The Formula One world enters its second week of vacant tracks as the summer break rolls on. This week, as expected, had much less drama. I mean how could you beat last week which saw drivers announcing retirement, switching teams, and refuting signed contacts all in a couple of days? This week is more about teams and drivers progressing rather than the dumpster fires we saw in week one. This contrast highlights why Formula One fans often refer to the summer break under its adopted name: Silly Season. Ferrari Designates Robert Shwartzman for Rookie Practice Sessions Laurent Mekies, Ferrari’s Race Director, revealed this week that Russo-Israeli Robert Shwartzman will be driving the powerful F1-75 for both of Ferrari’s rookie free practice 1 session. Per the new 2022 F1 rules, teams are required to run a minimum of two such sessions throughout the season. So far only Mercedes, Williams, and Red Bull have run such a session this season. Mekies stated that Ferrari has not decided which tracks Shwartzman will run at, but he did state that they will be avoiding tracks such as Singapore where drivers require more time on track to get the most out of the car. Robert Shwartzman currently serves as an academy driver for Ferrari after finishing second place in the 2021 Formula Two championship, only behind his teammate Oscar Piastri. Shwartzman currently races under the Israeli flag following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ferrari Team Principal Mattia Binotto explained this classification by pointing out that Shwartzman was born in Israel, has an Israeli passport, and does not race under a Russian license. The team also made sure that Shwartzman had no agreements with Russian-based companies. Shwartzman’s future contrasts that of former Haas driver Nikita Mazepin who lost his seat in Formula One due to his connection with Russia. Zhou Guanyu Reflects on the First Half of His Rookie Season This week Zhou, the lone rookie in Formula One this year, reflected on his time driving for Alfa Romeo so far this year. He stated that he was impressed with his growth but was very disappointed in the reliability issues that have plagued Alfa Romeo. The team runs a Ferrari power unit which has, so far this season, lead to many DNFs by Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, and Haas. Despite those issues, Zhou is optimistic about what he has been able to accomplish so far this season. He stated, “I definitely think we would have scored more points if we didn’t have that many DNFs." He followed, "but we were able to at least tick off the targets; we went through Q3, scoring points two times, so I’m happy in that way and we show good speed and momentum going forward.” Zhou has certainly had a season filled with ups and downs including one of the most dramatic crashes in Formula One since Romain Grosjean’s incredible fiery crash during the 2020 Bahrain GP. During the first turn 2022 British GP, Zhou was flipped and sent spinning on his halo into a catch fence only feet from spectators. Zhou was left in the car for quite a while as the car became pinned between the fence and a tire barrier. Luckily Zhou was able to be extracted and was taken to the hospital for evaluation. The team provided welcomed news during the race that Zhou was conscious, talking, and sustained no fractures from the crash. This crash highlighted yet another instance where the halo, a driver safety device that the FIA made mandatory on every car in 2018, potentially saved the life of a young racing driver. Even though this was a slower week, the world of Formula One still manages to keep Silly Season alive until the cars are back on the track. As always, I will be updating these stories and breaking 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/.

Along with conference realignment, NIL has been one of the major talking points in college athletics over the past year. Its impact on recruiting, the transfer portal, and locker room chemistry has drawn no shortage of media coverage. While lots of attention has been placed on the various ways college athletes have benefitted from their newfound ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness, the most interesting development to follow since July 2021 is the various ways schools and their fans have handled NIL. Because recruiting is the lifeblood of college athletics and is essential to have success on the field, court, ice, or pool, there was never a doubt that it was going to be impacted by NIL. In fact, some would argue that “NIL” has always been going on throughout the history of college sports, and only now is it actually legal. With that being said, the widespread abundance of boosters, alums, and supporters of a certain school funneling their money into a large “collective” to provide NIL benefits to their players was something many didn’t see coming. In a little over one year, NIL collectives have fundamentally reshaped college athletics by becoming a critical component of athletic success by using novel techniques to compensate college athletes for their NIL. Nearly every power conference school has some form of a collective, and some schools have multiple of them. It seems like every day there is an announcement of a new collective being formed. You’d think that schools would be unequivocally thrilled to see their fans create collectives for their programs. How could it be a negative for them? Before NIL, wealthy donors (aka boosters) had only one legal way to support their beloved alma mater and that was donating it to the school and athletic department. While television revenue has certainly exploded over recent history, many of the stadiums, practice facilities, locker rooms, coaching salaries, and recruiting expenses are helped paid for by boosters. Because supporters couldn’t legally “buy” players, they essentially had to buy infrastructure to put their school in the best position to win on game day. Now, the existence of collectives has changed the whole equation. Yes, fancy facilities are nice, but having a nicer locker room than your opponent doesn’t necessarily help you win the game. Having better players does. This has led to money that once went to athletic departments and schools now ending up in collectives. And to top it off, the schools aren’t the ones controlling these collectives. The boosters are. In some cases, the schools and collectives have co-existed very well. In other cases, not so much. Last week, a group of deep-pocketed USC Trojan fans and boosters announced the launch of a new collective titled “Student Body Right.” Amid the current competition in the recruiting landscape with big-time money being offered to blue-chip recruits, the group claims Student Body Right is essential for USC to properly compete with other top schools that feature collectives. While their plans are not finalized at the moment, their intent is to provide the equivalent of a base salary to every member of USC’s football team who is academically eligible. On the surface, it seems like a great thing for USC. The only problem is that those in power at USC don’t like it. USC administrators see Student Body Right as “being an existential threat that could invite serious scrutiny if the NCAA opts to enforce its NIL policies” given its operation outside of the university’s reach. Earlier this summer, USC partnered with a media agency to establish “BLVD” to exclusively serve USC student-athletes through the development of NIL opportunities. This was USC’s way of entering the NIL space without relinquishing control over the process. Until last week, this was the only known form of an organization facilitating