This week marked the beginning of the Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) era of collegiate football. As the 2021 season began, the Power Five conferences released their new policies regarding COVID-19. Arguably the most intriguing of these are the forfeiture policies, which generally reflect the same ideas throughout the conferences. The SEC was the latest to reveal its forfeiture policy, requiring any team that must cancel a game due to COVID-related reasons to receive a loss for that game. Should the opposing team not also have a COVID-related cancellation, they would receive an automatic win. These policies are not surprising given the increased push in the sports world to get players vaccinated, however, they may have an interesting impact on athletes’ NIL deals. For the last two months, many athletes have taken advantage of their newfound freedom to profit from their name, image, and likeness by signing with sponsors. Many of these deals market off the athletes’ social media with sponsored posts about different products or brands. Other deals utilize the screen time athletes get during games to promote their products. These kinds of deals almost seem too easy for the players to capitalize on – players continue to perform as they had before, but now, colleges and universities are not the sole beneficiaries from their talents. However, with the threat of COVID and forced forfeitures, cancelling games equals profit loss. The fewer games the athletes participate in, the less screen time they receive. Moreover, NIL deals may also be heavily reliant on the number of games the teams win. Brands want to sponsor the best players, so if players aren’t winning, they aren’t earning. The more games they play, the more opportunities to win, and the more players will likely earn. The Pac-12’s new idea of allowing athletes to use their game footage to secure sponsorships reinforces how the loss of screen time can affect NIL deals: the lack of game footage could negatively impact athletes' potential NIL profits. Footage from this upcoming season would be available to the athletes to use, but if they are forced to forfeit a game, they lose potential game footage that could have helped them secure deals. USA Today revealed that “under the league’s licensing arrangement, the Pac-12 Network owns licensing rights to any game footage hosted by the conference, so it can give players almost immediate access to their game footage that will be aired this season. The Pac-12’s licensing partner, Veritone, plans to help with this new project as there are numerous ways this footage could be used by sponsors. Veritone’s Mike Arthur, explained a few: “A sponsor could enter into an agreement with an individual athlete and subsequently license footage from the network, or a sponsor could come to the network directly, in which case a student-athlete clearance fee would be passed back to the sponsoring brand.” This footage would not allow athletes to earn compensation from personal use on social media, however. The Pac-12 is the first of the Power Five conferences to pursue this avenue for athlete compensation, but the others are likely not far behind. The risk of missing games can hinder college athlete NIL deals, but these new forfeiture policies may be pushing athletes to another solution – getting vaccinated. Most schools have yet to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for students but have attempted to implement different policies to encourage vaccinations. The forfeiture policies are likely another attempt to facilitate a smoother, fairer football season amidst the pandemic. However, it is undeniable that more athletes being vaccinated would lower the risk of game cancellations. The risk of game cancellations resulting in forfeiture may be enough to convince athletes to get vaccinated, and further, not risk any potential payout. With the newfound potential to earn, athletes should focus on being able to play as many of their games as they can. As the North Carolina Tar Heels head coach Mack Brown stated, “Make it about your ball, not your brand. Without your ball, you're not going to make any money.” Kate can be found on Twitter @Katerosey1. She is a student at Texas A&M School of Law and is the creator of Sports Law Girl.

One of Nike’s most popular shoes of all time, and the first ever basketball shoe to have Nike Air technology, are the Air Force 1s. Nike Air Force 1s came out in 1982 but became prominent during the re-release in 1986. Almost four decades later millions of people wear them daily and are still on Nike’s best seller list. According to Nike, they have maintained sales more than $800 million per year with about $300 million in profit just from the Air Force 1’s alone. For this reason, other designers and companies try to copy this shoe. In the current case, Nike is suing John Geiger for selling his “GF-01” shoes. Nike claims that Geiger’s shoes “infringe the trade dress of its Air Force 1s and that Los Angeles-based, La La Land Production & Design Inc. is helping manufacture the lookalikes. A copy of Nike’s complaint obtained by Complex states, “By marketing and selling shoes using Nike’s registered Air Force 1 trade dress, John Geiger knowingly and intentionally creates confusion in the marketplace and capitalizes on Nike’s reputation and the reputation of its iconic shoes.” The situation is messy due to La La Land Production & Design Inc. being the manufacturer of the GF-01 due to their history with Nike. “They were the production company named in the Nike v. Warren Lotas lawsuit over his “bootleg” Dunk designs last year.” While Nike’s lawsuit against La La Land is being expanded, it no longer includes Lotas, who settled with the company in December. La La Land has already responded to Nike’s latest move, having filed an amended counterclaim against the sportswear giant. “It accuses the company of using “unduly aggressive, disproportionate, highly burdensome litigation strategies” to enforce “questionable” trade dress rights.” La La Land also adds, “Nike’s strategy aims to quash competition and intimidate legitimate businesses … that often lack the resources to defend themselves against such a well-resourced opponent. There is a bullying nature to these actions that chills creativity and lawful competition.” John Geiger, former manager for Darrelle Revis, worked with Nike, “in the design of the Zoom Revis in 2012 and worked with The Shoe Surgeon on the Travis Scott Air Force 1 “Misplaced Checks” and Air Force 1s adorned with multiple Swooshes in premium materials before founding his own brand.” The “Misplaced Checks” were one of the biggest Air Force 1 concepts to ever release without Nike. The last couple of years the “ultra-premium material base and streetwear style” has been his way to standout. Instead of paying $1,000 for high end shoes or $300 for Jordans, Geiger wanted to hit the market with something in the middle before anyone else had the chance. He has successfully done so by having celebrities like Wale, Fabolous, and Iman Shumpert wear his products. Geiger took to Instagram to address the lawsuit, saying how Nike has benefitted off him and other designers for years. He even describes the shoe and intent as being, “very clear throughout the 2 years of developing and selling the GF-01 that this silhouette was inspired by Nike and also made sure that anyone purchasing the shoe is aware it is a designer shoe crafted with higher end materials and quality, along with my trademark and changes to the silhouette. I also created my own mold for our outsoles with branded JG trademark and changed the pattern multiple times all while following trade dress guidelines.” Nike is not new to lawsuits, but brands like BAPE that produce obvious tributes to Nike’s shoes have never been hit with a lawsuit in the way that designers like Geiger and Lotas have. Therefore, it seems Nike can pick and