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.

The National Women’s Soccer League (“NWLS”) has been around since 2012 and the league’s players have had a recognized union since 2017, the NWSL Players Association (“NWSLPA”). Despite this, the NWSL has never had a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) in place. That should change soon—the league and players union are involved in ongoing negotiations on the league’s first ever agreement. In the meantime, the players are fighting for higher pay by all means at their disposal, legal and otherwise. The NWSL uses a single-entity structure by which players are league employees allocated to one of the league’s member clubs. Though NWSL player salaries have improved over the years, the maximum player salary sits at $52,500 (a 10% increase from last year); the minimum salary has risen 5% but is still just $22,000 per year. An NWSL player with children on the minimum salary would be just above the federal poverty line. According to the NWSLPA, about 33% of its members make the league minimum and 75% make $31,000 or less. Compare that to MLS minimum salaries, which are almost four times higher. NWSL players who also compete for the U.S. Women’s National Team (“USWNT”) have their own CBA and make much more; the U.S. Soccer Federation covers their salaries and pays them $100,000 per year. The NWSLPA does not bargain on their behalf, or on behalf of players allocated by the Canadian national team. The USWNT of course has a well-publicized fight of its own over player pay. Like in other professional sports leagues, its not the superstars who need the union most and reap the most benefit from organized labor. It’s the journeying pros and squad players—many of whom have had to take second, third, or even fourth jobs to make ends meet while pursuing their professional soccer goals. To raise awareness of these players’ financial plight and its labor fight, the NWSLPA created an online website and social media campaign called #NoMoreSideHustles. Players and fans have been using the hashtag to help tell their stories. Dozens of similar stories appear on Twitter and the website set up by the NWSLPA. Already trending online, the movement may now have an ally in club management. Yael Averbuch West, a former NWSL pro and USWNT player helped form the NWSLPA and served as the union president and executive director. Shortly after tweeting her support for #NoMoreSideHustles, she was named interim General Manager of NWSL franchise Gotham FC. CBA negotiations, which got underway in late 2020, are ongoing. The NWSL was the first professional team sports league to resume action amid the pandemic, and the league and NWSLPA collaborated during that process. For its part, the league has stated a willingness to work with the players’ association to reach a deal. Some players have pointed to the WNBA as a model, which reached a CBA last year that enhanced player compensation by over 50% and improved health care, child care, and other player-friendly benefits. Above all, the players seek to use labor law as a vehicle to hone and improve their craft and bridge the pay gap between their counterparts in other leagues. Doing so can only help the quality of NWSL play, and most importantly, the players’ quality of life. Ben Shrader is a partner at Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge in Chicago, where he serves as Chair of the Chicago Bar Association Sports Law Committee. You can reach Ben at bshrader@hmelegal.com or find him on Twitter @BenShrader.

First, I would like to give a special thank you to Jason Sciavicco, director of Titletown High, for providing some insight on this article. Jason, thank you sincerely for informing me and I certainly cannot wait to watch Titletown High when it comes out on August 27th on Netflix. As of August 2, 2021, only one state in the United States, California, has allowed for high schoolers to profit from the use of their name, image, or likeness (“NIL”). California law permits student athletes, including high schoolers, to make money from the use of their name, image, or likeness so long as the student athlete does not use their school’s name, logo, or team uniform in any advertisements. This differs from a lot of other states where state legislatures have either been silent on the rights of high schoolers in that regard or in the case of Texas, Illinois, and Mississippi, flat out forbade high schoolers from entering into endorsement deals prior to enrolling in college. Generally speaking, an NIL bill would: prevent schools, conferences, and athletic associations from prohibiting student athletes from profiting from their NIL. prevent schools, conferences, and athletic associations from affecting a student athlete’s athletic or scholarship eligibility as a result of engaging in NIL related activities, and lastly, prevent schools, conferences, or athletic associations from paying the student athletes for the use of their NIL. An issue, though, is that by states refusing to take a stance one way or the other, further complications could arise that could’ve been avoided if provision to the law was enacted. An example of this is Titletown High, a football documentary focused on Georgia high school Valdosta High coming out on Netflix on August 27th. Show creator Jason Sciavicco stated that "Titletown High is what happens when high school football meets the unprecedented, behind-the-scenes access of multiple cameras, over twenty microphones and 7-days a week filming." The thing worth noting about this documentary, or others like it, is that depending on the state, the athletes cannot get paid for their name, image, and likeness being used throughout. NIL laws were originally enacted to “balance the scales,” as there is a lot of money that flows through an economy stemming directly from the student athlete, yet they could never get in on the action. While this conversation was focused on college athletes, the existence of documentaries such as Titletown High suggest that perhaps it’s time to look beyond the originally intended scope. As NIL bills generally prevent the schools from paying the student athletes, what would happen in a case where a school gets a documentary shot about a team and it takes off and becomes extremely profitable? In Texas, Illinois, or Mississippi, the school can’t cut the athletes a check, and in certain cases, the student athletes can’t even be compensated by the film company, distributor, or any other party. This is especially shocking, at least in Texas, as high school football is a huge deal. In Georgia, where Titletown High takes place, the state’s high school athletic association maintains that “an athlete forfeits amateur status in a sport by … capitalizing on athletic fame by receiving money or gifts with monetary value except college scholarships,” and there is no state law specifically disallowing this practice, in fact, Georgia’s NIL law focuses exclusively on college athletes, allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness through sponsorships, endorsements, personal appearances, autographs, and social media marketing. It is silent on television or film appearances and to me, that can (and maybe even should) raise the dreaded “what if” question. This was a great first step, but at first glance, completely overlooks high school student athletes. Thankfully, I’ve spoken with Jason Sciavicco and he was able to shed some insight on the matter. In our conversation, I learned that the high school athletes in a series can indeed be compensated, but it must not be in connection to any athletic activities, instead, they can be compensated for the use of their name, image, and/or likeness in conjunction with a series and promotion of the project. So, have the scales been balanced? Perhaps it’s time to have a deeper discussion on what this new level of equality should actually look like. I’m not necessarily advocating for specifically allowing high school student athletes to also be able to profit from the use of their name, image, or likeness, partially because it could create a rift between parents and the student athlete as one cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a minor, unless a legal guardian also signs off on it. However, I am in fact advocating that taking a stance specifically prohibiting it seems ironic and makes the larger “push” to balance the scales seem disingenuous at best and those sorts of provisions should be done away with. At the end of the day, I’m not a politician, those aspirations are far behind me, but in the spirit of fairness, I think states should do more than just cherry pick when to try to create a level playing field. I also think that athletic conferences should not prevent student athletes from profiting in any capacity or risk losing their eligibility. Fair is fair across the board, and if a college student athlete can profit off the use of their name, image, or likeness, in a myriad of contexts, I do not see why high school student athletes are not afforded the same opportunity. There are movies made about high school student athletes, there are documentaries coming out following high school student athletes, so perhaps we should revisit the notion that states believe that high school student athletes also cannot get in on the action or otherwise, only make documentaries following colleges. Stephon Burton is a rising 3L at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 2019. He can be reached at burtons2@duq.edu and on twitter @stephonburton3, Instagram @stephonburton, and LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephon-burton-7abb06125/