NIL deals to Trojan athletes. But with Student Body Right launching, there is now a “competing” collective that doesn’t have the support of USC’s administration. Trojans AD Mike Bohn told the Los Angeles Times that “USC is not aware of a formal donor-created NIL collective” and “We ask any donors who would like to support USC’s athletes through NIL to please work with BLVD so that all activities are conducted in compliance with state laws and NCAA rules.” Although the NCAA has set interim NIL policies, many believe that they haven’t and won’t be enforced. Although the ruling in the Alston case didn’t have any bearing on NIL, Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion was significant because he blasted the NCAA saying they aren’t “above the law” and “The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America." Many collectives are run by lawyers who don’t fear future litigation if the NCAA tries to restrict their operations. However, some schools like USC, which has faced NCAA violations in the past, aren’t too thrilled with having boosters operate on their behalf in securing NIL deals for their players. Moving forward, the school vs. collective dynamic will be interesting to follow. One thing you always hear coaches and administrators emphasize is “alignment” between everyone involved in the program. Having the university resident, athletic director, head coach, and boosters on the same page is essential for a program to reach its potential. Boosters are a necessary component of every college athletic department. Without them, a program won’t have the resources necessary to compete at the highest level. However, if boosters aren’t aligned with the administrators and coaches at a school, problems can arise. There are realistic scenarios where a collective could offer a 5-star recruit a great NIL package to attend a school, but the coaches at that school don’t see him or her as a great fit for their program. The possible issues are numerous. We’ve seen how a lack of alignment at places like Tennessee, Texas, and Auburn can negatively impact on-field results. Hopefully, those involved at USC and other schools who find themselves in similar situations can find common ground. They all share the same goal of winning, so hopefully, that can guide them in this ever-changing landscape of college athletics. Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

By Daniel Wallach The deck is heavily stacked against any litigant who seeks to overturn a labor arbitration decision in federal court -- with labor awards denied confirmation in fewer than 10% of cases filed in the Southern District of New York, which just so happens to be the NFL's preferred forum for seeking judicial confirmation of arbitrated player disciplinary rulings. By contrast, the NFLPA's preferred judicial forum for challenging arbitrated disciplinary rulings has been "anywhere but New York," as the union has sought to vacate arbitration decisions in the District of Minnesota (where it has obtained favorable rulings in the past before U.S. District Judge David Doty), and, more recently, in the Eastern District of Texas (where the NFLPA secured an early, but short-lived, court victory for Ezekiel Elliott in 2017). Is The Race To The Courthouse Rigged in the NFL's Favor? This wide disparity in outcomes -- with the NFL usually winning in the Southern District of New York (see Elliott and Brady, albeit, following an appeal) and the NFLPA enjoying success in the Minnesota and Texas federal courts -- has spawned a literal "race to the courthouse" between the NFL and NFLPA to secure the more favorable judicial forum whenever there is a league-arbitrated player disciplinary decision. The NFL will ordinarily file a motion or petition to "confirm" the arbitration decision -- which seeks to enforce or give effect to the arbitrator's ruling -- while the NFLPA will typically file a motion or petition to "vacate" (or overturn) the arbitrator's ruling (particularly when it imposes or upholds a player suspension). The need for a "race" to the courthouse is due to the application of the first-to-file rule, a judicial doctrine which recognizes that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction over the issues and the parties has priority, with the second federal court typically declining jurisdiction in deference to the first-filed lawsuit. Under the first-to-file rule, the lawsuit which is filed first generally has priority absent a showing of special circumstances (such as bad faith, forum shopping, or other inequitable conduct). And it's been an unfair -- some might even say fixed -- race in recent years, as the NFL invariably files the first lawsuit in federal court because it controls the "timing" of the release of the arbitration decision since the arbitrator is either NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell or a "designee" with close ties to the league (such as Harold Henderson, the arbitrator in the Elliott disciplinary matter). It has long been suspected (but never alleged or proven) that the NFL gets an unfair head start in the proverbial race to the courthouse because the NFL-affiliated arbitrator provides the league with a copy of the arbitration decision before sharing it with the NFLPA. Such an ex parte communication -- if it occurs (and can be proven) -- would constitute the requisite "compelling circumstances" -- such as in cases of bad faith, anticipatory suits, or forum shopping -- that warrants a departure from the first-to-file rule. Despite these suspicions (particularly in the Brady case), the NFLPA has never once argued that the NFL benefitted from an unfair advantage in timing due to being "tipped off" about the decision by the NFL-affiliated arbitrator. But all bets should be off in the Deshaun Watson case, where, to have a more realistic chance of prevailing, the NFLPA must secure jurisdiction in Delaware -- either by filing the first lawsuit or successfully arguing that the NFL acted in "bad faith" by engineering an early release of the arbitrator's decision to ensure that it won the race to the courthouse. Additionally, under a recent California federal court decision (more on that below), the NFLPA can argue that, as the party seeking to vacate the arbitration decision, the NFLPA is the "natural plaintiff" and its later-filed lawsuit should have priority because the arbitrator's decision is immediately binding upon Deshaun Watson per Article 46 of the CBA without the need for judicial confirmation. Why Delaware Should be the Preferred Forum for the NFLPA The case for filing suit in the Delaware federal court system is straightforward. It is the most favorable venue for the NFLPA for one obvious reason. That is the venue where Sue L. Robinson, the jointly selected Disciplinary Officer, served as a federal judge for more than 25 years. She also served as the Chief Judge for the District of Delaware between 2000 and 2007. Of the 5 federal district judges who currently serve on the bench in the District of Delaware, Judge Robinson served with 3 of them; and the other two judges -- both appointed in 2018 -- regularly appeared in her courtroom when they were practicing attorneys in Wilmington, Delaware. The importance of litigating this case in Delaware -- at least from the NFLPA's perspective -- stems from the fact that 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 declining to suspend Watson for the full year requested by the NFL, Judge Robinson determined that the league failed to provide NFL players with "fair notice" that non-violent conduct (which has never resulted in a suspension of any longer than 3 games since the inception