choose which companies to go after. Geiger has a history with Air Force 1s, made other modified versions of the shoe with other companies, and even received his own trademarks. There must be a reason Nike is targeting Geiger or they are just upset that he chose La La Land as his manufacturer. Geiger might have had no other choice but to work with La La Land to keep his business afloat. His trouble trying to find a manufacturer is also clearly illustrated. From a Bleacher Report article in 2018, Geiger states, “My 001 model consists of 36 pieces and takes three hours and 45 minutes to make each pair by hand. I moved my whole production from Italy to the USA last minute because I just wanted to be more hands-on." It is impossible to have a full-scale company taking almost four hours to make one shoe. He should have done his due diligence to see that La La Land is in a lawsuit with Nike in which they could easily target his product. When dealing with a large company like Nike who has massive amounts of resources it is never a good idea to assume any risks. Luckily for him based on his Instagram post he does not seem afraid to fight back against the goliath that Nike is. In my opinion, Nike should not succeed in this case. The success of a plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim turns to whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s trademarks. A plaintiff trademark holder will be successful if he can show that the defendant’s similar mark causes a likelihood of confusion amongst consumers. Courts use several factors when determining the likelihood of confusion such as similarity of products, sophistication, quality, and proof of confusion with the product. Here, Geiger does not use the Nike swoosh symbol. He created his own trademarked symbol for his brand which looks like a “j combined with a g.” Everything Geiger has done with the GF-01 has been totally different than what Nike is doing. Geiger put his own touch onto a basic shoe by using higher materials, a mold that is also trademarked, and has changed his patterns over the years. The GF-01 is even in a totally different price market. Other companies and brands have a similar shoe such as Veja V-10, Cali-Wedge Sneakers, Puma Suede Classic, and Adidas Superstar who are still selling their shoe today. If gigantic brands can sell their shoe that is similar to the Air Force 1, then a brand in their own unique market should be able to as well. Nike should not be able to monopolize a shoe that is basic and easy to reproduce. Chris D'Avanzo is a 2L at Hofstra Law School. He can be found on Twitter @_chrisdavanzo.

BY: ALEXANDER GATES Background The Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) was founded by brothers Mike and Paul Rabil in 2018.[i] The PLL marketed themselves to the existing professional lacrosse players by addressing pain points that had soured many players. The league promised players a full-time job that included higher salaries, better media rights deal, health insurance benefits, and an equity stake in the league.[ii] The PLL is unique to the entire sports world in that they use a tour-based model of play which does not include teams that are associated with a city or region.[iii] Rather, every team has its own name and by nature of the arrangement is mobile. Major League Lacrosse (MLL) was established in 1999 by Jake Steinfeld, Dave Morrow, and Tim Robertson.[iv] Unlike the PLL, the MLL follows the traditional structure of a sports league where owners own the franchise separate from the league and where teams are associated with their home city or region.[v] There were several deficiencies to the existing MLL structure which created the opportunity for the Rabil brothers to establish their own league. The MLL was considered to be a part-time job, in which a majority of the players were required to have a second job in order to survive financially.[vi] Because it was a part-time job, the league had no requirement to provide its players with healthcare benefits.[vii] On December 16, 2020, the PLL and MLL merged “with subsequent season operations and activities to formally exist under the Premier Lacrosse League”.[viii] As part of the deal, the PLL would “retain the rights to all of the former MLL teams for future expansion considerations”.[ix] PLL – MLL Post Merger Analysis Section 7 of the Clayton Act deals with the enforcement of mergers and acquisitions by determining whether the consolidation “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly”.[x] The traditional Section 7 analysis of a horizontal merger by antitrust regulators includes five steps to determine whether or not it has anti-competitive tendencies.[xi] The relevant parts of this analysis include (1) defining the market, (2) determining the market share, (3) defining the market concentration before and after a proposed merger, (4) concluding if the merger will increase market concentration, and (5) balancing the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of the proposed merger.[xii] In applying the first prong of the analysis, it can be argued the relevant market is nationwide. Similar to American Football League v. National Football League, the court determined the relevant market to be nationwide because “each league recruited players and coaches throughout the nation”.[xiii] The same is true of the PLL and the MLL. With respect to the second prong, it is hard to determine the market share of each league and is considered a moot point in the grand scheme of things. However, with the third prong, it is clear that the two leagues will not be competing for market share after the merger as they were doing so before. Therefore, in accordance with the fourth prong, the PLL will have control over the entire market share for outdoor lacrosse. The fifth prong poses some serious issues in terms of questioning the merger’s pro-competitive and anti-competitive nature. Immediately, one can see the anti-competitive nature of the merger as the PLL is the only professional outdoor lacrosse league at the moment. They dominate not only with the talent they attract but also with their media rights belonging to NBC. This might pose a threat to new entrants in the form of a new league to rival the PLL. This merger is also anti-competitive in nature as not all MLL players could have a spot on a PLL team after the merger. As seen in Robertson v. National Basketball Ass’n, we could possibly see litigation regarding the players who were planning to play for an MLL club but lost the chance because the organization was eliminated by the merger.[xiv] On the other hand, it can be argued the merger has pro-competitive effects. The MLL was stagnant for many years in terms of exposure of the league and the players. Even though professional lacrosse is relevantly new as compared to other established sports leagues, it is considered to be one of the fastest growing sports in North America. There is ample opportunity for a new entrant into the world of lacrosse as the PLL has changed the game for the better and has allowed the opportunity for other leagues to be created to improve the game. Conclusion As mentioned previously, the PLL – MLL merger occurred in 2020 and had no antitrust issues. However, it can be seen in the fifth prong of Section 7 of the Clayton Act that having just one lacrosse league has more anti-competitive effects than pro-competitive effects. Alexander Gates is a JD/MBA candidate in the class of 2022 at Quinnipiac University School of Law. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Quinnipiac Health Law Journal. If you would like to contact him, please e-mail Alexander.Gates@quinnipiac.edu. [i] Caron, E. (2019, May 15). Inside the making of the Premier Lacrosse League. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.si.com/lacrosse/2019/05/15/paul-rabil-pll-premier-lacrosse-league-players-business-sports-startups-nbc [ii] Ibid [iii] Baker, K. (2019, February 13). Premier Lacrosse League models Silicon Valley for modern fans. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.axios.com/premier-lacrosse-league-silicon-valley-startup-ccae48c0-599a-4a75-927c-fd287f833f51.html [iv] About MLL. (n.d.). Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://majorleaguelacrosse.com/news/2019/2/25/about-mll.aspx [v] About MLL. (n.d.). Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://majorleaguelacrosse.com/news/2019/2/25/about-mll.aspx [vi] Ibid [vii] Ibid [viii] PLL, (2020, December 16). The Premier Lacrosse League and Major League Lacrosse Announce Merger, from https://premierlacrosseleague.com/articles/the-premier-lacrosse-league-and-major-league-lacrosse-announce-merger [ix] Ibid [x] 15 U.S.C. 18 (2012) [xi] King, Jaime S. et al., The Anti-Competitive Potential of Cross-Market Mergers in Healthcare. Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, Volume 11, Issue 43 [xii] id. [xiii] Am. Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 323 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1963) [xiv] Oscar Robertson v. National Basketball Assn, 1970 WL 532

