longer? Something just doesn’t add up. The “odd” length of Watson's Suspension When the final decision on appeal was issued for Watson, the 11-game suspension made me scratch my head a little bit. Why 11 games, and not a round, even number like 12 or 10? Why not the whole season? Well, take a look at the Cleveland Browns Schedule for week 12. That week, on December 4th, the Browns play the Texans, in Texas. The Texans just “conveniently happen” to be the team that Watson left to go to the Browns, and it would be his first “homecoming” game, likely a primetime event. At the end of the day, the NFL is a business, and they decided it was more profitable to conveniently have Watsons’s first game back be against his old team. When I found this out, the NFL’s credibility and trustworthiness in this situation evaporated. They are essentially signaling to the entire world that while they don’t endorse domestic violence, they are willing to “go easy” on you if it means they will make more money—but the hammer will come down hard if you bet on games. At a time like this, in 2022, this proves to the world that the NFL ultimately cares more about making a profit than domestic violence, which is unacceptable. In Short: In short, I think these exorbitant punishments within sports leagues are antiquated. I understand this may not be a very popular opinion, but the more that you sit and think about it the less the arguments around it really hold water, especially in light of the league’s response to domestic violence and choosing profit over an actually proportionate suspension and punishment. I can understand and respect a punishment for a player that violates what is clear and established rules around betting—but having a punishment for gambling $1,500 be heavier than punishments for sexual violence/domestic abuse is absolutely backward, and needs to be addressed if the NFL wants to gain any credibility. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

Former NFL pass rusher Junior Galette filed a lawsuit yesterday against the Seattle Seahawks, Los Angeles Rams, Las Vegas Raiders, Cleveland Browns, Kansas City Chiefs, Carolina Panthers, Washington Commanders, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and NFLPA President JC Tretter. Galette alleges he was victimized by discrimination, collusion, conspiracy, and more. The basis of Galette's suit is that he felt he was still an elite pass rusher towards the end of his career (and has the testimonials to prove it) but was only able to garner veteran's minimum contract offers because of a league conspiracy against him. Galette was accused of assaulting a woman in 2015 and arrested before all criminal charges were later dropped. He was suspended by the NFL but has denied the assault continuously and believes this incident led to his blacklisting. Galette has been teasing snippets of his allegations via his Twitter and TikTok accounts. Galette also wrote a 2020 open letter to Goodell detailing his alleged blacklisting. The complaint is littered with conversations with coaches, agents, and executives. Some notable exhibits are included below: Jason Morrin is a recent graduate of Hofstra Law School. He was President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He will be joining Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok as a law clerk, awaiting July, 2022 Bar Exam results. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

The saga between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour, as well as PGA’s exclusive broadcaster the Golf Channel, has reached another breaking point. On Tuesday, August 16th, Patrick Reed filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Brandel Chamblee and Golf Channel requesting $750 million in damages. This may seem like an inordinate amount of relief, but when taking a closer look at the adversarial history between Reed and Chamblee, it becomes much clearer why Reed thinks that he deserves every last penny. In 2019 Reed sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chamblee after Chamblee accused Reed of cheating at the 2019 Hero World Challenge. Consequently, Chamblee doubled down on his criticism of Reed. According to Reed, Chamblee’s comments have caused “emotional, reputational and pecuniary harm” to Reed, and went further to say that the entirety of Chamblee’s criticism was “false and defamatory.” Reed claims that Chamblee’s commentary cost him millions of dollars in lost sponsorships and created a hostile work environment that spilled over to Reed’s family. Reed went as far as to include examples of the heckling that he claims to endure. The personal attacks Reed claims to have heard from golf fans include: “You jackass!”; “You piece of sh*t!”; “Everyone hates you cheater!”; and “Beat the cheater’s a**!”, among many verbal jabs stated in Reed’s complaint. On the other hand, Patrick Reed is a professional athlete and Brandel Chamblee is a commentator. Both Chamblee’s and Reed’s job is to entertain the public. Reed unquestionably entertained the public in his nine PGA Tour wins, and Chamblee’s pot-stirring commentary certainly gave golf fans plenty of material for the water-cooler. It is well-documented that Chamblee has taken a firm stance against all former PGA Tour members who decided to join the Saudi Arabian-backed LIV Golf tour. All former members of the PGA Tour who decide to join LIV Golf should reasonably understand the backlash and public discontent that this decision would evoke. However, the recoil felt by Reed could surely be greater than any other defectors due to his reputation as one of the lesser-like members of the PGA Tour. In a Golf Digest interview from 2018, another prominent member of the PGA Tour, Kevin Kisner asserted that Reed was hated by all members of his University of Georgia college golf team, and that same sentiment carried over with