of the Personal Conduct Policy) could be disciplined "more severely" than "violent" conduct (which warrants a suspension of at least 6 games for a first-time offense). She characterized this as both a "dramatic shift" and "extraordinary change" in the NFL's disciplinary approach and culture, comparing it unfavorably with the "fair notice" that the league provided the players in 2014 when it amended the Personal Conduct Policy to provide for a presumptive 6-game suspension without pay for certain first-time violent offenders in the aftermath of the Ray Rice debacle. The "fair notice" principle is a subset of industrial due process. It requires that a person have fair notice not only of the "conduct" that will subject him or her to discipline, but also of the "severity" of the discipline that could be imposed. (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. "). Judge Robinson described this principle in her decision as giving the players "fair notice" of the "probable consequences" of certain proscribed conduct. (The NFL has acknowledged the vitality of the "fair notice" requirement in matters of player discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy. During the 2014 arbitration arising out of the 6-game suspension of Ray Rice, Commissioner Goodell described the 2014 policy change as "forward looking because the League is 'required to provide proper notification'" to the players). While there is no guarantee that this argument will persuade a federal court judge to vacate NFL-appointed Arbitrator Peter C. Harvey's modified discipline, Judge Robinson's reasoning and analysis will likely be accorded greater respect in a tribunal where she served as a federal judge (including as the chief judge) for more than a quarter of a century. Further, let's not lose sight of the fact that Judge Robinson is the only neutral and impartial arbitrator in this case. By contrast, Peter C. Harvey is a longtime outside counsel for the NFL and serves in various advisory capacities for the league, including as a member of the NFL's Diversity Advisory Committee. In addition, he advocates for victims of sexual assault and sexual violence as the Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors for "Futures Without Violence," a nonprofit organization focused on ending violence against women and children. While not quite rising to the level of "evident partiality" (or maybe it does, but that's for another day), a Delaware federal judge might be inclined to accord greater weight to the well-reasoned analysis of a former judicial colleague -- who is neutral -- than that of a private lawyer with such deep and profound ties to the NFL and who also happens to advocate for victims of sexual assault, further calling in to question his overall objectivity on the issue. In this case, optics may matter and the stark differences between the two decision-makers would be magnified in Delaware. NFLPA Must Demand Simultaneous Notification of Arbitrator Harvey's Appellate Decision Now comes to the hard part -- winning the race to the courthouse. But how can the NFLPA file the first lawsuit in Delaware if the NFL-affiliated arbitrator provides the NFL's outside counsel with a copy of the decision prior to furnishing a copy to the NFLPA? The NFLPA's outside counsel, Jeffrey Kessler, can take several protective measures to ensure that the NFL does not again wrongly benefit from such early notification. First, he should elicit an assurance from the arbitrator, Peter C. Harvey, that both sides will receive notification of his decision at the exact same time and though the same mode of communication, such as electronic mail. Second, the NFLPA should prepare a shell complaint to be uploaded to PACER by Delaware local counsel as soon as possible after receiving notice and a copy of Arbitrator Harvey's ruling by email. If these precautionary steps do not result in the NFLPA having the first-filed lawsuit, then it raises the specter of the NFL again benefitting from the early release of the arbitrator's opinion. If that were to happen, the NFLPA should not turn the other cheek -- as it did in the Brady and Elliott cases -- and acquiesce to the NFL's chosen forum (the Southern District of New York) as if nothing happened. Instead, the NFLPA should file a motion with the New York federal court requesting the transfer of the first-filed lawsuit to the District of Delaware on the basis that "compelling circumstances" exist that would warrant a departure from the first-to-file rule. As one federal court observed, "[c]ompelling circumstances sufficient to trump a plaintiff's first-filed choice of forum include a bad faith filing by that plaintiff in an attempt to win the race to the courthouse." (Di-Hed Yokes, Inc. v. Imas Dell'Orto of Am., Inc., 2005 WL 8163015, at *3 (D. Minn. Nov. 16, 2005)). Here, the requisite "bad faith" could be shown by evidence that the NFL was only able to file the first lawsuit because it was tipped off early to the decision by the NFL-affiliated arbitrator. The NFLPA is the Natural Plaintiff in This Controversy Alternatively, the NFLPA could argue that the NFL's same-day filing in the Southern District of New York was made in bad faith because confirmation of Peter C. Harvey's arbitration decision is unnecessary. This is because Article 46 of the NFL/NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement already provides that the arbitrator's decision on appeal "will constitute a full, final, and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement." (CBA Art. 46, Sec. 1(e)(v)) (emphasis added). Since the arbitrator's decision is binding on Watson as soon as it is issued, the NFL's race to the Southern District of New York to file an unnecessary motion to confirm could legitimately be characterized as a bad faith attempt by the NFL to deprive the NFLPA -- the true plaintiff -- of its choice of forum. Delaware has an obvious nexus to the controversy since that is where the disciplinary evidentiary hearing before Judge Robinson was conducted. A recent California federal court decision involving strikingly similar circumstances -- where a party raced to the courthouse to unnecessarily confirm an arbitration award that was already binding on the parties -- can be relied upon by the NFLPA to urge the New York federal court to dismiss or stay the NFL's first-filed lawsuit, or, alternatively, to transfer it to the District of Delaware, where the NFLPA's second-filed suit would be pending. See AIDS Healthcare Found. v. Caremark, LLC, 2022 WL 2903136 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2002) ("As the party seeking to challenge the arbitrator's award, Caremark is the natural 'plaintiff' or 'appellant' in the case, to draw the analogy. In fact, as AHF concedes in its Opposition, it is not required to obtain judicial confirmation to enforce the arbitration award. It therefore makes logical sense for Caremark to file its motion to vacate first, which unlike AHF's petition, is a necessary filing for it to obtain the relief it desires. . . . Caremark's filing in Arizona also does not evidence forum shopping, when Arizona was the site of the arbitration and therefore is a natural venue for judicial review."). If the NFLPA can secure a Delaware judicial forum -- either by winning the proverbial race to the courthouse or by successfully arguing against the application of the first-to-file rule, Deshaun Watson's chances of seeing the field by Week 7 could increase dramatically. *Daniel Wallach is the co-founder of Conduct Detrimental. He is a nationally recognized gaming and sports betting attorney. You can follow him on Twitter at @WALLACHLEGAL.