BY: JACOB BLOOM Minor league baseball players make less per-hour than what the federal minimum wage mandates.[1] Yes, you read that correctly. Major League Baseball, which grossed a record $10.7 billion dollars of profit in 2019[2], does not feel the need to pay many minor leaguers a wage of $7.25 per hour of labor. Additionally, many of these athletes are not paid at all during their off-season and spring training.[3] How is any of this legal? The Sherman Anti-Trust Act outlawed the predatory business practice of “wage fixing” in almost every business practice conducted in the United States. However, in 1922, the Supreme Court decided it would be prudent to provide an exemption for professional baseball in the infamous case of, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). Here, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established that the business of baseball is “purely state affairs". As a result, baseball was not to be considered interstate commerce, and therefore was exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. With 32 professional teams in 17 states, one would only assume that in the following ninety-nine years, the holding of Federal Baseball Club would be overturned, right? Well, in 1953, the Supreme Court decided to reaffirm the holding of Federal Baseball Club. In Toolson v. New York Yankee, 346 U.S. 356 (1953), the court established that since Congress had not provided legislation on the matter, Major League Baseball would continue to be considered exempt as to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The legal sequence of decisions rendered in Federal Baseball and Toolson, came to an end in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). The court for the first time admitted that the basis for major league baseball’s antitrust exemption was tenuous, and that baseball was in fact engaging in interstate commerce. However, this admittance was worthless. In a 5-3 decision, the court stuck with the legal doctrine of stare decisis and upheld the exemption. Where are we now? Major League Baseball players rejoiced after Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998. The Act granted MLB players the same antitrust privileges and protections as their contemporaries in other professional sports. The analysis should stop there, right? Wrong. The Act only provided such protections to major league baseball players. Conversely, minor leaguers could still be subjected to wage fixing. You know, akin to those employed by the robber barons during the turn of the 20th century? This allows professional baseball team owner’s to directly collude together, with the goal of limiting the wages and salaries of minor league baseball players. Subsequently, Miranda v. Selig, 860 F.3d 1237 (2017) was filed with the intent to prove that major league baseball owner’s open collusion with the goal to suppress wages is a clear violation of antitrust laws. What was made of this bottom of the ninth effort? The ninth circuit decided to uphold the antiquated established precedent, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. After Miranda, legal experts believe that the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with this issue. “They basically said, we just don’t want to deal with this,” stated Sam Ehrlich, professor of sports law at Boise State University.[4] However, maybe is it possible that the tides are starting to change in the favor of minor leaguers? Enter NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. (2021). Alston was the unanimous decision reached this past June, where the Supreme Court declared the NCAA’s limiting benefits provided to student-athletes “extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work”. Justice Gorsuch maintained that by limiting education-related compensation that college athletes were receiving from their schools, the NCAA was in clear violation of the Sherman Act.[5] The court’s decision in Alston included some ever-so-subtle mentions to baseball’s antitrust exemption as well. In reference to Federal Baseball Club, the court reasoned, “that ‘exhibitions’ of ‘baseball’ did not implicate the Sherman Act because they did not involve interstate trade or commerce—even though teams regularly crossed state lines (as they do today) to make money and enhance their commercial success.” Is the court’s sentiment in Alston not clearly an open invitation to litigants to raise the issue? Virtually all other professional sports leagues in the U.S. operate while not being privileged to such an antitrust exemption. Why should Major League Baseball be legally allowed to continue to operate like this? Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently stated in Alston that, “the NCAA is not above the law”, and I do not see how the MLB is either. Writing this during the celebration of Labor Day, I cannot help but to feel disgruntled with the fact that thousands of minor leaguers have had no choice but to accept such unlivable wages for decades. Ten minor league baseball teams play this Labor Day. Ironically, many players will make below federal minimum wage for their efforts due to a decision rendered before Lou Gehrig’s rookie season. Hopefully, it will not take another century for Congress, and or the Supreme Court, to ensure fair wages for minor league baseball players. Jacob Bloom is a 3L at Hofstra Law School. He can be found on Twitter @bloom_jacob. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/07/16/minor-league-baseball-player-pay-low/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/22/report-mlb-revenue-for-2019-season-a-record-10point7-billion.html [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/07/16/minor-league-baseball-player-pay-low/ [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/07/16/minor-league-baseball-player-pay-low/ [5] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ncaa-v-alston-the-beginning-of-the-end-9351737

