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/.

Equity in sports is a major issue, whether it is exposure or salary; there are major differences between men's organizations and women’s organizations. Yes, an argument can be made that men's sports have better coverage, higher ratings, and sponsorship opportunities than women’s sports, but this should not mean that women be paid significantly less than men. Just this year the United States Soccer Federation, the United States Women’s National Team Players Association, and the United States National Soccer Team Players Association announced that they had agreed to first-of-their-kind collective bargaining agreements creating pay equity in soccer. This was a historic win for women's soccer and a small step in the direction of equal pay in sports. Now the Premier Hockey Federation is taking a major step toward equity in women’s hockey with the league's new salary disclosure policy. The Premier Hockey Federation (PHF), formerly known as the National Women’s Hockey League is the only professional women’s hockey league in North America. The league is also the first women's professional hockey league to pay its players. The PHF does not have an official union, but all players are under employment contracts with their teams, there is also a player’s association (PA). The league was established in 2015 with four league-owned teams and has since grown to a mixture of seven league-owned and independently owned teams: the Boston Pride, Buffalo Beauts, Connecticut Whale, Metropolitan Riveters, Minnesota Whitecaps, Toronto Six, and a team in Montreal that has not been named. [1] Currently, the league is rebranding and restructuring, having reorganized the ownership and governance models with the hopes of expanding more women’s hockey teams in North America and Canada. Recently the PHF and PA announced a salary disclosure policy. Previously, PHF contracts contained a clause stating that players could not disclose their salary or benefits to anyone. It was unclear what would happen if a player did disclose their salary. [2] The new disclosure policy will give players the option to have their salaries disclosed publicly by their team and the league once they’ve agreed to standard player contracts. [3] However, disclosing the salary is a mutual decision between the team and the player. Once both parties agree, a player’s contract information may be shared by the player, team, and the PHF. This could be a possible red flag because the general manager seems to hold the power of disclosing the salary. The main goal of this new policy is equity. Reagan Carey, PHF Commissioner said, “The PHF’s new era is driven by our commitment to provide enhanced professional opportunities for women’s hockey players, including historic salary cap increases. We are excited to add another layer of growth and transparency to our League operations and to continue to prioritize player autonomy. This policy supports all athletes equally and without any pressure or influence towards those who may choose to disclose their salaries or anybody who may feel that confidentiality is in their best interest.”[4] As of July, 18 players have agreed to contracts and consented to their salaries being released. [5] Overall, the disclosure policy is a step in the right direction for equity in sports. Hopefully, more conversations will be had about salary discrepancies between men and women in sports. Jessica Shaw is a recent graduate from New York Law School. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Press, Associated. “Premier Hockey Federation Adds Women's Professional Hockey Team in Montreal, Expanding League to Seven Franchises.” ESPN, July 12, 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/34230451/premier-hockey-federation-adds-women-professional-hockey-team-montreal-expanding-league-seven-franchises. [2] Shappel, Sophia. “New Policy for PHF Player Salary Disclosure.” Inside The Rink, July 22, 2022, https://insidetherink.com/phf-salary-disclosure/. [3] Lewis, Cam. “Premier Hockey Federation Announces Details for Salary Disclosure Policy.” Yardbarker, July 21,2022https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/premier_hockey_federation_announces_details_for_salary_disclosure_policy/s1_16958_37699864. [4] Id. [5] Id.