Gabriel Heinze was fired on July 18, after only half a season in charge of Atlanta United. The former Real Madrid and Manchester United player’s poor start to the season with a 2-4-7 record along with his feud with star striker Josef Martinez didn’t sit well with Atlanta’s front office. In addition, just after he was fired, news came out that the MLS Players Association filed grievances on behalf of the Atlanta United players related to violations that Heinze committed. Among these violations were not having a practice schedule posted in advance, which made players essentially “on call” for practice. He did not give the players enough days off as required by the CBA. The CBA requires that players be given eight days off over an eight-week period along with players not being able to go more than 14 consecutive days without a day off. Heinze also refused to give players water during practice, which there had been rumors of him doing at his previous club, Velez Sarsfield. These grievances were filed around the time that Heinze was fired. A month later now, the grievances were found to be true. The players will be compensated for the denial of the days off they were required to take. According to an ESPN article, “Atlanta will add money to the players' end-of-year bonus pool, and the players will be compensated for the extra days from those funds. The players will also get an additional two days off, to be granted prior to the end of the season.” It is unknown how many consecutive days the players were forced to practice without a day off. Nothing was mentioned about the refusal of water breaks and not giving the players a practice schedule in advance. Atlanta United have enjoyed success since coming into MLS in 2017. In just their second season, they were able to capture the MLS Cup under the current Mexico national team head coach, Tata Martino. Josef Martinez was their star talisman for the MLS Cup and his feud with Gabriel Heinze this season surely played a role in his firing. Since Tata Martino has left, Atlanta United haven’t returned to that glory. Under previous manager, Frank De Boer, they struggled and didn’t have a clear play style. De Boer was sacked and later was appointed manager of Netherlands for this summer’s Euros. He was later fired by Holland following the Euros after a mediocre performance in the tournament. Atlanta United front office believed that Heinze was the man to try to get them back in contention for the MLS Cup, but after only half a season that is not the case. They now turn to former Seattle Sounders assistant, Gonzalo Pineda, to try to steer the team back in the right direction as they currently sit in ninth place in the Eastern Conference.

The rise in popularity of the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) has allowed its fighters the opportunity to participate in mainstream ventures. However, as former UFC fighter Cat Zingano can attest, with more opportunities comes more legal issues. Cat Zingano is suing the popular actress, Halle Berry for “getting snubbed” of a movie role she was promised. (Halle Berry Sued By Former UFC Fighter Cat Zingano Over Movie Role (tmz.com)). According to the lawsuit TMZ obtained, Zingano met with Berry in July 2019 about a movie she was directing named “Bruised.” Berry told Zingano she was perfect for a role and that she should keep her schedule clear because filming for the movie was looming. In accordance with keeping her schedule clear, Zingano turned down a fight from the UFC after being advised by Berry of the liability concerns the movies insurers had for her potential participation. This tough decision resulted in a negative sum game for Zingano. She now is fired from the UFC and no longer can fulfil her role in the movie Berry promised because according to Berry, the movie requires only UFC fighter to be filmed. In contract law, a binding contract needs what’s called “consideration” to be legally enforceable. This means that the party making an offer and the party accepting the offer both must be exchanging something of value i.e. consideration (RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF (fbcoverup.com)). Berry was offering Zingano a role in a movie but Zingano did not accept the contract with something of value in return. However, this is not the end of the legal story and Zingano can still recover damages with something called promissory estoppel. Sometimes, a party has not provided sufficient consideration to create a legal contract but has relied on an offer to the extent that they could still sue for damages. There is no contract created but a party’s reliance on an offer has created a legal obligation. This is where promissory estoppel comes into play (RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF (fbcoverup.com)). For a party to successfully sue for damages under promissory estoppel, they must satisfy three elements. The party must prove (1) she was promised something by a party that that party thought would induce her to do or not do something, (2) she relied on that promise, and (3) enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. Cat Zingano’s legal team has a legitimate case to prove all three elements of promissory estoppel. First, Zingano was promised by Berry that she would have a role in an upcoming movie featuring fighters. Berry even advised Zingano to reject a fight offer from the UFC so she could be in the movie. Second, Zingano relied on Berry’s promise and advisement and was fired as by the UFC. She forbode making money in a fight in reliance that she would be a star in a movie. This reliance resulted in her firing and now no role in a movie. Lastly, Zingano’s team can definitely argue that enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. Berry promised Zingano a role in a movie and reneged on her promise. Even though Zingano did not technically accept the contract, she relied on Berry’s promise to her detriment. Berry had the opportunity to film a movie with a UFC fighter like she required. Zingano met this requirement, took the steps Berry required in reliance of this promise, and was ready for action. With all this in account, it only makes sense for a court to remedy this injustice by awarding damages.