BY: HANNAH VALENTE Throughout history, schools at every level have learned to appreciate the necessity of both accommodating and encouraging sports participation from previously underrepresented groups. This has been done to include students of color, women, and students with disabilities in the past. Today, at the forefront of political and social debates, are the rights of transgender students to participate in sports. Several states have enacted bills that ban transgender student-athlete participation which directly clashes with the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s affirmation of their commitment to inclusion and gender equity. As the number of students who identify as transgender has risen across the United States, so too has the discussion of whether to permit transgender student-athletes to participate in sports that coincide with their gender identity rather than their assigned sex at birth. Eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, West Virginia) have enacted laws that restrict transgender athletes at all levels of participation as of this year. In the NCAA’s Inclusion of Transgender Student-Athlete’s resource, the NCAA sought to provide practice and policy recommendations for transgender student-athletes “with fair and equal opportunities to participate.”[1] This past April, the NCAA Board of Governors publicly backed transgender student-athletes by claiming that it will not hold collegiate championship events in locations that aren’t free of discrimination.[2] The NCAA, stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports.”[3] Florida has been at the nucleus of the debate between banning transgender student-athlete participation and the NCAA commitment to inclusion. On June 1, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida signed the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” which requires public schools and universities to have student-athletes compete according to their sex assigned at birth, not according to their gender identity. The bill states that “an athletic team or sport that is designed for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex, based on the student’s biological sex listed on the student’s official birth certificate at the time of birth.” [4] After signing the bill, DeSantis exclaimed: “In Florida, girls are going to play girl sports and boys are going to play boys sports.”[5] The bill is currently being challenged in Florida Federal Court by a plaintiff, “D.N.”, a thirteen year old soccer player. The lawsuit claims that the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” does not focus on overall fairness for women’s athletics, but rather violates Title XI protections for women’s sports and is unconstitutional. DeSantis, is determined to defend this bill as evident by his comments stating, “We will stand up to groups like the NCAA who think that they should be able to dictate the policies in different states. Not here, not ever.”[6] Two months, after DeSantis signed the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act”, The NCAA Board of Governors convened on August 3, 2021, and reaffirmed the Association’s policy which is “to provide fair and nondiscriminatory championships opportunities to all student-athletes, including transgender college athletes.”[7] The NCAA further stated that “Any host who cannot commit to the nondiscrimination policy should contact the NCAA immediately.” This policy, and what could be viewed as a threat, to bar future states from hosting future championships, has not stopped states from passing legislation outlawing transgender student athletes’ participation. Nevertheless, the NCAA has not released any public plans to change the 50 championships currently scheduled for Florida. If the NCAA were to follow through with their commitment to only host championships in states that unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes, this decision would cost Florida an estimated loss of $75 million dollars.[8] However, Florida does not seem to be worried about this potential massive loss of revenue to the state or the potential retaliation from the NCAA. State representative, Randy Fine, claimed to be unafraid of the NCAA stating, “They’re a bunch of clowns and they will fold and we’re not worried about it, look, we’re going to stand for women.”[9] Only time will tell if the NCAA will stand firm in their commitment to hosting championships in locations that follow their nondiscriminatory policy. 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. She can be found on Twitter @hannahjane503. [1] https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/inclusion/lgbtq/INC_TransgenderHandbook.pdf [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ncaa-backs-transgender-athletes-says-events-will-be-places-free-n1263879 [3] Id. [4] https://www.flgov.com/2021/06/01/governor-ron-desantis-signs-fairness-in-womens-sports-act/ [5] https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/31547344/fl-transgender-women-now-banned-women-sports-public-schools [6] https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/31547344/fl-transgender-women-now-banned-women-sports-public-schools [7] https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/general-board-receives-equity-report-reaffirms-transgender-participation [8] https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2021/08/17/ncaa-ratchets-up-pressure-on-florida-to-allow-transgender-athletes-to-compete-in-womens-sports/ [9] https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2021/08/17/ncaa-ratchets-up-pressure-on-florida-to-allow-transgender-athletes-to-compete-in-womens-sports/

BY: JOSH BENRUBI If the vision of memorabilia mega-giant Fanatics is to take the sports trading card industry by storm, they have officially made the first big step in successfully doing so. As the sports trading card market has gained substantial traction among nostalgia-longing consumers over recent years, Fanatics plans to make a massive splash in this industry. According to Wall Street Journal and a memorandum from the Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”) obtained by ESPN, Fanatics is set to become the exclusive licensee for baseball trading cards when well-known card manufacturer Topps’ license with the MLB expires at the end of 2025. In this groundbreaking move, Fanatics will put an end to Topps’ 70-year partnership in serving as Major League Baseball’s iconic brand for baseball trading cards. Fanatics’ Partner and entrepreneur Michael Rubin will be leading Fanatics’ offshoot trading card company head-first into the baseball trading card market. Along with Rubin in this venture will be Josh Luber, the founder of StockX. In addition to striking deals with the MLB and MLBPA, the NBA (along with its player union) and the NFLPA will both have ownership interests in the newly formed Fanatics company. From a legal standpoint, separate licensing agreements are required to license a league’s logos, branding marks, and player’s names/likenesses. Typically, the name, image, and likeness aspects are handled by respective players’ associations. Topps, which was purchased by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner in 2007, has an exclusive license with the MLB that expires at the end of 2025. Topps also has a license with the MLBPA that runs through next year. Before the licensing rights were aggregated among all professional players, Topps signed players to four-year contracts where they received a $75 advance and $500 a year for the right to their name, image, and likeness. The only other time that the MLB and its players have provided exclusive rights to their names, images, and likenesses to a non-Topps company was to Haelan Laboratories in 1953 sparking a monumental lawsuit between the two companies which gave rise to the modern publicity rights law. According to MLBPA head Tony Clark, the deal with Fanatics will provide for a significant increase in revenue that could not have been acquired through any of its previous deals. Additionally, it was confirmed that Fanatics provided an offer to the MLBPA that the MLBPA would likely not refuse – an offer that Topps could not come close to matching. With this deal, Fanatics can begin producing cards without team logos for the first three years, and when Topps’ deal expires at the end of 2025, Fanatics will be allowed to include all MLB trademarks and team logos. Considering that a T206 Honus Wagner card sold for $6.6 million on Sunday night, Fanatics wants to take advantage of this market opportunity. Additionally, according to The Athletic, Fanatics will replace Panini as the NBA’s card maker. Fanatics holds exclusive rights to produce NBA intellectual property on