The NHL investigation surrounding Evander Kane's gambling has been closed, but new allegations by his ex-wife Anna Kane concerning abuse have not put the left winger out of the woods. A quick recap for everyone who has not been following the story. At the end of July, Kane and Anna went through a messy public divorce which led to Anna making serious allegations against Kane. The allegations accused Kane of gambling on and throwing his own games to win money. The NHL, as well as the Sharks, promised that these accusations would be investigated. Following these accusations, a federal bankruptcy judge allowed discovery to proceed in a lawsuit against Kane. The lawsuit was from 2018 and was brought by Hope Parker. Parker alleges that Kane backed out on a promise to pay her at least $2 million dollars if she aborted their pregnancy.[1] Kane also claimed that Anna physically assaulted him and was granted a temporary restraining order. The NHL has completed its investigation concerning the allegations that Kane was gambling and throwing his own games to win money. The investigation was conducted by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, along with NHL Security.[2] In a statement by the NHL the league stated that the investigation uncovered no evidence to confirm Annas accusations that Kane bet or participated in gambling on NHL games. Additionally, there was no evidence to corroborate the allegations that Kane threw games or did not put forth his best efforts with the Sharks.[3] In regard to these accusation, the NHL considers this matter closed but will investigate any other new information pertaining to the gambling accusations. While Kane has been cleared over the gambling allegations, new allegations from his ex-wife Anna have emerged as well as allegations of violating NHL Covid protocol. Currently there are limited details about Kane violating NHL COVID protocols. The NHL and NHLPA have released health and safety protocols for the 2021-22 season.[4] As part of her divorce case in Santa Clara County, California, Anna filed a domestic violence restraining order. In the order Anna, alleged sexual assault and multiple instances of domestic violence.[5] The NHL is aware of the new allegations and is thoroughly investigating the matter at this time. The San Jose Sharks released a statement and said that Kane and the team have agreed that will he not be participating in Sharks 2021 Training Camp until further notice.[6] Among the allegations in the filing, Anna claimed that Kane forced her to engage in sexual intercourse in March 2019 after a funeral for their daughter who was born premature.[7] Anna also wrote that after going out with others players’ wives before a 2019 Sharks playoff game in Las Vegas, Evander smelled alcohol on her breath and verbally and physically assaulted her.[8] Other allegations include Kane violently choking Anna while visiting his mother in Vancouver, the filing included pictures of bruises from the alleged incident.[9] Evander Kane’s lawyer, Travis Krepelka, has responded to the allegations saying; “Evander denies ever abusing Ms. Kane or their daughter Kensington, whom he cherishes.”[10] It is unclear if Anna will press sexual assault charges against Kane. However, prosecutors do have the option to pursue charges even without Anna’s cooperation. Additionally, California no longer has any statute of limitations for felony sex offenses which means Kane could be prosecuted any time in the future if there is sufficient evidence of a crime. At this time, it is uncertain when the NHL’s new investigation will conclude and when Kane will be allowed back on the ice. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Kaplan, Daniel. “Judge Rules Sharks' Evander KANE Must Face Discovery in Abortion-for-Pay Lawsuit.” The Athletic, Aug. 24, 2021, theathletic.com/news/judge-rules-sharks-evander-kane-must-face-discovery-in-abortion-for-pay-lawsuit/6eUxPR75fBSZ. [2] Kaplan, Emily. No evidence found that San Jose Sharks forward Evander Kane bet on NHL games; League considers this 'specific matter closed'. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32260083/no-evidence-found-san-jose-sharks-forward-evander-kane-bet-nhl-games-league-considers-specific-matter-closed. [3] Id. [4] https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2021-22/2021-22COVIDProtocol.pdf [5] Perez, A. J. Sharks star Evander Kane facing a new set of allegations. Front Office Sports., from https://frontofficesports.com/sharks-star-evander-kane-facing-a-new-set-of-allegations/. [6] Id. [7] Pashelka, C. & Salonga, R. Evander Kane's wife Anna alleges physical, sexual abuse in restraining order filing. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/22/evander-kanes-wife-anna-alleges-physical-sexual-abuse-in-reported-filing-for-restraining-order/. [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Id.