The Athletic’s Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal reported on Wednesday that MLB has proposed lowering the initial luxury tax threshold[1] and adding a salary floor in an introductory economic proposal ahead of more substantial Collective Bargaining Act discussions this fall. The current CBA runs through December 1. The proposal allegedly includes a salary floor, a concept long lobbied for by players and their advocates in the media[2] that would be set at $100M. Currently, six teams have payrolls below the $100M mark, with two others hovering around that number[3]. More concerning news for the players is the suggestion of a four-tier luxury system, which creates a new lowest tier beginning at a $180M threshold. Taxes related to that tier would begin at 25%. This new proposed threshold adds a fourth tier to the existing three tier system. Teams that currently exceed the 2021 luxury threshold of $210M incur a 20% tax on each dollar above that threshold. Clubs exceeding the threshold by $20M to $40M incur an additional 12% surtax upon each dollar above the $20M threshold. Exceeding the threshold by more than $40M carries a 42.5% penalty the first time and a 45% rate if the tax threshold is exceeded by more than $40M in a second consecutive season. Being $40M or more above the threshold for successive years also results in Rule 4 picks being moved back 10 selections[4]. These taxes are progressive and are outlined in the chart below[5]. According to Spotrac, just two teams (the LA Dodgers and Boston Red Sox) have exceeded the Luxury Tax mark in 2021[6], and only the Dodgers have blown past the $40M overage marker. (Chart Courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors) Still, the penalties of exceeding the luxury tax, even by extreme amounts, are paltry compared to the possible benefits. On their way to a gentleman’s sweep of the Dodgers in the 2018 World Series, the Boston Red Sox blew past the $40M overages in 2018 and during their 2019 championship hangover season. All told, the Red Sox paid less than $30M in taxes stemming from this largesse[7]. Considering the financial benefits that come with winning the World Series, it is likely that Fenway Sports Group would make this trade off again. When the 2019 Red Sox bottomed out, the club proceeded to do the unthinkable and trade their homegrown face of the franchise Mookie Betts to the Dodgers rather than award him a new contract. The team was able to get back under the tax threshold, but opted not to enter the $20M surtax phase at the deadline this season and have since seen their 10 game lead over the rival Yankees dissolve. Boston’s actions in trading Betts speaks to the fact that the luxury tax as it is currently constructed already effectively operates like a salary cap. Each season, like clockwork, billionaire baseball team owners say that they are “absolutely”[8] “willing”[9] to exceed the threshold and that the luxury tax “is not a hard line”[10] in the sand. However, if you look at teams’ actions, they gather around the luxury tax line and very few teams have shown a willingness to consistently go for it and pay the tax. The fact that this alleged proposal calls for a lower threshold that would carry a higher tax should give pause to the players’ association as they negotiate this next CBA. The actions of the owners since the creation of the tax should leave no doubt as to where many teams will draw the line on spending and therefore effectively cap player salaries. It would also remain to be seen whether teams would actually use the salary floor to raise the average salary of players (a serious concern for the union given the current club attitudes towards substantial free agent contracts). Of course, it is important to note that this is an introductory offer and that these ideas are likely to develop as negotiations continue. One positive note to take from this story is that discussions are taking place in person as the league and the players attempt to avoid a catastrophic work stoppage in 2022. For more on this story and everything at the intersection of sports and law, keep it tuned to Conduct Detrimental. [1] https://theathletic.com/news/mlb-first-cba-proposal-includes-salary-floor-lower-luxury-tax-tier-sources/AtgQP6Hp5mS1 [2] https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mlb-players-ought-to-fight-for-a-payroll-floor/ [3] https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/tax/ [4] https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax [5] https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/02/mlb-luxury-tax.html [6] https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/tax/ [7] https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/12/10/here-what-red-sox-would-face-they-don-get-under-luxury-tax-threshold-this-year/PCjGCkeVgdj23kGMUN4aaL/story.html [8] https://www.si.com/mlb/yankees/news/new-york-yankees-managing-general-partner-hal-steinbrenner-willing-to-exceed-luxury-tax [9] https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/07/padres-trade-rumors-luxury-tax-joey-gallo.html [10]https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/astros_gm_james_click_no_ownership_mandate_to_stay_below_luxury_tax_threshold/s1_13237_35327234

As the fall semester approaches for colleges across the country, an onslaught of litigation has materialized involving university vaccine mandates. Many colleges have implemented vaccination mandates for their students and faculty to return to campus starting in the fall. These policies have been met with legal challenges by unwilling students and faculty to receive the shot. Indiana University was one of the institutions that decided to require a strict vaccination requirement for students and faculty on campus this fall. Medical and religious exemptions are available, but the Indiana University website has a selective list of criteria that will be considered for an exemption.[1] Notably, natural immunity or previous infection from COVID-19 will not be considered as criteria for a medical exemption. Also, the school policy doesn’t mention a distinction between university athletes and the rest of the student body when it comes to adhering to the policy. Eight students filed a complaint against Indiana University in the Northern District of Indiana seeking a preliminary injunction to thwart the university’s policy, citing various 14th Amendment violations, and claiming a right to refuse medical treatment.[2] The complaint cites Roe v. Wade in stating that a governmental entity (or a public university) must meet a heightened standard of review when infringing with a right to bodily integrity. The students claim that with the available conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of the vaccine, this heightened standard is not met by the University to require vaccines. On July 18, 2021 a federal judge denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff.[3] On appeal, the 7th Circuit upheld.[4] In a concise four page opinion, the 7th Circuit stated that following precedent allows Indiana University to require vaccination status.[5] In 1905 the Supreme Court in a case named Jacobson v. Massachusetts, ruled that it was constitutional for cities to require citizens be vaccinated against smallpox.[6] On August 12, 2021, Justice Amy Coney Barret refused to grant the students request for emergency relief to strike down the University policy.[7] She did not refer the application for emergency relief to the full court and she did not ask Indiana University for a response.[8] The combination of those moves by Justice Barret tends to show that the application submitted by the students was not backed on solid legal grounds.