Reed’s peers in the PGA Tour. When it comes to defamation, courts have ruled that public figures, including government officials, have the burden of proving that defendants libeled them with actual malice. Since Reed is a public figure, in the eyes of the law, he must establish that the PGA Tour and Chamblee acted with actual malice and made knowingly false assertions with clear and convincing evidence. As for Golf Channel’s and Chamblee’s defense against Reed’s allegations, the Southern District of Texas has adopted and utilized the “substantial-truth doctrine” in libel or defamation cases. This means that as long as the gist of the message was true, or the bulk of a statement is true, then there is no case for defamation. It is well documented that Reed is not well liked among his peers in professional golf, nor by the fans. Additionally, Reed was found to have cheated in the 2019 Hero World Challenge and received a two-stroke penalty for his actions. Therefore, Golf Channel and Chamblee will likely have a very strong case as to why their actions do not constitute defamation. On a larger scale, the palpable increase of tension and hostility between the former PGA Tour players who have since defected to LIV Golf and the rest of the golfing world is growing at an alarming rate. It is a practical certainty that this animosity will result in more lawsuits and greater division between the two sides. While the future of professional golf remains a mystery, it does not take a super sleuth to uncover the blatant shortcomings of Patrick Reed’s inadequate attempt to profit off his less-than-cherished reputation as a member of the PGA Tour. Jacob Ehrlich is a rising 2L at New York Law School with a great passion for all sports and sports law. Jacob is interested in all areas of Sports Law, but especially athlete representation, intellectual property rights, and collective bargaining.

Am I writing this post just to manufacture an excuse to share this video? I plead the fifth. But the story around Myles Brennan; the name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) deals he signed with Raising Canes, Smoothie King, and Walk-On’s, among others; and his unexpected[1], early retirement from college football is a high-profile example of a situation that will inevitably continue to happen in the post-Alston era of college sports: a company (arguably) doesn’t get the value[2] out of an athlete that they expected when they signed an NIL deal. Maybe the athlete signs an NIL deal and then underperforms[3] on the field (comparative to the hype that existed when the deal was first signed). Think Spencer Rattler at Oklahoma, who transferred to South Carolina after struggling in a year where he had preseason Heisman hype and reaped the benefits of lucrative NIL deals as a result. Or an athlete signs an NIL deal and, for whatever reason, ends up not playing a college game. Brennan’s situation isn’t exactly the same – although it is close since he did play some at LSU, just not after he signed his NIL deals – but it isn’t hard to imagine that, especially in a contact sport like football, an athlete suffers a season-ending injury (or worse, a career-ending injury) after signing an NIL deal. What happens in that situation? In a normal contractual relationship, there would be a termination for cause provision built in that would allow the company to terminate the deal based on the athlete’s failure to perform under the terms of the contract. NFL contracts, for example, are not fully guaranteed, meaning a player runs the risk of losing out on some of the money he is owed if he cannot play for the full term of the contract. But NIL deals are expressly prohibited from rewarding compensation to a college athlete for their performance on the field – although they can reward the college athlete for their (questionable) dance moves in a commercial. While the starting quarterback might be considered more valuable if he’s performing well on the field – increasing the public’s recognition of his name, image, and likeness would theoretically increase his value in a commercial for a chain restaurant in much the same way that theoretically an actor’s appearance in the new Marvel movie would increase their value in, say, a Ford commercial – the NIL deal is not, and CAN NOT, be structured in a way that compensation reflects on the field performance or numbers. And part of that is the beauty of NIL: you can be a backup player in any sport that has found some way to gain a following at some level that makes you valuable to a company. (I would also argue that for now at least, most of the value in the biggest dollar amount NIL deals that are being signed is in the immense media coverage that results since these deals are still fresh and newsworthy. Heck, even Walk-On’s derived some value from Brennan’s retirement because it thrust their commercials back into the news cycle and all over social media). These facts make the following post from Darren Rovell a bit illogical: If it is not clear, Rovell thinks that there is something wrong about Brennan retiring and still being able to reap the benefits of the NIL deals he signed while still on the roster at LSU. Following up on his post for Action Network, Rovell wrote that Brennan’s retirement “could slow the speed and breadth of NIL deals across the college football landscape.”