After months of speculation and waiting, the Big Ten finally announced their new media rights agreement. The deal is worth more than $7 billion over seven years and will feature Fox, CBS, and NBC. Many expected the announcement to come months ago, but the conference’s acquisition of USC and UCLA from the Pac-12 changed the equation in a significant way. Beyond the massive amount of money involved in the deal, there are many interesting takeaways from today’s announcement. Let’s look at some of them. No ESPN We were teased last week that ESPN was unlikely to be involved in the Big Ten’s new media rights deal, but that officially became a reality today, ending a 40-year relationship between the two parties. Even with the speculation that ESPN wouldn’t carry Big Ten football games, some in the media business pondered they could still be in play for the conference’s basketball inventory, but that won’t be the case. The Big Ten’s departure from ESPN will be interesting to follow in this new age of how people consume sports and entertainment. Many have long assumed that not being on the “Worldwide Leader” could be problematic due to the tendency of sports fans to turn to the four-letter network for their sports fix. Some point out that the NHL, which didn’t have ESPN as a broadcast partner for over a decade, lost some of its popularity due to the lack of attention the network gave it from 2005 on. However, with highlights, news, and sports talk easily accessible via our phones and tablets, people aren’t tuning into SportsCenter on a routine basis as they did in the past. The narrative around college sports isn’t directed by ESPN as much anymore due to the wide variety of places fans can get their college sports fix. Sure, College Gameday might not be at Big Ten campuses as much as they have been, but I still find it hard to believe that the Big Ten will be negatively affected too much by not being on ESPN. NFL-Like TV Schedule Unlike the SEC, which partnered exclusively with ESPN, the Big Ten has three partners to spread out their inventory to. Ever since the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma case, schools have delegated their media rights to their conferences to strike deals with networks to show their games. For the most part, conferences have been affiliated with one or two particular networks. As a result, college football fans have grown accustomed to the SEC on CBS (which will end after 2023) at 3:30 on Saturday afternoons in the Fall and the Big Noon game featuring Big Ten or Big 12 teams. However, the Big Ten’s new deal stands out because it is spread over three of the biggest networks in America all throughout the day. Starting in the next few years, the Big Ten will have a noon kickoff on Fox, a 3:30 game on CBS, and a primetime 7:30 game on NBC. Instead of shelling out all of their rights to one network, the Big Ten has taken an NFL approach in this deal. As we all know, the NFL is far and away the most profitable sports league in our country and Kevin Warren, who has experience with the Minnesota Vikings, took a page out of Roger Goodell’s book. I expect it to be a huge coup for the conference. The Narrative for Player Pay In 2017, the Big Ten signed a seven-year deal worth a total of $2.64 billion. In 2022, the Big Ten will receive $1.2 billion annually for seven more years. Obviously, due to the market for live sports and football as a sport in this country, these deals will only increase moving forward. But as the pie keeps on getting bigger for conferences and schools, how much longer can these entities continue to not give the ones on the field any cut of it? As we know, the current landscape of college athletics is different than it has been in the past. Players now have more power through NIL rights, the transfer portal, and social media. The highest level of college football is becoming more professionalized by the day. In addition, court cases have called into question the concept of amateurism, and Johnson v. NCAA might only add to that. The fear among many is that paying college football and basketball players could have a negative impact on non-revenue generating sports. But with the Big Ten distributing between $80 and $100 million annually to its member institutions in payouts, it doesn’t feel right that players shouldn’t receive their fair share. We recently had Jason Stahl, the executive director of the College Football Player’s Association on the podcast and he believes there is plenty of money available for schools to pay players while still supporting the other sports on campus, and today’s announcement would suggest he’s right. At least at the highest level of college football, where the media rights deals are going through the roof, revenue sharing feels inevitable. The narrative will only continue to grow stronger as the money keeps going up. All in all, today’s announcement is monumental for the Big Ten and college athletics as a whole. ESPN now has inventory to fill, and that could come in the form of the Pac-12 and/or Big 12. Further consolidation of conferences is highly likely, and how that impacts the landscape is unknown at the moment. Predicting where things go from here with 100% accuracy is impossible right now, but one thing is for certain: TV revenue will play a large role. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