[9] Despite the case not yet being decided on the merits, at this point there has been no indication that students challenging vaccination mandates will prevail against universities. Presumably, as Indiana University student athletes return to the campus for the fall semester, they will have to abide by the vaccination policy. The NCAA hasn’t released vaccination requirements and only has released recommendations on testing, quarantine, and isolation differentiating between vaccinated and non-vaccinated athletes.[10] Across the country, athletes’ vaccination requirements will depend on the school and conference they play in. For example, the University of Hawaii has announced they will require the vaccine for all their student athletes to compete for the upcoming school year.[11] With the recent NIL landscape giving collegiate athletes more of an opportunity to use their voice and social media platforms to express an opinion, athletes who are against vaccination mandates may choose to make their stance known to their followers. But athletes likely face a similar unsuccessful fate to challenging university vaccine policies as the rest of their fellow classmates. Matthew Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter @MattNettiMN. [1] Indiana University, COVID-19 Vaccine, https://www.iu.edu/covid/prevention/covid-19-vaccine.html (last visited Aug. 11, 2021). [2] Complaint Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 1:21-cv-238 (N.D. Ind. 2021). [3] Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana, No. 1:21-cv-238 DRL (N.D. Ind. 2021). [4] Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 21-2326 (7th Cir. 2021). [5] Id. at 2. [6] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). [7] Adam Liptak, The Supreme Court Won’t Block Indiana University’s Vaccine Mandate, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/supreme-court-indiana-university-covid-vaccine-mandate.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2021). [8] Liptak, supra note 34. [9] Id. [10] https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/general-new-covid-19-guidance-for-fall-sports-released [11] https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/08/04/sports/sports-breaking/university-of-hawaii-requiring-student-athletes-to-receive-covid-19-vaccination-to-compete-in-sports/

This week, Nebraska reported that their football program has been the subject of an NCAA investigation pertaining to improper use of analysts and consultants as well as holding prohibited workouts off campus during the pandemic. All of this allegedly was known by the school’s head coach, Scott Frost. “We just wanted to acknowledge that there is an NCAA investigation that is currently engaged with our athletic department and our football program specifically," Nebraska Athletic Director Trev Alberts told reporters. "We want you to know that we have complied 100% with the NCAA and been very collaborative with our approach with them with all of their investigation” and "We will continue to do whatever the NCAA asks us to do.” Now, before diving in, I’m not implying that Scott Frost and his staff didn’t break any NCAA rules or mandates. However, this story just seems a little suspicious given the context of the current state of Nebraska football entering its fourth season in the Scott Frost era. Is this investigation purely about upholding NCAA standards or rules pertaining to COVID-19, or is it about something else? In November of 2019, Nebraska surprisingly gave Scott Frost a contract extension through 2026 that would pay him $5 million annually. When the extension was announced, Nebraska was 8-13 under Frost through his first season and a half. This news raised eyebrows at the time because it’s extremely rare to see a coach get a contract extension with that kind of record. If Nebraska were to fire Frost without cause (meaning continued underperformance) before 2022, it would require them to pay a $20 million buyout. Why is this relevant to the reports of the NCAA investigation? It’s relevant because if the investigation can prove Frost was in the wrong with his use of analysts and orchestration of workouts during COVID, it could be a route for Nebraska to fire him with cause. This would release the liability of the Huskers to pay the $20 million buyout. Therefore, it’s fair to wonder who leaked this information to the NCAA. With everything going on in the world of college athletics, it’s unlikely that the NCAA was actively seeking to go after Nebraska. With that being said, when something shows up on their desk like this, they’ll definitely look into it. According to Brett McMurphy of the Action Network, the school has “significant video footage” confirming the illegal use of analysts during practices. Combining this with the previously referenced statements by Trev Alberts, I get a little bit of suspicion for what Nebraska might be trying to do here. It appears like the school actively went out to acquire video evidence of the illegal use of analysts at practices. While some might read this and appreciate Nebraska’s compliance department, it’s worth mentioning that nearly every elite program in the nation does the same thing. Analysts fall under a category of an assistant coach that isn't considered part of the "countable" limit of 10 by the NCAA. They are technically prohibited from directly coaching players or going on off-campus recruiting trips. However, over the last decade, many programs have expanded the role of the analyst without any backlash from the NCAA. If Frost wanted to say “we’re doing the same thing everybody else is” in his defense, he wouldn’t be wrong. In regards to the alleged workouts held off campus during the pandemic, Frost affirmed that “Everything we did through COVID was in the best interest and health of our players in mind and everything we did was approved by athletic department administration and campus administration.” If Nebraska competed for Big Ten titles and went to Rose Bowls over Frost’s first three seasons, would we still be hearing about these alleged violations? I don’t think so. This situation is strikingly similar to what occurred at Tennessee last season. After a 2-0 start, Tennessee extended head coach Jeremy Pruitt’s contract for an additional two years. Following the extension, Tennessee proceeded to lose seven of their last eight games. At the end of the season, Tennessee self-reported recruiting violations to the NCAA, and eventually fired Pruitt for cause, negating his $12 million buyout. In reading the tea leaves, it looks like Nebraska might be trying to do something along these lines here. The athletic director who hired Scott Frost, Bill Moos, stepped down earlier this Summer. Oftentimes, whenever a new athletic director comes in, the job security of the current head coach inevitably lessens. AD’s usually like to hire “their guy,” and it’s fair to think that Trev Alberts might be thinking of doing exactly that. In the current environment in college athletics, the NCAA wasn’t actively seeking out Nebraska to find violations. Given Nebraska’s lack of success, there’s a chance that the university wants to make a change at the head coaching position and avoid paying the $20 million buyout. A former Husker great, many heralded Scott Frost as the “chosen son” destined to return Nebraska football to its glory days when he was hired. Now, it looks like they’re leaving perhaps about to leave him in the cold. Frost has now obtained legal counsel, so this story isn’t going away any time soon. Nebraska begins their 2021 season against Illinois on August 28th.