BY: RJ CURINGTON Student-athletes across all collegiate sports have signed name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) agreements with businesses. From major national corporations to local shops, all kinds of businesses are seeing the benefit of student-athletes promoting their brands. To follow on the collection of NIL considerations, this informative article outlines the types of deals made, and guides student-athletes and businesses on important terms in a NIL contract. The two common deals, besides individual endorsement deals, are college-wide deals and team-specific deals. College-wide deals are those in which an institution enters into a collective licensing agreement with a company that is available to almost every varsity student-athlete.[i] Each student-athlete can elect to participate, regardless of team or sport. This type of collective licensing agreement enables student-athletes to benefit financially from their NIL through opportunities like jersey sales, merchandise, and unique engagements while using the institution’s trademarked logo.[ii] Similarly, team-specific deals are those in which a business makes a general offer to a specific team of an institution such that any student-athlete on that team can elect to participate by signing a NIL deal directly with the company.[iii] Below lists a few key contract provisions businesses, universities, student-athletes, and representatives should consider before signing a NIL deal of any type: Location Student-athletes and businesses should look to the policies of the state where the student-athlete is attending school for the applicable NIL laws and standards.[iv] Agents, Attorneys, and Accountants Businesses should be aware of student-athletes representation when negotiating deals, but also recognize any representation is strictly limited to procuring and negotiating market opportunities during the student-athletes eligibility.[v] It is important to note that institutions are prohibited from being involved in the specifics of their student-athletes NIL actions. Consideration In every contract, the student-athlete must provide some deliverable to the endorsing business and the student-athlete must receive some benefit from the endorsing business.[vi] All that is needed is an exchange, courts typically do not evaluate the value of what is provided or received.[vii] Pay-for-Play Limitations Any endorsement deal must compensate a student-athlete only for the use of his or her NIL rights. Student-athletes and businesses must avoid compensation that is contingent on enrollment at a particular university or specific athletic performance or achievement. Payment details should always be explicitly stated in the contract.[viii] Also, student-athletes need to know when they’re getting paid, how much they’re getting paid, and how they will be getting paid. Usage Rights Clauses Setting a specific period that defines the length and limitations of a sponsoring company’s use of a student-athlete’s NIL rights for products or materials is an equitable arrangement for both parties.[ix] Exclusivity Clauses Businesses usually want exclusivity, which prevents an athlete from signing deals with competing brands.[x] If additional value is provided, student-athletes can consider aligning their NIL rights exclusively with certain products and brands. However, any exclusivity rights must be clearly defined and understood by both parties. Additionally, any exclusivity clause must contain language that permits a student-athlete to wear a competing brand when mandated at a competition or event.[xi] Businesses that create conflicts with a university’s exclusive partnerships are prohibited while participating in their sport (think Reebok sponsoring a student-athlete whose university wears Jordan equipment). Force Majeure Clauses Unforeseeable circumstances can prevent student-athletes and businesses from fulfilling a contract. A force majeure clause excuses contract performance when some “act of God” or extraordinary event occurs.[xii] Given student-athletes’ youth and unpredictable schedules, broader flexibility may be necessary to require performance while limiting harsh penalties for individuals who are still in college.[xiii] Morals Clauses Student-athletes and businesses will want to avoid association with individuals who engage in illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct. To protect their reputation student-athletes and companies can include a clause that permits termination of the endorsement deal if the other party is involved in such behaviors.[xiv] Intellectual Property (“IP”) Student-athletes and businesses must obtain consent to use the trademarks of their institution and other brands in all marketed materials.[xv] The third-party that created any media must also consent to its use in any endorsement. It is critical to specify which party is responsible for obtaining this IP clearance, and what happens if the other party is sued for contributory infringement.[xvi] Disclosure Regardless of state laws and university policies, student-athletes should clear every potential endorsement deal with their university’s athletic department. Paying close attention to detail in contract drafting and negotiation is important in protecting student-athletes, businesses, and institutions from avoidable litigation. RJ Curington, J.D., M.S. graduated from DePaul University College of Law. He can be followed on Instagram/ Twitter: @realrjcurington and Linkedin at RJ Curington. [i] Knight, Jeff and Butcher, Erin E., “College-wide and team-specific NIL deals: Considerations for colleges and universities to avoid unwanted consequences,” https://www.bricker.com/insights-resources/publications/college-wide-and-team-specific-nil-deals-considerations-for-colleges-and-universities-to-avoid-unwanted-consequences (September 21, 2021) [ii] Id. [iii] Id. [iv] Burridge, Alexander, “Contract Basics for Every Student-Athlete NIL Deal,” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/contract-basics-for-every-student-3793825/ (August 18, 2021) [v] Id. [vi] Id. [vii] Id. [viii] Gambino, Jessica, “How To Approach An Athlete For An NIL Deal,” https://sweetrosestudios.com/2021/09/approach-an-athlete-for-deal/ (September 7, 2021) [ix] Burridge, Alexander, “Contract Basics for Every Student-Athlete NIL Deal,” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/contract-basics-for-every-student-3793825/ (August 18, 2021) [x] https://nameimagelikeness.com [xi] Burridge, Alexander, “Contract Basics for Every Student-Athlete NIL Deal,” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/contract-basics-for-every-student-3793825/ (August 18, 2021) [xii] Id. [xiii] Id. [xiv] Id. [xv] Id. [xvi] Id.