According to St. Louis’s NBC affiliate, KSDK, the city is seeking two-thirds of the $513 million the city received after attorney fees from their settlement with the NFL. St. Louis, St. Louis County, and the Regional and Stadium Authority (RSA) settled on November 24, 2021, for $790 million after they sued the NFL over the Los Angeles Rams’ departure, specifically how the NFL covered up Rams’ owner Stan Kroenke’s plan for leaving St. Louis as early as 2013 after he found ground in Inglewood, California that would bring the NFL back to Los Angeles three years later. The NFL knew about these relocation plans in 2013 thanks to a video call from Kroenke, which included Commissioner Roger Goodell, Relocation Director Eric Grubman, Pittsburgh Steelers' Art Rooney II, among other prominent figures. That lawsuit spanned four years from late 2018 to late 2021. The parties were going to trial, but they decided to settle. St. Louis wanting two-thirds of the settlement money could be an issue, depending on how they put the money to use, and whether it helps the ongoing problems in St. Louis. Problems in St. Louis include cutting down on crime in the northeast part of downtown, near the Rams’ former home, the Dome at America’s Center. The St. Louis Port Authority, according to CBS affiliate KMOV, announced plans to renovate “Chouteau’s Landing.”. The plans cost $1.2 billion, and they received approval from the St. Louis Port Authority. The St. Louis Port Authority entered into a redevelopment agreement with the Good Development Group on a $1.2 billion dollar redevelopment project south of downtown St. Louis. Developers say they’ve secured 50 acres for the Gateway South Project which will be south of the Poplar Street bridge and along the Mississippi River. The project includes a residential district, which will have affordable housing as well as market housing. Developers say an entertainment district will benefit from three or four major national providers of entertainment. The project also includes an innovation district for the building design and construction industry. The question sports fan in St. Louis, and the public in general, want to know is whether the Dome at America’s Center will be renovated. The XFL announced St. Louis will host a team in 2023. The team plays its games at the Dome at America’s Center. The Dome has not had any renovations since 2012, and those renovations were minor. They included a new video screen, a new field, and new clubs. The Dome has not hosted an NFL game since 2015. It needs renovations, and the Rams stressed this detail in their relocation argument. The money from this settlement needs to and should go to the Dome to renovate it prior to the Xtreme Football League’s (XFL) return to St. Louis. It is dilapidated, and St. Louis should set aside money for the Dome. The RSA is pushing for these renovations, but these reports make it seem like the RSA will not receive enough money from the settlement fund to renovate the Dome. Hopefully, Mayor Jones realizes not only the Dome but that the St. Louis area needs money to bring it out of the crime issues it has had over the years. According to KMOV, it is the downtown area that has the most crimes. People do not visit that area like they used to when the Rams were in town. Even when the Rams were in town, the area started to become a black eye to downtown St. Louis. If St. Louis wants to redevelop the aforementioned area stated above, surely, they can redevelop the area around the Dome and the “Landing.” These areas were hotspots for tailgating before Rams games and for Battlehawk games from 1995-2015 and 2019 respectively. However, according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the $513 million settlement will not go towards the RSA’s plan to expand the convention center, but there is no news regarding the Dome. The one-third that remains is being negotiated among the city and the RSA. The RSA was the original party to sue the Rams and the NFL for contract breach, and all they wanted was $24 million for the breach, tortious interference, and the lies the NFL told them when they were told they had a fighting chance to keep the Rams. The city should give the RSA money to renovate the Dome prior to the 2023 XFL season. History repeats itself, and although St. Louis was the number one market for the XFL in 2019 before COVID shut it down, could the XFL pull the plug in St. Louis due to stadium conditions and a poorly written lease? Alex Patterson is a Thomas M. Cooley Law School graduate and works for Kerley and Talken PC as a paralegal. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive line