its trading cards starting in 2026. As Fanatics attempts to disrupt a market that has been stable and consistent for many years, companies such as Topps, Panini, and Upper Deck are beginning to be left in the rear-view mirror. To the companies that have combined for 173 years of producing sports trading cards – it’s your move. Josh is a graduate of New York Law School and the former Sports Law Society President. He is currently an Associate at Law Office of Samuel Eber, PC. You can find him on Twitter @JBenrubi_ Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2021/08/23/after-losing-mlb-license-topps-should-pivot-to-college-sports-trading-cards/?sh=14c70dae77ab https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mlb-taps-fanatics-to-replace-topps-as-baseball-trading-card-maker-heres-what-that-means-for-the-value-of-your-cards-11629741371 https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32052284/fanatics-strikes-deal-become-exclusive-licensee-mlb-cards https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10011007-espn-nflpa-fanatics-agree-to-20-year-contract-for-trading-cards-joining-nba-mlb https://www.actionnetwork.com/news/mlb-exlusive-trading-card-lecense-fanatics-topps https://www.one37pm.com/culture/trading-cards/fanatics-sports-cards https://www.inquirer.com/sports/baseball-cards-topps-fanatics-mlb-deal-20210819.html

Per Front Office Sports, the Pac-12 has made the decision to become the first Power Five conference to allow student-athletes to license highlights.[1] The licensing will be done through Veritone, the media licensing partner for the conference, and will open up another avenue through which student-athletes can seek to benefit from and profit off their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”).[2] President of Pac-12 Networks, Mark Shuken, stated in the conference’s press release that: As part of a network built to showcase the Pac-12 Conference, its student-athletes and programs, the Pac-12 Networks NIL Licensing Program is an important step in recognizing and celebrating the new opportunities available to student-athletes[.] . . . We are proud to provide this new, streamlined process for student-athletes and their NIL partners to easily access and make the most of Pac-12 Networks footage in this new landscape.[3] A license, for anyone unfamiliar, is a limited right in property granted by the property owner to a third-party that allows the third-party to use the property in a certain defined way. In this case, intellectual property is the property at issue and the licensing program will allow student-athletes the limited right (i.e., license) to use highlights, the intellectual property of which is owned by Pac-12 Networks, for certain NIL-related endeavors, subject to any restrictions or stipulations imposed by Pac-12 Networks. Before getting into the broader ramifications of this decision, it is important to acknowledge who the program will be available to: student-athletes and their NIL partners. In practice, assuming there will be a cost associated with licensing, it is possible that in many instances it will be the NIL partners licensing the highlights directly from the Pac-12 Networks, rather than the student-athlete themselves, because of the up-front costs associated with obtaining a license for highlights. (At this point, no statement has been made about the costs associated with licensing highlights or other content from Pac-12 Networks). It will be interesting to see, as more details of the program come out, how Pac-12 Networks will handle working with NIL partners directly as opposed to working with student-athletes. Working with student-athletes directly illustrates the commitment to celebrating new opportunities for student-athletes that Mark Shuken mentioned in his statement while ensuring that the network can still keep some cut of the profits; working with NIL partners directly furthers the profitability of the Pac-12 Networks while potentially limiting how much of that profit student-athletes are able to tap into. But student-athletes will have several different options for structuring licensing deals. Student-athletes could enter into agreements i) where the student-athlete will require the NIL partner to make an initial payment to allow the student-athlete to pay the licensing fee, if any, to Pac-12 Networks and then license that right out to the NIL partner; ii) where the student-athlete grants the NIL partner the right to procure a license for specific highlights involving the student-athlete directly from Pac-12 Networks; or iii) assuming student-athletes are able to license their own highlights for free, or elect to pay for the license, where, after the student-athlete licenses highlights from Pac-12 Networks, the student-athlete then further licenses the license to highlights to an NIL partner. In either case, the student-athlete will want to ensure that the NIL partner only has the right to use a specific highlight, or set of highlights, and that the highlight(s) can only be used in the exact manner that the student-athlete determines best for profiting from and protecting its NIL (and that does not in any way violate the terms of the original license with Pac-12 Networks). This decision by Pac-12 Networks will not expand the NIL market for student-athletes on its own, but it will allow student-athletes to have better access to the highlights and footage that make their NIL profitable, which may attract new businesses and sponsors into considering NIL deals with student-athletes. By choosing to license its highlights and footage, Pac-12 Networks has made the decision to insert itself into the NIL market and take advantage of the money available in the market; it has positioned itself as a sort of middle-man that controls and owns a highly valuable aspect in the NIL market – student-athlete highlights. The question yet to be answered is whether other conferences will follow suit. The argument could be made that conferences are better off keeping student-athletes out of the equation and maintaining the rights to all highlights and footage on their own so that it can be sold directly to businesses, cutting out the student-athlete, at the highest price. But the argument could just as easily be made that adding student-athletes into the equation will help grow the market for the highlights and footage that the conference owns, and therefore the conferences could expect increased profits even with student-athletes getting paid in that scenario. Another issue to keep in mind is how mass-licensing will work under the Pac-12 Networks program. If, for example, EA Sports decided to revive its wildly popular NCAA Football video game with the actual names, images, and likenesses of every single Pac-12 college football student-athlete, is there a mechanism in place for the conference to make the decision to license the Nil on behalf of all student-athletes? Would higher profile athletes be able to holdout for better deals than the conference and EA Sports might initially have on the table? Or would the student-athletes be in a position where they can now profit from their NIL in a potential video game, but would not actually have a seat at the table in deciding how their NIL was used and how they were compensated for such use? EA Sports showed interest in the past in licensing the NIL of all college football players, before the NIL era was even on the horizon, but there has been little indication of how such an arrangement might work, especially if different conferences begin to take different approaches on how to license conference-owned content to its student-athletes. [1] Pac-12 to Allow Athletes to Use Highlights for NIL Deals (frontofficesports.com). [2] Pac-12 to Allow Athletes to Use Highlights for NIL Deals (frontofficesports.com). [3] Pac-12 Networks announces launch of new NIL Licensing Program, 
in partnership with Veritone | Pac-12.