A report surfaced recently that Seahawks Safety Jamal Adams would have filed a grievance alleging that he is a Linebacker if the Seahawks franchise tagged him. Adams eventually agreed to an extension with the Seahawks but the report shined a light on a very interesting question – is the franchise tag system equipped to handle how football evolves over time? The Basics: The franchise tag was a product of negotiation for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement in 1993. Under the current CBA, each team is allowed to designate one player who is about to enter free agency as their franchise player. That player is essentially no longer an unrestricted free agent, on a one year fully guaranteed contract, with the salary amount set by the averaging the top five salaries by position for the previous league year, or if it’s higher, 120 percent of a player’s salary the previous season Where Conflicts Arise: There are two key components of the current franchise tag system that, as currently constructed, create opportunity for positional designation conflicts to arise – (1) the list of positions and (2) the standard for defining what position a player is. The positional designations for both the Franchise Tag and Fifth-Year Option are as follows: Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, Tight End, Offensive Line, Defensive End, Interior Defensive Line, Linebacker, Cornerback, Safety, and Kicker/Punter. The standard for which position players are assigned a position for purposes of both the Franchise Tag and the Fifth-Year Option is the same – the position at which they participated in the most plays during the season prior to the designation. Since at least 2008, grievances have been filed by the NFLPA on behalf of franchise tagged players who believe they should be designated as playing a different position. Those disputes have fallen into three categories thus far – Tight End or Wide Receiver, Defensive End or Linebacker, and Defensive Tackle or Defensive End. The only grievance known to have gone to the decision of an arbitrator was New Orleans Saints TE Jimmy Graham in 2014. That arbitrator determined that a player is a Tight End when lined up within four yards of the offensive line, and that the arbitrator can weigh evidence such as how the player is referred to on social media or the team’s website as a factor in determining a player’s position. More recently, most disputes over a player being a Defensive End or Linebacker have resulted in the two sides settling on the midpoint of the two franchise tag salaries for the one season. Jamal Adams’ situation raises a very interesting point though – is there a limit to the extent of what positions could be involved in a franchise tag dispute? Football has clearly evolved over time. Consider how far fans’ perspective of the game has come since the classic 1957 Topps football trading card set was released, where players are only listed as three positions – End, Back and Tackle. As sports evolve, so must their governing rules or unnecessary conflict will ensue. To illustrate the point, imagine the NBA instituted a similar franchise player system in 1993. Now, imagine 30 years later trying to define what position Giannis Antetokounmpo, Lebron James or Kevin Durant are for purposes of their salary based on the five traditional positions on a basketball team. As you can guess, that would be so difficult because of how multidimensional players are today and the ways they are used are not easy to put in one specific category. While the NFL and NBA have changed differently over time, it still demonstrates how a professional sports league, and its players union should craft the language of rules tied to salary in ways that allow for the game to evolve without creating procedural conflicts. Where the Current System Can Improve: 1. The definition of “participation” is unclear. Participation is used in multiple different contexts within the CBA. The first way is to determine if someone did or did not make an appearance – such as on an offensive/defensive play or in the team’s facility for an offseason workout. In the context of the Franchise Tag or Fifth-Year Option, “participation” actually assumes the player has appeared on the field. The real question that needs to be answered to determine “participation” for the Franchise Tag or Fifth-Year Option is “what position did the player play once he appeared on the field?” The CBA does not define player positions nor elaborate if participation is viewed from the perspective of a player’s pre-snap alignment (ie., a Defensive End lines up in a three point stance) or his post-snap assignment (a Defensive End rushes the passer). This use of “participation” without a specific definition that differs from where the word is used in a more binary sense in the CBA creates an ambiguity that is the root cause of positional identification grievances. 