[4] There is merit to this argument, to an extent: sure, stories like Brennan’s and like Rattler’s, while we are at it, might make companies more hesitant to offer huge contracts to college athletes because they run the risk that the player ends up retiring or being not as good as they had hoped, thereby (again, arguably) diminishing the value of the NIL deal the company signed. But it also is just as likely that stories like Brennan’s and like Rattler’s will instead cause companies to restructure their contracts with college athletes – instead of having a contract with an athlete for a year, a company could simply enter into a shorter-term contract with other benchmarks set therein to determine whether the contractual relationship should continue and be renewed. For example, Walk-Ons could have signed Brennan to a one-month contract for a certain amount of money that required him to be in three commercials for the restaurant during that period. And after that period, they could have reevaluated the impact of Brennan as an advertising figure and decided to re-up the relationship or move on. With Walk-On’s willingness to spend that kind of money in the first place, it is as likely that they spread the wealth around in the future rather than go all-in on one player or, as Rovell thinks may be the case, forego NIL deals entirely. I am not convinced that the “failure” of high-profile and high-dollar NIL deals will slow the speed and breadth of the market: I believe that it will just change the way the market’s participants act. The companies that signed Brennan to NIL deals were not signing him to a deal, and could not even if they wanted to, that would only pay him if he threw 20 touchdowns for the Tigers this season. The companies signed Brennan to a deal that provided compensation in exchange for Brennan’s appearance in commercials and other advertising efforts. Brennan met those obligations and should be paid accordingly. And nothing is preventing Brennan from continuing to meet any of his obligations under the contract just because he is no longer on the football team. Freedom of contract is a concept that I think Rovell would agree with me on. After all, Rovell does admit in his article for Action Network that, “Brennan needed to provide his endorsement to receive the money, which he did[.]”[5] The companies were free to structure as much compensation and for as long a term as they wanted when signing Brennan to an NIL deal; that he may not be as valuable to the companies as a NARP (non-athletic regular person) as he would be if he were still a college football player playing in front of over 100,00 people in Death Valley is not an indictment on NIL deals – only a sign that companies are currently willing to enter into athlete friendly contracts because of the value they place on signing the right athlete. The NIL era is still relatively new and as much as college athletes are wanting better education on what certain terms mean in their NIL contracts, maybe the companies signing them also need to better educate themselves. [1] Maybe it isn’t such an unexpected retirement since he has suffered two season-ending injuries during his career, has already graduated, and would now be playing under a different coach at LSU than the one who was there when he committed. (I would imagine the difference between playing for Ed Orgeron and Brian Kelly is significant). [2] What the “value” of a college athlete is in any given situation and for any given company is nearly impossible to define and something that makes talks of NIL deals needing to be consistent with fair market value a bit more complicated – but that is another topic for another time. [3] It is important to note here that when I talk about underperforming on the field, I am not in any way insinuating that the athlete has therefore underperformed under their NIL contract. [4] https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/lsu-qb-myles-brennans-retirement-could-slow-speed-breadth-of-nil-deals-across-college-football. [5] Id. (emphasis my own)

The Formula One world enters the third week of its summer break. This week was pretty quiet on the drama side but gave us a glimpse into the future of F1 during the midway point of the summer break. This week saw the release of everyone’s favorite thing to study: rules and regulations. This week we will also look at driver discipline so far this season. Finally, we will examine recent statements from Williams’ Team Principal regarding F2 driver Logan Sargeant. The FIA World Motor Sport Council Sets Power Unit Regulation for the 2026 Season On Tuesday this past week, the FIA World Motor Sport Council approved the power unit regulations that will go into effect starting on the 2026 season. The FIA decided to build the regulations on four key pillars: maintaining the spectacle, environmental sustainability, financial sustainability, and attraction for new manufacturers. Maintaining the spectacle: The FIA will again use a V6 engine to power the 2026 power units. Many fans were hoping for the return of the V8 rumble that was the hallmark of F1 races for many years. Even though this is not the case, the FIA has stated that these power units will perform very similarly to the current engines. This similarity means the power units will be high-revving and high-power. Environmental sustainability: Since entering the hybrid era, the FIA has maintained its focus on making Formula One as green as possible. They have continued this trend by increasing the amount of electrical deployment by 50%. The new power units will also use 100% sustainable fuel. Financial sustainability: This pillar aims to ensure each team is on equal footing regarding power unit costs. The FIA contends this balance will not affect the technological innovation at the heart of Formula One. The attraction of new manufacturers: Currently, there are a limited number of power unit manufacturers: Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, and Honda (Red Bull Powertrains). The FIA hopes that these regulations attract the likes of Porche or Audi. These regulations for 2026 are sure to bring hardships for the teams that aim to develop the best race car possible to compete in Formula One. Formula One Drivers being Penalized and Fined Formula One, similar to any other sports league, has a set of rules and regulations that