By Daniel Wallach Talk about burying the lede. The path to federal court for Deshaun Watson lies in the last 5 pages of Sue L. Robinson's August 1st decision. Despite concluding that Watson committed sexual assault against four women and engaged in a "pattern of conduct" which she characterized as both "predatory" and "egregious" -- Judge Robinson suspended Watson for only 6 regular season games. In declining to suspend Watson for the entirety of the 2022 NFL regular season and post-season, Judge Robinson explained that principles of "fair notice" and "consistency of treatment among players similarly situated" required her to reject the NFL's proposal, which she characterized as both a "dramatic" and "extraordinary change" in position when compared to past disciplinary cases. For cases involving "non-violent" sexual conduct[1] -- the longest suspension previously imposed by the NFL under the Personal Conduct Policy was only 3 games. And in that case, the player -- believed to be Jameis Winston, who allegedly touched an Uber driver "in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent" -- had been previously warned about his conduct. Judge Robinson observed that the discipline imposed in that case -- involving similar allegations -- was "far less severe" than what the NFL seeks in the Watson case. In cases involving "domestic or gendered violence" -- for which a minimum 6-game suspension would attach -- Judge Robinson noted that no player had ever been suspended for a full season. The "most commonly-imposed discipline" in such cases was 6 games. While there were three prior cases where players accused of domestic or gendered violence were suspended for 8 games (two players) or 10 games (one player), those cases involved "multiple incidents of domestic violence," the "assault of multiple victims," or "multiple incidents of domestic violence" for which the player pled guilty to a battery. When compared with those prior cases -- none of which came anywhere close to a full-season suspension (even when multiple incidents of domestic violence and/or multiple victims were involved) -- Judge Robinson characterized the NFL's pursuit of a full-season suspension for non-violent conduct as "a dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to -- and consistency of consequence for" -- those in the NFL subject to the Personal Conduct Policy (which encompasses both players and owners). While conceding that it may be "entirely appropriate" to more severely discipline players for "non-violent" sexual conduct -- perhaps even more so than "violent" conduct in certain situations -- Judge Robinson cautioned that such an "extraordinary change" in the league's approach would require "fair notice" to the players similar to the notice they received in 2014 when the NFL revised its Personal Conduct Policy to include a presumptive 6-game suspension without pay for certain first-time violent offenders. By revising its policy, "the NFL gave fair notice to its players and to the public of the probable consequences of such violent conduct" -- namely, that players would face a minimum 6-game suspension. By contrast, there was no notice given to the players that non-violent sexual conduct could be punished more "more severely" than violent sexual conduct, Judge Robinson emphasized. In setting Watson's suspension at only 6 games -- which she called "the most significant punishment ever imposed on an NFL player for allegations of non-violent sexual conduct -- Judge Robinson explained that she was "bound 'by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated.'" Advance Notice of Discipline Severity is the 'Law of the Shop' in the NFL The words "fairness" and "consistency" have been given short shrift by those who are quick to criticize Judge Robinson's discipline as being too lenient. That might be a valid criticism if her decision were made in a vacuum. But it was not. Rather, as the NFL has acknowledged time and again, player discipline must be "fair and consistent." See In the Matter of Ray Rice, Decision of Hon. Barbara Jones (ret.) Hearing Officer, at p. 16 (Nov. 28, 2014) (quoting NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell). During the Ray Rice arbitration, for example, then NFL Senior Vice President of Labor Policy Adolpho Birch testified that, in determining player discipline, the league is “bound in large part by precedent in prior cases, decisions that have been heard on appeal in the past, and notions of fairness and appropriateness.” Birch further acknowledged that "the reality is that we have to make decisions that are fair and consistent with both the prior case law and the prior precedent . . ." Judge Robinson's analysis of the "fair notice" issue adheres to a long line of NFL arbitral precedent recognizing that players are entitled to advance notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline. The NFL has even gone so far as to characterize this as the "law of the shop." See Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n, 820 F.3d 527, 539 (2d Cir. 2016) (“[T]he parties agree that the ‘law of the shop’ requires the League to provide players with advance notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline.”). Such notice is also required in order to comport with industrial due process. See, e.g., William E. Hartsfield, Investigating Employee Misconduct, Vol. 3, Ch. 15, Arbitration, Sec. 15.7 (July 2022 update) (stating that the concept of industrial due process "includes fair notice of the rule and the consequences for violating it. "); Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, Ch. 15-71, Knowledge of the Rules (8th ed. 2017) ("An employee must receive clear notice of both what the employer expects as well as the range of penalties that may be imposed."). The NFL has acknowledged the continued vitality of the "fair notice" requirement in matters of player discipline. During the 2014 arbitration arising out of the 6-game suspension of Ray Rice, Commissioner Goodell