2. The positions at which players can be identified are not structured consistently. The main issue is that there is no Outside Linebacker designation – which would create a natural compromise between the current Linebacker and Defensive End tags. The designations of Offensive Line, Linebacker, and Kicker/Punter all encompass multiple similar positions, whereas Defensive Linemen and Defensive Backs are separated into the specific position groups within those categories. Fullback and Long Snapper do not have their own designations. Recommended Changes: 1. Break up all group tags into specific positions. The main position needed is Outside Linebacker, which would codify the practice of settling for the difference between Defensive End and Linebacker. Other advisable changes are: (A) split Linebacker into Outside Linebacker and Inside Linebacker, (B) split Offensive Line into Tackle, Guard, and Center, (C) split Running Back into Running Back and Fullback, (D) split Kicker/Punter into Kicker and Punter and (E) add Long Snapper as a position. Benefits for Clubs: Cheaper to Franchise Tag Certain Positions. For example, two guards (Joe Thuney and Brandon Scherff) were Franchise tagged in 2020, but because Tackles make up the highest paid Offensive Lineman, their franchise tender amounts made them the highest paid Guards. If there were a Guard specific tag, those two contracts would have been cheaper for the teams. Inside Linebackers, Centers, and Punters would also become cheaper without making Tackles, Running Backs, or Kickers more expensive. Added Leverage in Contract Negotiations for Certain Positions. In Fullback or Center contract negotiations, it is so unlikely that teams would Franchise Tag those players because they are grouped with much higher paid positions for purposes of the Franchise Tag (Running Backs and Tackles). Additionally, it has never even been a bargaining chip clubs had available in negotiations with Long Snappers. 2. Codify splitting the difference for players logging above 40% participation at two positions. As a player like Jamal Adams illustrates, the game of football will keep changing. Running Back or Wide Receiver, Safety or either Linebacker position, and Safety or Cornerback are among the foreseeable disputes that have yet to be filed in addition to continued disputes between Defensive End or Outside Linebacker. An idea to further avoid litigation is to agree that if a player participates in over 40% of his plays at two different positions that the value of his Franchise Tag tender or Fifth-Year Option will automatically become the average of the two positions. This would greatly benefit players by creating an automatic trigger for a raise if a player meets the criteria and avoid unnecessary legal battles between the league and its players. Edward L. Healy IV is a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Nancy M. Purpura in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Healy, a former NFL Management Council intern and member of the Baltimore Ravens 2012 Player Personnel department, is a 2021 graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter @ELH_IV.

BY: MICHAEL FASCIALE Can the NCAA successfully argue that the fractured state-by-state approach to name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation is, under the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC), unconstitutional?[1] The U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to regulate commerce among the states.[2] The DCC, by contrast, is an implied restriction in the U.S. Constitution that effectively prevents states from passing laws that burden or discriminate against interstate economy.[3] Relying on favorable case precedent and the DCC, the NCAA could argue that the sheer number of intercollegiate schools subjected to inconsistent state laws interferes with a national uniform governance structure and thus unduly impacts or discriminates against interstate commerce (i.e., violates the DCC). The Supreme Court has adopted a two-tier approach in analyzing a DCC challenge.[4] First, if the statute “directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests,” federal courts will strike down the law without further inquiry.[5] Second, where the statute “regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”[6] As to the first prong, the NCAA could argue that this fractured state-by-state approach to NIL compensation puts certain states’ economic interests (those which have NIL legislation) above out-of-states’ economic interests (those which do not have NIL legislation), thus creating a competitive and commercial advantage for certain student-athletes (i.e., is discriminatory in purpose or effect). In response, one could argue that each state NIL law does not discriminate against interstate commerce because each state NIL law does not inject its regulatory scheme into the jurisdiction of other states. For example, as written, California’s NIL statute—like many other state NIL laws—is directed only towards conduct within California and applies to in-state and out-of-state entities alike. In arguing that a patchwork of state NIL laws directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, the NCAA could potentially rely on favorable case precedent like NCAA v. Miller. There, the Nevada state legislature enacted a statute that required the NCAA to provide student-athletes “accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding.”[7] The Ninth Circuit held that Nevada statute violated the DCC because it impermissibly regulated interstate commerce.