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional level of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! Although this was originally intended to be a monthly series, we will be putting these spotlights on a more frequent basis due to the popular demand by both prospective law students and law schools themselves. In this series, we highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: ● a sports-centric curriculum; ● sports law certifications; ● unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; ● and sports law journals. The focus of this month’s Sports Law Program Spotlight is… Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law When it comes to the best places to be in as a sports fan, few cities can match the sheer volume of events hosted by the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Home to eight professional sports clubs, MLB Spring Training, NASCAR races, PGA Tour events, and college football bowl games on an annual basis, there is no shortage of action to see. In addition, the Valley of the Sun also frequently hosts Super Bowls, Final Fours, CFP National Championships, and other major events. Therefore, it’s only fitting that Arizona State boasts one of the best sports law programs in the country. Located in the heart of downtown Phoenix, ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law is an extremely attractive option for any prospective student interested in pursuing a career in sports. In terms of degree offerings, Arizona State offers both a Master of Sports Law and Business (MSLB) and a Concurrent Juris Doctor/Master of Sports Law and Business (JD/MSLB). So even if attending law school isn’t in the cards for you, ASU has the only program in the US that combines sports, law, and business in the same program. However, if your goal is to obtain a JD, students admitted into the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law can apply for the SLB Program to get the “best of both worlds.” In this offering, students receive a full JD curriculum while also looping in sports law and business courses. These courses range from NCAA Compliance and Pro Sports Legal Operations just to name a few. This degree option is offered to incoming law students that have been admitted to the ASU College of Law as well as current law students up until the first semester of their 2L year. The main goal of the SLB Program is concise and straight to the point: “Getting Students Jobs in the Sports Industry.” Through the program, students receive tremendous networking opportunities to meet and learn from high-ranking officials in the sports industry.” There are externships offered to work for the local teams including the Diamondbacks, Suns, and Coyotes along with local events like the Fiesta Bowl and NASCAR races. In addition, the Arizona State Sports and Entertainment Law Journal is one of the longest going sports law journals in the country and offers students the ability to get involved in legal writing. The faculty includes some of the best sports law minds in the world. Aaron Hernandez, the Director of the SLB Program, is a former Associate Director of Football at the NCAA. Stephanie Jarvis is the former General Counsel of the Fiesta Bowl. Glenn Wong has decades of experience in the field of Sports Law and has served previously as President of the Sports Lawyers Association. Moreover, the Program is named after former MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, who is a Distinguished Professor as well. The SLB Program prides itself on its faculty offering real life experience in the sports industry, not just traditional academic backgrounds like you might find in other programs. The Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law should be atop any prospective law student with interest in sports list of schools. Ranked as a top 25 law school by US News & World, the JD degree holds tremendous value on its own. But combined with the SLB offering, there aren’t many institutions that can match what Arizona State brings to the table. With the sports industry trending more toward hiring executives who are skilled in both law and business, this is a perfect combination for those who aspire to work at the highest levels. -Many thanks to Joe Esses (Student in SLB Program) and the faculty for giving insights to the program.