“March Madness” is one of the most popular and recognizable brands in sports. The NCAA’s trademarked “March Madness” brand has turned the men’s college basketball tournament into a must-watch event even for the most casual sports fan. Whereas its notable absence from the women’s basketball tournament has been a silent contributor to the gender inequalities in collegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to use the “March Madness” brand solely for the men’s tournament even though its trademark registrations would allow for the phrase to be used for both the women’s and men’s basketball tournaments.[1] The stark differences between “March Madness” and the “NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament” for decades has gone underreported in mainstream sports media. However, that all changed on March 18th, when University of Oregon basketball star, Sedona Prince, went to TikTok to broadcast the disparities at the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament by comparing the women’s weight room with mere hand weights and yoga mats with the men’s weight room which had a plethora of equipment. Prince captioned her TikTok: “It’s 2021 and we are still fighting for bits and pieces of equality.”[2] Prince’s TikTok brought to light a much-needed discourse regarding gender equity within women’s college athletics. The TikTok went viral, and the NCAA was called out on a global stage for their unequal treatment of women’s basketball. The NCAA was then prompted to conduct an external review led by New York Law Firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP of gender equity issues specifically during the NCAA championships and to make recommendations for the NCAA to implement for the future. KHF reached out to all 64 NCAA Division 1 women’s basketball programs that participated in the women’s tournament and the 113-page report found that “The NCAA’s organizational structure and culture prioritizes men’s basketball, contributing to gender inequity.”[3] The report stated that: “The primary reason, we believe, is that the gender inequities at the NCAA—and specifically within the NCAA Division I basketball championships—stem from the structure and systems of the NCAA itself, which are designed to maximize the value of and support to the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship as the primary source of funding for the NCAA and its membership.”[4] However, as the report found, “nothing could be further from the truth”[5], as television viewership for the women’s tournament was the highest it’s been since 2014, and an increasing number of women’s basketball players have huge followings on social media that triples their male counterparts. Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP recommendations included that the NCAA should take “steps to maximize value through gender equity in marketing, promotion, and sponsorships”[6] and to “Use ‘March Madness’ for both the Division 1 Men’s and Women’s Basketball Championships” and to “Hold the men’s and women’s Final Fours together in one city.”[7] On August 17, 2021, Bryan Fisher tweeted that the NCAA will officially start using “March Madness” branding with the women’s basketball tournament moving forward.[8] This decision from the NCAA is monumental for the future of women’s college basketball and for women’s sports. As Sedona Prince, stated in her TikTok, “if you aren’t upset about this problem then you are part of it”.[9] With this recent decision to use the trademarked “March Madness” logo, the NCAA is finally making progress to fix the problems for women’s basketball it originally caused. Hannah is a 2L at Elon University School of Law and host of Podcast “Bars to the Bar” from Hoboken, New Jersey. Hannah graduated from Providence College where she was a four-year manager for the Men’s Basketball Team. Sources: [1] Bachman, Rachel, Louise Radnofsky and Laine Higgins. "NCAA Left Women Out of 'Madness' --- the 'March Madness' Phrase has been used Only for the Men's Basketball Tournament." Wall Street Journal Mar 23 2021, Eastern edition ed.ProQuest. 22 Aug. 2021. [2]Sedona Prince (@sedonerrr), TikTok (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.tiktok.com/@sedonerrr/video/6941180880127888646. [3] Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, NCAA External Gender Equity Review, Phase 1: Basketball Championships (Aug 2, 2021) https://kaplanhecker.app.box.com/s/6fpd51gxk9ki78f8vbhqcqh0b0o95oxq [4] Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, NCAA External Gender Equity Review [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Fischer, Brayn [@BryanDFischer] Twitter, 17 August 2021, https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/status/1427654842516852738 [9] Sedona Prince (@sedonerrr), TikTok (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.tiktok.com/@sedonerrr/video/6941180880127888646

As Chris Berman would say, “nobody circles the wagon like the Buffalo Bills.” However, recent reports suggest the Buffalo Bills (“Bills”) may be shopping for a new home outside of Buffalo. An ESPN writer reported that Austin, Texas[1] serves as a suitable location if New York State denies the alleged ask by the Pegula family — owners of both the Bills and Buffalo Sabres (“Sabres”) — for taxpayers to ‘100%’ cover the cost for a new stadium. The Pegulas are allegedly seeking $1.5 billion in their proposal[2]: $1.1 billion allocated to the Bills new stadium and the remaining $400 million for renovations to the Sabres arena. The Plan would take approximately three-to-five years[3] to complete. Erie County Executive, Mark Poloncarz, stated per The Buffalo News[4] “There was no statement by the Bills: ‘We’re going to Austin.’” Adding, the Pegula’s never gave any indication that they are looking to leave Buffalo. The two sides are looking to complete a deal prior to Bills’ lease agreement terminating at the end of the 2023 National Football League (“NFL”) season. Stadium History: To understand the desire for a new stadium, it is important to note that Highmark Stadium (“Highmark”) (1973) is the third oldest in the NFL, behind Lambeau Field (1967) and Arrowhead Stadium (1972). The Bills spent $22 million to build Highmark, adjusted for inflation today and that equates to $134.6 million. In Comparison, the New Orleans Saints built the Superdome in 1975 for $134 million, equating to $676.7 million today. Recent History: The Bills are no strangers to stadium renovations and changes. In 2014, Highmark, then called Ralph Wilson Stadium, underwent a $130 million renovation. The state and county funded nearly three-fourths of the project. Despite the changes, rumblings began around the Bills desire for an entirely new stadium. In that same year, Terry Pegula — who purchased the Sabres in 2011 for $189 million — purchased the Bills for $1.4 billion, outbidding the likes of Bon Jovi and Donald Trump. The Pegula family publicly stated their desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. Two-years later, the Bills and New Era Cap Co. (“New Era”) agreed to a $35 million, seven-year deal for the naming rights of then Ralph Wilson Stadium. Though, the relationship lasted only four years after New Era requested to terminate the contract. Less than a year later, in March of 2021, the Bills entered a new stadium naming rights deal. A ten-year agreement with Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York, to name the stadium what it is today, Highmark. League Precedent: Around the NFL, the cheapest stadium built over the last thirteen years is U.S. Bank Stadium, home of the Minnesota Vikings, costing around $1.1 billion; the state and city paid approximately half of the cost. Looking into recent trends, the Raiders, Chargers, and Rams pose a frightening precedent for the Bills. The Raiders, who recently moved from Oakland to Las Vegas, paid approximately $1.1 billion towards Allegiant Stadium. The public paid around $750 million, nearly 40% of the stadium’s cost. The Los Angeles Chargers and Rams also relocated to build a new stadium, conversely the $5 billion So-Fi stadium was privately funded by the teams’ owners. However, the Pegulas have not given any public indication that they plan on relocating the Bills outside of Buffalo. Outlook: Three teams, three re-locations, and two new stadiums later would tell a gambling man to bet the house on the Bills loading their wagons and heading