[8] However, the NCAA might have a tough time relying on Miller. The “critical inquiry,” the Ninth Circuit explained, is whether “the practical effect of the regulation is to control conduct beyond the boundaries of the State.”[9] That is precisely what the Nevada law did in Miller—Nevada was telling the NCAA how to conduct a hearing and, in doing so, intruded on an interstate organization. But here, the states with NIL laws are telling the universities within their states how to treat their student-athletes. Hence, they do not require the NCAA to do anything, and each state law is directed towards conduct within each individual state (and treats in-state and out-of-state entities alike). As to the second prong, the NCAA could argue that student-athletes will be incentivized to attend schools in states with NIL laws, effectively steering the greatest future talent toward a handful schools. This competitive advantage, the argument goes, harms the overall intercollegiate athletic landscape because the NCAA’s NIL business model requires uniformity. In response, one could argue that the burdens associated with the patchwork of state NIL laws (i.e., potential recruiting advantages) are small in connection with the purported benefits (i.e., the protection of student-athletes). Importantly, the majority of student-athletes who attend schools in states with NIL statutes will not profit extensively by marketing their NIL; rather, the minority of student-athletes will negotiate meaningful and money-making endorsement deals. Thus, the burdens associated with the patchwork of state NIL laws would not be “clearly excessive” in relation to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting student-athletes. In sum, the NCAA will face an uphill battle in court if it pursues the “state NIL laws violate the DCC” argument. Note that the DCC only applies where Congress has not explicitly authorized the states to pass laws of this type—in other words, Congress can override the DCC’s limits. Until Congress acts, however, it remains to be seen whether the conflicting state laws violate the DCC. Michael Fasciale is a third-year law student at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey. He is the President of Seton Hall’s Entertainment & Sports Law Society. He can be reached on LinkedIn @Michael-Fasciale. [1] The NCAA has publicly stated that it believes that the state-by-state approach to NIL compensation is unconstitutional. See NCAA Responds to California Senate Bill 206, Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (Sep. 11, 2019), https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206. [2] U.S. Const., Art. 1, s. 8, cl. 3. [3] See Dep’t of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 337–38 (2008) (stating that the “the [D]ormant Commerce Clause is driven by concern about ‘economic protectionism’—that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors”). [4] See Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 (1986); see also Bowers v. NCAA, 151 F. Supp. 2d 526, 537 (D.N.J. 2001). [5] Id. (emphasis added). This, of course, is subject to the Virtual Per Se Rule of Invalidity, which leaves open the possibility that some such laws might still pass constitutional muster. See, e.g., Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 148–52 (1986) (validating a law that banned the importation of out of state fish because the state had a legitimate purpose of protecting its waters from invasive/non-native species of fish and the court found no other non-discriminatory means for achieving that interest). [6] See Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). [7] NCAA v. Miller, 10 F.3d 633, 637 (9th. Cir. 1993). [8] Miller, 10 F.3d at 640. [9] Id. at 639 (citing Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989)).

BY: SCOTT DECAPUA There probably isn’t another player who is in more of a pole position to cash out this offseason than Corbin Burnes. Burnes was a catalyst in Milwaukee’s 95 win and playoff bound season -- not only did he just have his best individual season, but he was THE most dominant in the league at his respective position. Both his individual and team success this season came at a great time as he is first-year arbitration eligible this offseason, meaning he and the Milwaukee Brewers will revisit his current salary of $608,000. If they cannot strike an agreement for the 2022 season, they will head to a hearing where an arbitrator will decide which salary to award the player. While there are no specifics per the MLB CBA for arbitration, the following are typically considered in arbitration proceedings: · Player’s performance in their “Platform Year” (or PY) in the year immediately prior to arbitration · Player’s performance in the two seasons preceding Platform Year, or PY-1 or PY-2 · Recent salaries of players of similar position and production value · Contribution to team success · Individual accolades A rare combination of a power pitcher with fall-off-the-table off-speed, Burnes is the type of bull you want throwing deep into games. Even after the crackdown on spidertack his stuff remained virtually untouchable -- while his spin rate did go down (like almost every other pitcher in the league) his status among the elite persisted. He was the most dominant pitcher over the entire breadth of the season, and thus is a likely frontrunner for NL MVP and NL Cy Young. In his prior years, he found a mixed bag of results. He did not find the same success in his PY-2 in 2019, but in PY-1 he was more in line with the ace he has become. In the 60 game 2020 MLB season, he posted an ERA of 2.11 with a career high SO9 rate of 13.3.