NHL players are returning to the Olympics after missing the 2018 games in Pyeongchang. In 2017, the NHL made the decision not to allow its players to participate in the games, and there were two reasons for this decision. First, a series of disputes between the league and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the costs incurred by NHL athletes and who would cover them. The IOC had paid for the travel, insurance, accommodations, and other costs for NHL players but refused to continue to do so for 2018. [1] Second, participation in the Olympics occurs during the NHL season, in past years, the NHL took a three-week break in its season to accommodate the athletes choosing to compete for their countries.[2] At the time, the decision to pull out of the Olympics upset some NHL players. The first step in allowing NHL players to compete was laid out in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA which went into effect on July 10, 2020, approved a labor agreement into 2026 and a return to the Winter Olympics in 2022 and 2026. The CBA solved the issue on the players participation dilemma of taking a three week break to accommodating the athletes participating that plagued the leagues decision. Section 16.5(a) states “League scheduled off-days or breaks (e.g., All-Star break, Holidays, Olympics) shall count as a day off for purposes of this subsection (a).”[3] Furthermore, section 16.15 All Star Game states, “There shall be no All-Star Game in any League Year in which the NHL and NHLPA agree to participate in an international tournament or other event, including but not limited to the Winter Olympics.”[4] Both of these amendments to the agreement clear up the participation issue which prevented players from going to the 2018 Olympics. These amendments to the agreement created real solutions to the problems that needed to be solved. The remaining issue was an agreement between the NHL, NHL Players' Association (NHLP), IOC and International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF). After months of negotiations the four organizations came to agreement, allowing for NHL player to compete at Beijing 2022. The IOC and IIHF agreed to pay for the travel costs, and insurance for the NHL players and their guests, if spectators are permitted.[5] However, Covid - 19 created a new issue; what if a player caught Covid during the games? While the NHL and NHLPS found specific Covid insurance, it was costly and the IOC and IIHL declined to pay for it. Each player would have the opportunity to purchase the Covid insurance if they chose to, but it is not required. In addition to these terms, the IOC is requiring all players who participate in the Olympics to have the Covid vaccine, exemptions will be considered on a player basis.[6] While the main problems that prevented players from competing in 2018 have been solved this is not a done deal. All four sides agreed to an opt-out clause that allows the NHL and NHLP to pull out of the Olympics if Covid cases increase or poses a threat to players. This clause is a safety net for the NHL if games are cancelled due to Covid and the league needs to use the break to make up games. The opt out clause is something that should be monitored through the season. Right now, the tentative break schedule is as follows; the break will take place from February 3rd through the 22nd. The All – Star game will be played between February 4th to the 5th then the Olympians will depart on February 6th. If all goes according to plan, players will get their wishes of competing for their home countries in the Olympics again. And hockey fans all over the world will have the opportunity to see their favorite players compete for the gold, silver, and bronze. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Jennifer Calfas, NHL Players Are Not Allowed in the Olympics. Here's Why, Time, (Feb,14 2018), time.com/4947041/nhl-players-2018-winter-olympics/. [2] Id. [3]Collective Bargaining Agreement, The PA | NHLPA.com, www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba. [4] Id. [5] Emily Kaplan, and Greg Wyshynski. NHL Players Heading to Beijing Olympics in 2022: Bracket, Schedule, Teams, COVID Protocols. ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, (Sept 3, 2021), www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32139447/nhl-players-heading-beijing-olympics-2022-bracket-schedule-teams-covid-protocols. [6] Id.

BY: EMILY COSTANZO As a freshman playing for a program that is oftentimes described as a “dynasty,” it would be understandable if Minnesota native Paige Bueckers did not immediately make an impact when she arrived in Storrs, Connecticut to throw on the Husky jersey. After all, she is playing under coaching legend Geno Auriemma, in a gym whose banners display the University’s 11 National Championships, and whose alumni network includes the likes of Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi, Maya Moore, and, well, more. This could not be further from what happened. Bueckers dominated the college game as soon as she set foot on the floor. Perhaps most notably, Bueckers was named the 2021 Naismith Player of the Year, an award considered by many to be the pinnacle of success in collegiate basketball. In short order, “Paige Bueckers” became a household name, but unlike the professional athletes who attract similar attention, the prodigious freshman could not earn anything on her name, image, or likeness per NCAA regulations. As the 2020-2021 season wrapped up, it seemed that the time when Bueckers’ face could be on a Wheaties box was far, far into the future. Luckily for her and collegiate student-athletes across the nation, this restriction was lifted by the NCAA’s implementation of an interim name, image, and likeness policy deemed effective on July 1, 2021. According to NCAA President Mark Emmert, “This is an important day for college athletes since they all are now able to take advantage of name, image and likeness opportunities.”[1] Although the NCAA acts as the governing body that initially allowed the implementation of said rules, universities will have the ability to adopt their own policies. The University of Connecticut policy on name, image, and likeness went into effect on July 12, 2021, and provides, in relevant part: “Student-athletes enrolled at the University may use their name, image, and likeness (NIL) to earn compensation through an endorsement contract or employment in an activity that is unrelated to any intercollegiate athletic program and obtain the legal or professional representation of an attorney or sports agency through a written agreement, provided such student-athlete complies with the University Policy of Student Athlete’s Name, Image, and Likeness…these procedures, and applicable law.”[2] Bueckers wasted no time in pursuing her own profitability. On July 13, 2021, under the advisement of her newly hired Wasserman legal team, Bueckers filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the moniker, “Paige Buckets.”[3] The nickname, made popular in the wake of her freshman season success, will allow UConn and collegiate basketball fans alike to purchase “athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms” that proudly rep the trademark once registered.[4] Now, for the question on many of our minds—how do trademarks work? Think of it this way: when you hear the lyric, “Checks over stripes,” what comes to mind? For many of us, we immediately register the former term with Nike and the latter with its ever-present competitor, Adidas. In fact, one may argue that the mere sight of either of these symbols would alert almost anyone to register a shirt, hat, or other piece of athletic apparel with one brand or the other. How can seemingly unimpressive symbols, be they simply a “check” or three well-placed stripes, result in our immediate recognition of two billion-dollar organizations? The short answer: trademarks. Trademarks, which operate at both the federal and state levels, serve as tangible representations of the service a business is providing to the public. In the eyes of the consumer, trademarks allow us to identify the product and avoid confusion. A trademark’s value is, in essence, created in the minds of the people using the product or service as they navigate the ever-evolving world of commerce. With this newly passed legislation, Paige Bueckers will take advantage of her opportunity to enter that world for herself. [1] https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy [2] https://uconnhuskies.com/sports/2021/7/14/uconn-nil-information.aspx [3] https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-womens-basketball/hc-sp-uconn-women-paige-bueckers-buckets-20210804-20210803-m4rbpqvz6farfiq76pibawejz4-story.html [4] Id.