south to Texas. However, recency bias is just that — bias. Western New York and the Bills have one of the strongest team-fan relationships in all professional sports. Despite the initial panic, relocation is not as simple as a team owner snapping their fingers and moving a team. For a team to relocate, they need a three-quarters majority vote from all the NFL owners — twenty-four votes. Not all twenty-four votes are created equal. Jerry Jones (“Jones”), owner of the Dallas Cowboys, is an influence vote and voice in the NFL. Jones, along with Yankees Global, have ownership stakes in Legends Hospitality (“Legends”). Legends is representing the Pegulas in the new stadium negotiations as well as representing the Bills in selling sponsorships and premium seats in the potential new stadium. Additionally, by voting for the Bills to relocate to Austin, Jones would be welcoming another NFL franchise into the state of Texas, something rather unlikely. Sources: [1] https://twitter.com/SethWickersham/status/1421882529251045379 [2] https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-regional/buffalo-bills-want-a-new-stadium-and-for-taxpayers-to-foot-the-bill/article_dc794aea-f14a-11eb-a5ae-17fdaa70c27c.html#tracking-source=home-top-story [3] https://www.rochesterfirst.com/sports/buffalo-bills/bills-planning-new-outdoor-stadium-in-orchard-park/ [4] https://buffalonews.com/news/local/poloncarz-no-blank-check-from-taxpayers-for-buffalo-bills-stadium/article_017bb92c-f565-11eb-9585-73ff6d0e8e78.html

“Pay him, pay that man his money” the infamous line spoken by Teddy KGB in the movie “Rounders” now applies to college athletes across the country. July 1 marked the beginning of infinite possibilities and potential consequences for NCAA student-athletes as the organization is going to allow players to profit off their Names, Image and Likeness. This matter has been pressing for quite some time with players even threatening to sit out during the NCAA March Madness Tournament. NCAA president Mark Emmert was able to intervene by sitting down with a few players who had the strongest opinions and beliefs. The two sides came up with an agreement that before the 2021-2022 athletic year began there would be a system in place to empower athletes and grant them opportunities to earn financial gains. Well here we are, the NCAA held true and now hundreds of athletes across the are doing their best to build a brand and cash in. Olivia Dunne, a gymnast for LSU is one of the biggest superstars of this new era, with a following of over 4.1 million on social media apps such as Tik Tok, Twitter and Instagram launched her campaign with a billboard in Times Square. Auburn Quarterback Bo Nix signed a deal with “Milo's Tea Company” a popular southern sweet iced tea. His Iron Bowl counterpart, Bama’ QB Bryce Young has made over eight-hundred thousand dollars through various endorsement deals before he’s even started his first game for the Crimson Tide. While it is encouraging to see athletes getting the opportunity to make a buck, where is the line in the sand drawn? One of the biggest counter points that the NCAA has made for years in the fight against paying players is that they wanted the student-athletes to maintain their amateur status. With a Fall sports season right around the corner and coaches and teams with championship aspirations will certainly need to discuss the approach that needs to be had in managing not only school and their sports workload but now all of the sudden their business ventures as well. Getting complete focus from every athlete on the team is a must in order to achieve a common goal in any sport. Will one player's ego grow too large because of the new car he now has or the Rolex on his wrist? For teammates that are not lucky enough to market themselves into some serious cash what will their opinions be of those with new found pocket change. While coaches and faculty might be weary of the ramifications of the new rule changes, companies such as Icon Source and Barstool Sports amongst several others have jumped at the opportunity to get involved with individual athletes and create their own network of players. Barstool itself is a fascinating case because since their launching of their own sportsbook app in 2019 in conjunction with Penn Gaming they take wagers on all different college sports. With the gambling component being more prominent than ever it has caused some hesitation amongst Athletic Directors across the country when advising athletes where to sign and the potential legal implications that could be investigated by the NCAA. Another complication of the new rule is the regulations of each school's home state. According to businessofcollegesports.com, by September 1, a total states will have signed a bill into law permitting the student athletes to earn their keep. However, some have different stipulations and understanding the revenue and tax reporting will be difficult to monitor. Many believe that this could have a negative effect on where high schoolers decided to take their athletic talents. Instead of looking at the best fit education and athletics wise they will focus on where they can go and get paid. Certainly a lot more will unfold in the months and years to come, but one thing is for certain the piggy banks of most will be a little heavier from now on.

The ACC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 announced their shared vision for the future of college athletics. What seems to be a fantastic opportunity for three conferences, both educationally and athletically, the mission appears to fall short of solving one thing—the SEC. Thankfully the SEC does not reign over all college sports. For those sports other than football, the Alliance is an incredible opportunity for the conferences to increase exposure and competition and improve their overall appeal. Although not enough information is known, perhaps the biggest winner in this alliance is college basketball. If appropriately executed, we could see more big games like the ACC/Big Ten challenge at the beginning of every basketball season. But that’s a discussion for another article. The big question here, and perhaps the only reason this alliance was formed, is the SEC. This Alliance being announced shortly after the news that the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma would likely join the SEC makes you wonder, is this their way of fighting back? If the alliance is not broken and the three conferences can work together and agree in the future, they now have a substantial amount of voting power over the SEC. But let’s talk about what matters, winning games. Notably, the SEC has dominated the college football playoffs and bowl games over the last few years and doesn’t seem to be slowing down with only a few contenders coming out of other conferences. Although the Alliance plans to begin – as soon as practical – is some form of inter-conference scheduling enough to go head-to-head with the SEC in football? Maybe? If the scheduling is done right and not just one lousy game a year against the opposing conference, the strength in schedule could help teams better prepare for an Alabama powerhouse. Let’s remember, a strong Ohio State was not prepared to play Alabama in 2020 with the schedule they had and playing Clemson, an alliance conference team. What is more likely to help is better recruits. The Alliance spans sports and education, and with some of the best academic programs in the nation a part of this alliance, the hope is that with more appealing games, players will be inclined to play for the Alliance rather than for the SEC. If that happens, we can see teams like Alabama, LSU, and Georgia losing key players that weren't always willing to go elsewhere. Additionally, why not play for an alliance team? With the age of NIL just starting, why go to a team filled with talented players instead of being one of the best players on your team and have the ability to cash in on more national and local deals. It’s time the same six-team rotation isn’t in the playoffs every year, and we have a free-for-all every year. I remain hesitant about whether this will put the three conferences at an advantage or equal playing field against the SEC in football. However, in all other areas of sports and academics, the Alliance seems to make the ACC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 a dominant force to be reckoned with.