[1] Burnes’ agent probably will argue that he is worthy of a significant salary increase due to his presumed candidacy for NL MVP and NL Cy Young, and his NL All Star appearance in his PY. His eye-popping statistics from his PY are also worth noting -- his 11-5 record, an ML best 2.43 ERA, ML second-best WHIP of 0.940, and ML fifth highest SOs.[2] For all of you sabermetric people, Expected Weighted On-base Average (xwOBA) is formulated using exit velocity, launch angle and, on certain types of batted balls, sprint speed. xwOBA is distinct from wOBA because it removes defenses from the equation, while still measuring an offensive contribution. The formula for xwOBA is: xwOBA = (xwOBAcon + wBB x (BB-IBB) + wHBP x HBP)/(AB + BB — IBB + SF + HBP) In short, Burnes’ xwOBA during his 2021 season is .218 after 657 PAs, which is the third best in the league behind Jacob DeGrom and Liam Hendricks (a closer).[3] DeGrom faced less than half of Burnes’ PAs this season, and the next best xwOBA of a similar sample size to Burnes is Lance Lynn’s xwOBA of .248 after 641 PAs.[4] Burnes’ agent would argue that Burnes was the most effective pitcher in the league, while supplementing that with being a key piece in their run into October as he was the ace of their 95-win team. There really is no comparison to any other player this season; all signs point towards Burnes smashing first-year eligible arbitration records. Burnes’ 2021 PY trumps Dallas Keuchel’s 2015 PY, where Keuchel was the AL Cy Young winner and was thus awarded $7.25 million in his first year of arbitration eligibility. Keuchel currently holds the record for first-year arbitration eligible pitchers and is probably the best floor for Burnes.[5] Burnes PY has the clear advantage over Keuchel’s PY in ERA (2.43 to 2.48), WHIP (0.940 to 1.017), SOs (234 to 216), H9 (6.6 to 7.2), HR9 (0.4 to 0.7), and BB9 (1.8 to 2.0), all by a significant margin. Burnes could very well break Keuchel’s first-year arbitration record among pitchers. Somewhat less likely though, we could even see Burnes break the record for all first-year arbitration eligible players, set by Cody Bellinger after his 2019 NL MVP season in his PY for his awarded $11.5 million salary.[6] It’s tough to gage the apples-to-oranges comparison between a pitcher and a position player, but if Burnes’ name is in the conversation for NL MVP, you can be assured that his contributions towards his team make his case strong in breaking the record for all first-year arbitration eligible players as well. Can Milwaukee pay out? They have the $102 million in payroll space, so its likely that they can.[7] In spite of the organization’s recent valuation of $1.37 billion, before the investment from Giannis Antetokounmpo, they might be a bit reluctant to dish out pricey commitments after agreeing to a monster contract with Christian Yelich.[8] They will be paying him until 2042 when he is 50 years old for a total of $215 million…[9] Corbin Burnes’ expected arbitration value is presumed to surpass Keuchel’s $7.25 million record for first-year arbitration eligible pitchers, but don’t be shocked if it also eclipses Bellinger’s $11.5 million record for all first-year arbitration eligible players. Scott DeCapua is a 2L at Western New England University, School of Law. Sources: [1] https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/burneco01.shtml [2] Id. [3] https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/leaderboard/expected_statistics?type=pitcher&year=2021&position=&team=&min=q [4] Id. [5] https://www.mlb.com/news/2021-mlb-salary-arbitration-outlook [6] Id. [7] https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/milwaukee-brewers/payroll/ [8] https://www.sportico.com/personalities/athletes/2021/giannis-antetokounmpo-buys-milwaukee-brewers-stake-nba-title-1234637555/ [9] https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-christian-yelich-contract-milwaukee-brewers-20200309-ld66yh7kmrdmtfxqksdpujwc4m-story.html

BY: EMILY COSTANZO When college sports fans turn our calendars to March, there is typically one thing on our minds—March Madness. We think about where our favorite teams will land after Selection Sunday, or our odds of creating a perfect bracket, or, in the words of the late Al McGuire, about the overall excitement that surrounds the “Big Dance.” Up until the NCAA’s recent decision, however, this iconic March moniker was reserved for one group of collegiate basketball players and one group only—the men. Despite the fact that the NCAA’s trademark registrations afforded them the ability to use the “March Madness” brand for both sides of the tournament, the governing body of collegiate athletics chose to use it solely for the men.