described the change to the Personal Conduct Policy -- which added a minimum 6-game suspension for certain types of violent conduct -- as "forward looking because the League is 'required to provide proper notification'" to players. The BountyGate and Hardy Decisions Judge Robinson's "fair notice" analysis will likely be one of the linchpins of the NFLPA's motion to vacate arbitrator Peter C. Harvey's modified discipline. In its motion papers, the NFLPA may wish to highlight two arbitral decisions in particular as exemplifying the broad reach of the "fair notice" doctrine: the BountyGate and Greg Hardy appeals heard by NFL-selected arbitrators. In BountyGate, former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue (serving as the arbitrator) vacated discipline based on the lack of notice, holding that "[a] sharp change in sanctions or discipline can often be seen as arbitrary and as an impediment rather than an instrument of change." In Hardy, despite "multiple separate assaults" and a finding that the conduct at issue was "egregious," Arbitrator Harold Henderson reduced Hardy's suspension from 10 games to 4 games because it violated the CBA requirement of advance notice that increased penalties would be applied. According to Arbitrator Henderson, "ten games is simply too much, in my view, of an increase over prior cases without notice [to the players of the potential for increased discipline]." If a suspension of 10 games were "simply too much" in a case involving "multiple incidents" of domestic violence where the NFL-appointed arbitrator found the conduct to be "egregious," then how might a federal judge view a suspension of 17+ games where the underlying conduct was non-violent and the longest suspension in that category was only 3 games? It suggests that the NFL may not necessarily have an easy time of it in federal court, particularly if the NFLPA succeeds in having the case heard in Delaware federal court, where Sue Robinson served as a judge (including as chief judge) for more than 25 years. [1] The NFL's case included no allegation or evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force. See Judge Robinson's August 1st Decision, at pp. 5 & 13 ("There is no allegation that Mr. Watson exerted any force against any of the therapists. . . . It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension.").

Today, the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a lower court decision that Rutgers University is not required to produce film of a December 5th, 2020 football game between Rutgers and Penn State pursuant to an Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) exemption. On January 22, 2021, Rutgers received an OPRA request from plaintiff John Caroff, who said he wanted the film to show his thirteen-year-old daughter, whom he believes “possesses the necessary skill set for her to have considerable future career success as a football strategist and studying college football video advances her qualifications should she seek future employment with a college football staff or as part of the media covering college football." Rutgers’s Custodian of Records, Jewell Battle, denied Caroff’s OPRA request in a February, 2021 email. She explained that the video was exempt from OPRA due to “trade secrets and proprietary commercial or financial information obtained from any source” and “competitive advantage.” Thus, on April 2, 2021, plaintiff Caroff filed a lawsuit against Rutgers and Battle, seeking to compel the University to disclose the Penn State game film. Caroff made it clear that he was “not interested in commercializing it or uploading it to YouTube,” but wanted the video only to “educate his daughter.” Lower court Judge Alberto Rivas didn’t find Caroff's argument persuasive and ruled in favor of Rutgers, finding that OPRA’s proprietary information exemption applied and precluded disclosure of the video. The judge found that Rutgers did not “just give [the video] willy nilly to any person ho asks for it; it is within a defined universe.” Today, the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed Judges Rivas’s decision, holding that the video is exempt from OPRA disclosure. The court said, “[t]he purpose of OPRA is to maximize public knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process.” Further, the court discussed OPRA’s intended role in government transparency, which clearly doesn’t apply in this case. There are 23 explicit OPRA exemptions, including information deemed to be trade secrets and proprietary commercial or financial information. Judge Rivas only held that the video was exempt as proprietary information, not as trade secret, which the appellate court agreed with. The Superior Court also agreed that requiring disclosure of game film would give an unfair advantage to Rutgers’s competitors, as they wouldn’t have to send out scouts to observe the games, for example. With that, the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of Rutgers University and Battle. Ultimately, I respect this father doing whatever it takes to support his daughter's passion but agree with the court's ruling. The December 5, 2020 game between Rutgers and Penn State ended 23-7 in favor of the Nittany Lions. The teams combined for just 255 total yards through the air. 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.