On August 6, 2021, the Chicago White Sox were named defendants in a lawsuit filed by a former batboy of their minor league affiliate, the Birmingham Barons. The named defendants in the case are Omar Vizquel, the Birmingham Barons, the Chicago White Sox, and Chisox Corp. The Barons filed their answer to the complaint on Tuesday, August 31. The Chicago White Sox did the same on Friday, September 3. Conduct Detrimental obtained a copy of the team's response. For some background on the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that Omar Vizquel, then manager of the Double-A Birmingham Barons, engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse and harassment towards him. Specifically, as alleged, Vizquel would intentionally expose himself and force the batboy to wash his back. Notably, this lawsuit calls for a holding of disability discrimination in violation of Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff says he has autism. The Chicago White Sox deny that they are proper defendants for any claim, deny they have violated the cited statutes, deny any liability to Plaintiff, and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief. As in most answers, the White Sox legal team parses through the complaint paragraph by paragraph, either admitting to, denying, or claiming to have insufficient knowledge of the alleged assertions in said paragraph. For example, as the plaintiff often tries to merge the White Sox and Barons as one entity, the major league team continuously distances itself from the minor league team (and its officers) in the answer. "These Defendants admit that the Barons are the AA affiliate of the White Sox, that the White Sox employ the coaching staff and players, and that the White Sox employed Vizquel. These Defendants deny that they share centralized control of labor relations, have common management, or enjoy common financial control with the Barons." In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Vizquel would intentionally expose his erect penis in the presence and direction of plaintiff. The Chicago White Sox, who respond to most allegations with "These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" vehemently deny this one. "Upon information and belief, these defendants admit that Vizquel did NOT expose his erect penis to any bat boys." This is a direct denial of the plaintiff's claim. However, the team does not deny that Vizquel told plaintiff to wash his back. In fact, they admit it happened, rather than claiming to be naïve to the allegation's validity. The Birmingham Barons argued on Tuesday that the plaintiff can't sue the team over alleged sexual harassment by Vizquel because the ex-employee never officially reported the incident. The Chicago White Sox deny the incident ever happened. As a response to the ADA claim, the White Sox claim that they were never the plaintiff's employer. Rather, they say he was employed by the Birmingham Barons, a separate entity. "These Defendants and the Barons are not a single employer or integrated enterprise" As this case is being heard by an Alabama federal judge, the White Sox hired Birmingham, Alabama law firm Scott, Dukes, and Geisler to file their answer. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jmorr1.

Image via: https://dolphinnation.com/2021/10/13/brian-flores-issues-surprising-response-to-jon-gruden-controversy/ By Daniel Wallach A key legal argument that the NFL recently asserted in the Jon Gruden lawsuit may undermine one of its main defenses in the Brian Flores lawsuit. Last week, the parties in the Flores case jointly filed a proposed "civil case management plan and scheduling order" with the court. That document is particularly enlightening for several reasons. First, from a clarity standpoint, the proposed case management plan provides a succinct overview of the claims and anticipated defenses. More revealingly, the case management plan also offers a "preliminary peek" into the motions and legal arguments that each side will be making over the next several months. And one of those arguments is at variance with statements previously made by the NFL in the Gruden case. At the bottom of page 3 of the joint filing, the NFL asserts that it is not a proper defendant in the Flores lawsuit because it does not hire coaches, only the teams do. The NFL maintains that it "is not and has never been Plaintiffs' employer under the relevant statutes (notwithstanding Plaintiffs' conclusory assertions to the contrary), so as a matter of law it is not subject to liability for the actions challenged here." Although the plaintiffs do not address that argument head on, I would expect them to later argue in response to the league's motion to dismiss that the NFL is a "joint employer" (and therefore liable) because it exerts significant control over each team's hiring of coaches and general managers, including by mandating compliance with the Rooney Rule. Likewise, the NFL's ability to discipline and fire coaches--a right it plainly possesses under the NFL Constitution and Bylaws--is another factor militating in favor of a finding that the league is a "joint employer." Federal courts, including those in the Second Circuit (where the Flores case in pending) have recognized that the authority to "fire and discipline" can bear on whether an entity, even though it is not the formal employer, may be considered a "joint employer" under Title VII. See Felder v. United States Tennis Ass'n, 27 F.4th 834, 838 (2d Cir. 2022). And this is where the NFL's legal arguments in the Gruden lawsuit could come back to haunt the league in Flores. In their motion to dismiss filed with a Nevada state court in early January, the NFL argued that it had the right--independent of the Las Vegas Raiders--to fire Gruden for sending racist, misogynistic and homophobic emails, reasoning that Section 8.13(A)(2) of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws granted them that right: In any event, had the NFL Parties wanted to fire Gruden, they had no need to resort to “leaks” to force his resignation (or to force the Raiders to fire him), because they themselves had the right to cancel Gruden’s contract: the NFL Constitution grants the Commissioner the “complete authority to . . . [s]uspend and/or fine” or “[c]ancel any contract or agreement” of any “coach” “[w]henever the Commissioner, after notice and hearing, decides that” the coach “has either violated the Constitution and Bylaws of the League or has been or is guilty of conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League or professional football.” (NFL Constitution § 8.13(A)(2). (NFL Motion to Dismiss, at p. 9). This prior admission implicates principles of "judicial estoppel," a legal doctrine that prevents litigants from advancing diametrically opposite positions in different lawsuits. I would expect the plaintiffs in the Flores case to cite the above constitutional language--as well as the NFL's prior admission in Gruden--to counter the NFL's expected assertion in the Flores case that it is not an "employer" for purposes of Title VII or Section 1981. Given the significant control that the NFL exerts over the hiring, firing, and disciplining of NFL coaches--a right that the NFL recently touted in another lawsuit filed by a different former head coach--the plaintiffs in the Flores case may now have enough ammunition to withstand a motion to dismiss directed to the "employer" issue. 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.