teams and drivers must follow. Failure to do so results in points penalties and monetary fines. Below are some of the driver discipline highlights from the first half of the season. The first highlight is that Aston Martin's Sebastian Vettel leads the field by being the most fined driver on the grid. He is currently sitting at a total of €35,900 in fines during the first half of this season. The majority of this amount is from a €25,000 fine for certain behavior during a driver's meeting at the Austrian Grand Prix and his legendary scooter ride in Melbourne that cost the driver €5,000. Carlos Sainz sits in second place with €25,000 in fines, followed by Sergio Perez at €10,600 to round out the top three. Interestingly enough, two of the least fined drivers lead the way for the total number of offenses during the first half of the season. Both Yuki Tsunoda and Alex Albon sit in the bottom three of total fines but are the top two for the number of offenses. They both have eight offenses ranging from speeding in the pit lane to causing collisions. Is there a Future in Formula One for Logan Sargeant? Last week I highlighted the designation of Robert Shwartzman for Ferrari's rookie practice sessions. This week another young driver, Logan Sargeant, has made a good impression on Williams' team boss, Jost Capito. Sargeant currently serves as Williams' academy driver as well as a driver for Carlin in Formula 2, and he now stands 3rd in the F2 Driver's Championship. Capito recently made bold statements about Sargeant's future. “He will be in a Formula 1 car in the future, I'm absolutely convinced,” said Capito. He went on to state that he is impressed with the young driver yet realizes they want to give him time to develop. This plan puts less pressure on Sargeant to compete for a Formula One spot. Currently, Williams has only confirmed current driver Alex Albon for next year's roster. Another week of summer break means we are another week closer to the Belgian Grand Prix and the second half of the Formula One season. As always, I will update these stories and break others every Sunday until the Belgian Grand Prix on August 28th. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

Since the ruling in Murphy v. NCAA that deemed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering clause of the Tenth Amendment, over 30 states have legalized sports betting. On August 18th, 2022, Stephen Durrell, the Executive Director of the Kansas Lottery, announced that the state would soon be launching sports betting within the state. In the announcement, Durrell said Kansas will have a soft launch starting at noon on September 1st. Then just a week later, on September 8th, Kansas will roll out a full launch. This timeline is essential to fans of the NFL as the first game of the regular season will kick off on Thursday, September 8th. This means that Kansas residents can easily place their online bets before the first game for the Kansas City Chiefs, which is set for the following Sunday, September 11th. This timing is likely no accident as US sports bettors love to bet on the NFL above all other sports leagues. In 2021, statistics showed that three of the five most bet teams by handle (total amount of money placed on bets) were NFL teams, including the Chiefs, Buccaneers, and the Packers. Following this same trend, four of the five most bet teams by ticket count were NFL teams, including the Chiefs, Buccaneers, Bills, and the Packers. So what can Kansas residents expect from their sports betting experience? Kansas passed Senate Bill 84, which provides 3 betting skins to each of the four casinos totaling 12 skins. The bill also allows those casinos to obtain one additional skin if they partner with a professional sports team. Currently, the only professional sports team they can partner with is Sporting Kansas City, the local Major League Soccer team. This amount of skins means Kansas residents will have plenty of options to choose from when they decide to place online bets. Those four casinos have already started to partner with different sportsbooks. Boothill Casino announced that it has partnered with both DraftKings and Bally Bet. Kansas Crossing has chosen PointsBet and Caesars as its partners. The Kansas Star Casino has partnered with both BetMGM and FanDuel. Finally, Barstool Sportsbook will be operating out of their parent-owned Hollywood Casino. While the launch date coincides with the start of the NFL season, Kansas residents can also place bets on their favorite in-state colleges. Unlike some other states, Kansas will allow its residents to bet on in-state colleges. This means whether you are a Jayhawk, Wildcat, or Shocker fan, you will be able to bet on your team's upcoming college football games. Interestingly, the bill also allocates 80% of the revenue generated from sports betting into a new “Attracting Professional Sports in Kansas” fund. While the state government has not provided that this fund will target any team in particular, it is hard to imagine it isn't aimed at the Kansas City Chiefs. With the NFL being the highest earning league in the country, it would be no surprise that Kansas is going after its neighboring state's biggest money maker. The Chiefs currently reside on the Missouri side of Kansas City. This fund will allow the state to allocate money to incentivize the Chiefs to pack up and move across state lines to build a new stadium in Kansas. Stephen Durrell ended the announcement by stating that more information would be released in the coming weeks regarding Kansas sports betting. Stay tuned as we will cover all those updates here on Conduct Detrimental. Justin Mader is a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law where he earned a J.D. and a Sports and Entertainment Law Certificate. He can be reached via Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.