Recently I had the pleasure of sitting down with 10-year NASCAR veteran Ryan Ellis to discuss contracts, crash clauses, and other legal aspects of a NASCAR driver’s daily life. In other sports, contracts and their terminology are an integral part of the process. According to Ellis, however, NASCAR’s smaller teams do not place as much emphasis on contracts. [00:00:43.830] - Jack Bradley … When did you sign your first contract in NASCAR? [00:00:58.890] - Ryan Ellis Yeah, I could be wrong on this. I think my first contract was probably with BK Racing in 2016. So that was probably four or five years, I guess three or four years into my NASCAR real start. But I might have had one before then, but don't remember. But I know I had that one that was like the one obviously I remember signing. I'm pretty sure most of them [contracts] were just like, “Hey, don't crash your car. Here's the race car. Good luck.” [00:18:22.570] – Jack Bradley You're working in these lower teams. You don't really have a contract. Would you call it trust in NASCAR? Do they really trust the drivers or are contracts just not fashionable? [00:18:45.830] – Ryan Ellis I could be wrong here. Maybe it's just me being who I am, but I think the sport is very chaotic in a lot of ways. Teams have week-to-week deals. Some get put together [at the] last minute. So I think some of it is just we're constantly doing something and they might not cross their mind. I could just be slightly naive on how many contracts are out there. I just… I don't think there are really that many out there. If they are, that's with the really new kids. I'm sure obviously the big team[s], they have their deals, but with the mid-pack or mid-tier teams down, it's kind of week to week. And then part of it is as a driver and as a team, you never want to be known as somebody that's suing somebody, a sponsor. You don't want your name in the press doing that. I've been part of some really bad deals and I'm sure teams have. Everybody has. It's just business. That's life. And if I were out there and I sued everybody that did me wrong, one, I'd probably have less money than I did if I didn't sue them. And two, I would probably not be in the garage very often because people would be like, well, Ryan might sue me. So it's just like I think they just know it's not very actionable in a lot of ways, especially with the money that we're dealing with. And they don't want their name associated and they don't want their partner's name associated with it. One important feature of NASCAR contracts is the crash clause. [00:01:26.910] - Jack Bradley I know a lot of race teams use it, but can you explain what a crash clause is and how you've had to deal with that? [00:01:37.730] - Ryan Ellis Yeah, I'll actually have to think of the last time I've had one of those. Once again, I could be wrong on this, but I think the last time I had a crash clause might have been like, in Grand Am racing. But I know if you don't have a large racing background, some of these teams, they're operating at cost, so it's not uncommon to have a crash clause. Usually, it's limited to a certain degree, but I think it depends on driver to driver. Some are like, hey, if you crash the car up to $5,000, you're liable for damage, you're liable for this, but it's hard to delineate some stuff because you can be like, well, the right front tire blew, and I knocked the fence down. That's on the team, but the same with motor stuff. But I'm sure it's changed a lot since I'm so freaking old. But it's scary because as a driver, you're kind of operating at cost, too, for the most part. So I've never been able to really sign a crash clause. So the best-negotiating power is always the power to go down to zero. And I was just like, Well, I can't drive then. … I think it's veteran based. There are probably a few races for three to five years. You're probably past that, I assume. I just don't ever remember having one. I might have had one at my first race, but at the end of the day, as I said, I can just go down to zero and be like, I can't race. If I break like my Xbox, I can't buy a new Xbox. [00:02:45.210] - Jack Bradley When you've driven in the past, say, five or six years, is it just a handshake agreement when it comes to a crash