In several of my recent articles I've covered the intricacies and developments around the future of Alpine reserve driver, Oscar Piastri as Formula One’s driver market silly season has been in full swing. Developments have been coming in almost hourly it seems, as the situation becomes more and more complicated. These complications have reached an interesting boiling point, bringing McLaren’s Daniel Ricciardo directly into the spotlight as well. Bear with me as I try to navigate you through this complex situation as succinctly as possible. The Beginning The whole chain of events here was initially set in motion by this surprise retirement of Aston Martin’s Sebastian Vettel. Vettel shocked the Formula One world, including his current team, Aston Martin, when he announced his retirement from the sport at the end of this year. Up until that announcement, Vettel was slated to sign a one-year extension with the team to continue racing through the 2023 season (at the very least). This left Martin with a senior leadership role to fill, and they struck quickly to find a replacement. Just days after the initial announcement that Vettel was retiring, Aston Martin announced that they had poached veteran Fernando Alonso from Alpine, where he was also expected to sign a contract extension for one year with a third-year team option, with a mind towards Alonso eventually shifting to their World Endurance Championship entry. This left Alpine with a very clear and obvious next move to fill Alonso’s seat in Oscar Piastri, who was the team's reserve driver and prime for his debut in F1. The Unraveling Things began to fall apart when Alpine, without consulting Piastri, announced that he would be driving for the team starting in 2023. This prompted Piastri to take to social media to announce that he did not have a contract with the team for next year and would NOT be driving for them in 2023. This sent the rumor mill spiraling. Before Alonso's departure, it was widely considered by the Formula One community that Piastri would be sent on a loan deal to Williams until Alonso left Formula One, then come back to the team to fill this place. This feeling was reinforced by the fact that Piastri has been undertaking an extensive development program both in Alpine simulators and in driving their 2021 car at a number of tracks, where he was slated to complete over 5000 kilometers of testing by the end of the season. This was a massive investment by Alpine because they believed they had a contractual right to Piastri and his future, and therefore their investment in him would pay off whenever he was promoted to their team in the medium-term future. The team’s unilateral announcement that Piastri would drive for Alpine in 2023 and Piastri’s immediate and public renunciation of this raised eyebrows. It is very clear that Alpine believes they had a valid contract for Piastri and that they would control his destiny in 2023. It is also clear that Piastri had a very different understanding of what was going on, and unless he had something else lined up for next year, taking to social media and publicly renouncing a Formula One seat would be instant career suicide. Where McLaren Fits In In the days since Piastri’s public announcement that he would not be racing for Alpine in 2023, his reasoning for this statement has begun to seem clearer. While nothing has been officially confirmed by either team, it is widely accepted that Mark Webber, former Formula One Driver, and Piastri’s manager, had been in secret talks with McLaren to have Piastri replace Daniel Ricciardo. These discussions were undertaken under the understanding from Webber that certain contract provisions allowed Piastri to look for positions elsewhere. It is thought that in Piastri’s contract, there is a clause that allowed for him and his manager to seek outside Formula One seats if Alpine had not confirmed him a spot by a certain set date, thought to be before the start of the summer break of this year. Because no final decision had been made before the beginning of the summer break, Webber and Piastri believed that they were free to begin soliciting offers from other teams for a seat. When Alpine originally made the announcement that Piastri would drive for them in 2023, they believed that they still had a right to him and there were no contractual issues. However, it is proving to be quite the issue, with no clear answer as to which party has the correct interpretation of the contract. With that said, the most recent announcements and press releases from Alpine have softened the original position that they had a contractual right to him for 2023, seeming to signify that there is probably something to Webber’s and Piastri’s interpretation of the contract. Instead of saying that they have a contractual right to have Piastri drive for them, their tone has changed to one of Piastri “is not showing the required loyalty” to the team who has invested heavily in him. As of now, it is unclear whose interpretation is correct, and this dispute will almost certainly end up with the FIA’s Contract Recognition Board, which essentially operates as binding arbitration between the team and driver when contract disputes arise. Without having the details of the contract, it is impossible to say exactly who is correct, but it's still not an advantageous position to be in for Alpine. The Expensive Riccardo Complication If you are a Formula One fan, you might be sitting there saying “but wait, Zach, McLaren already has a valid contract with Daniel Ricciardo for 2023, how are they trying to sign Piastri?” If in fact, you were to think this, you would be correct—but let me explain. Technically, McLaren already has its driver lineup for 2023 locked in with Daniel Ricciardo being under contract for one more season and Lando Norris being on a long-term deal. In a previous article, I mentioned this contract and how Daniel Ricardo ultimately has the power to say if he wants to stay with the team or to leave early as a contractual option, which he has publicly stated he will not exercise. Well, now that McLaren is attempting to sign Piastri out from under Alpine, this essentially leaves them with the option of buying out Daniel Riccardo’s remaining contract so that his seat can be immediately taken over by Piastri. Again, while nothing is certain at this point, speculation and reliable sources say that Daniel Ricciardo has requested a buyout of $21 million if he is to leave the team before his contract is complete. That is a massive amount of money to pay a driver to not race for you and makes it a more difficult situation for McClaren to handle as well. Why the Switch for McLaren? Since leaving Red Bull, Daniel Ricciardo has had a tumultuous time to say the very least. He spent two seasons with Renault, the team currently known as Alpine after a soft rebranding, before signing with McLaren with hopes that he could get back to his winning form from his time at Red Bull. Well, that simply hasn't happened. Even on his best days Daniel Ricardo still finds himself unable to even match the performance of Lando Norris, McLaren’s younger and much more successful driver. Yes, Daniel did end up winning a race for McLaren last season, but that one good performance has not been able to outweigh the overall mediocrity he has shown otherwise. Essentially, McLaren thinks that its best short and medium-term options are to pay Ricardo off and take the hit now so they can sign Piastri, allowing him to gain extra experience so that he can be even more formidable for the team in the future, while also simultaneously depriving one of their immediate rivals of what is widely considered to be the next big Formula One star. While it seems crazy that McLaren changed its mind so quickly, at the end of the day Formula One and its behind-the-scenes politics are emotionless, and the team has determined that this course of action would be its best option. What Happens Going Forward? It is unclear exactly what will come of all of this situation as the Formula One season progresses. It is almost certain that Alpine and Piastri will end up in front of the FIA’s Contract Recognition Board for arbitration, and their decision will ultimately affect what happens going forward. However, it does seem likely that Piastri we'll make the move to McLaren, and if he does there are still several question marks. Will Daniel Ricardo move to Alpine to fill the empty seat, or decide to leave Formula One indefinitely? Would Alpine even want to re-sign a driver that left after a tumultuous 2 years in the first place? If they choose to go down a path other than Ricardo, who does Alpine sign to replace him from the limited options available to them at this point? Well, as of right now I don't have the answers to any of these questions. There's too much up in the air, too much possibility of different eventualities to say anything that is beyond pure and utter speculation. I may not be able to answer these questions now, but I can promise one thing—as soon as the picture becomes clearer, you trust that Conduct Detrimental, and I will keep you updated as soon as these situations become more concrete. Zachary Bryson is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.