clause? Or when you're bringing your funding in, are they just well aware that the race car gets wrecked? Is it just on them? [00:03:00.770] - Ryan Ellis .... For these small teams, it's not typical to have a crash pause, probably more likely, especially if you're in your first race. But with most of my guys, I wouldn't survive if I was tearing up stuff. So I'm able to bring up probably a little bit less in terms of sponsorship money just because they know what they're getting. Coming off a crash last week, it doesn't really sound great, but yeah, it's kind of just like, hey, we trust you. We know you've been here, just do your job, and be smart. And at the end of the day, I know that our team will operate better if I don't strike the stuff in. So it's in my best favor to use my head. Another important aspect of a NASCAR driver’s life cycle in the sport is obtaining funding via sponsorship. [00:04:30.910] - Jack Bradley … Your owner, Tommy Joe Martin, stressed the importance of funding and sponsorship to whom they put in the car. You were mentioning your funding. I've seen it in the past, just with Costa Oil and some of your other partners you've had this year. How important is it to find these partners, to get these contracts or deals done to put you in these cars? [00:04:57.190] - Ryan Ellis I guess without these sponsors, I'm just not racing, period. I've been around for a long time, but there are certain rides that pop up that are just, hey, you don't need to bring anything, we’ll pay you a little bit. Sometimes they're a good deal, sometimes they're not. Sometimes if you can make the race you're in, you might make a little bit. But with Tommy Joe, I'm always transparent, always honest, and basically, if I don't bring the money, I'm not racing. And it's like that for everybody in our team. It's not just me. So without CorvetteParts.net, without team parts, I'm not at Alpha Prime Racing because that was the base of my deal, and that's what allowed Tommy to make a commitment to me. And then from there. He said, hey, we have these ten, six, whatever it was, races at the time open, and me and my marketing girl Sarah went after it and just said, we're going to try to get as many as we can and we lock a lot down, knocked a lot out, and we’re already doing that for next year. [00:20:45.390] – Jack Bradley You mentioned that when you have a sponsor come in, you of course have a contract with them. Is that contract exclusively with you and you just bring the money to the race team, or is it a contract between the three parties? [00:20:57.870] – Ryan Ellis So I think done correctly, it's a sponsored driver to team, driver to sponsor, and then driver to the team. But there's no contract between the sponsor and the team. I think that's done correctly from a driver's standpoint because that keeps the separation between sponsor and team, which is one thing that is scary because the drivers always worry about losing the sponsors to teams. Teams are worried about losing their sponsor to drivers. So I think that's the right way to do it, but everybody does it differently. I think that's probably just the most mainstream way. I work with Spire Sports and Entertainment. I have been for about three or four months now and I think we're finally going through our first set of contracts like last week. And as far as I know, I don't even know if there's a team mentioned in it right now. So it's probably just sponsor to me, and then I have a deal with Tommy, and that just keeps it separate and I'm way too dumb to know why that is, but I think it's just mainly from a legal standpoint of having a sponsor and team sue each other. The ins and outs of contracts in NASCAR are very different from that of other professional sports. I’d like to thank Ryan for his time and for helping build a picture of the business of NASCAR from a legal aspect. Jack Bradley is currently a Law school student at Duquesne University School of Law and an alum of Georgetown University (MPS) and Penn State University (BA). Jack is also the Co-founder and President of Poppy Packs, a 501c3 charity, and former Head of Marketing and Communications within NASCAR. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackwilliambradley/ Twitter @JackWBradley