[1] This trend ended last week, largely in part due to the NCAA’s wise—and long overdue—decision to bring in Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP to develop a gender equity report focused specifically on the two NCAA collegiate basketball tournaments. As a part of their analysis, the firm conducted “listening sessions” with participants including, but not limited to, current and former student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, senior woman administrators, college/university chancellors and presidents, conference commissioners, and NCAA staff, committee, and board members.[2] The findings were disheartening. The firm determined that the NCAA “has not lived up to its stated commitment to diversity, inclusion and gender equity among its student-athletes, coaches and administrators.”[3] One action step the NCAA is taking as a result? The women’s tournament will now also don the “March Madness” slogan, but with slight alterations from that used for the men’s tournament. The most notable distinction between logos will be the subtle orange accents used in the women’s brand, a powerful nod to the now-famous orange WNBA hoodies.[4] The thorough report held nothing back as it delved into the specific figures of the men’s tournament versus that of their female counterparts. According to the document, the NCAA has a longstanding contract with CBS/Turner for the media rights to the men’s tournament, while they sold the broadcast rights for the women’s tournament to ESPN.[5] The CBS/Turner contract is worth $850 million; the women’s contract was sold for $34 million.[6] The report further criticized the NCAA’s treatment of its male versus female student-athletes in saying that its structure and systems “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.”[7] Despite the currently vast discrepancy, experts believe that the women’s tournament has an earning potential between $81 million and $112 million by 2025.[8] After the 2021 NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament, this disappointing assessment is far from surprising. After multiple tournament attendees shared a series of now infamous photos which highlighted the stark inequities between the amenities provided to the men’s versus the women’s Final Four teams, the NCAA could no longer turn a blind eye. Fortunately, multiple coaches stood behind their athletes as they spoke out against the subpar accommodations, including Stanford’s Tara VanDerveer, UConn’s Geno Auriemma, and Oregon’s Kelly Graves. “I guess [Kaplan] just put out there what we already know. The food options, the hotels you stay in, the weight room facilities, the gift bags…I mean, come on. I can’t believe we’re still having to see disparities in those areas,” Graves stated.[9] In a time where many within the world of collegiate sport are standing up against gender inequities seen in and out of their respective competitive arenas, many more are still left to wonder—does the change stop here? Luckily, the Kaplan report offered multiple solutions extending far beyond the extension of the March Madness slogan which suggest that the fight for change is far from over. Among other game plans (no pun intended), the firm suggested that both Final Fours are held at the same site, that the men’s and women’s basketball and oversight committees conduct regular joint meetings, and that the NCAA offer financial incentives to institutions to improve their women’s programs. The overwhelming response to this report demonstrates that the fight for gender equity in sport will not stop at a simple rebranding of March Madness. In fact, Kaplan has already announced that they will conduct a “Phase II” of this assessment, wherein the firm will examine gender equity in NCAA championships in sports other than basketball. We may be at the bottom of the mountain, but at least we have begun the climb. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ncaa-tournament-march-madness-basketball-11632925775 [2] https://ncaagenderequityreview.com/gender-equity-review-phases/ [3] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31951330/long-awaited-ncaa-gender-equity-review-recommends-combined-final-four-mens-women-basketball-same-site [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ncaa-tournament-march-madness-basketball-11632925775 [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31951330/long-awaited-ncaa-gender-equity-review-recommends-combined-final-four-mens-women-basketball-same-site [8] Id. [9] https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/31952609/women-college-basketball-coaches-hopeful-kaplan-gender-equity-review-instigates-change

As reported by the New York Post two nights ago, New York Jets Star Safety Marcus Maye was charged with DUI after alleged car crash. Mr. Maye allegedly was driving a black Mercedes GLE43 SUV when he allegedly hit a Volvo XC60. Florida Highway Patrol (“FHP”) observed damage to the front right of the Mercedes and damage to the left rear of the black Volvo XC60. According to the police report, the Trooper observed a black male with glasses who seemed unware of what was occurring. The Trooper approached the vehicle and saw that there was vomit on the driver’s side door and on the floor itself. The Trooper immediately smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his mouth. The driver had glossy/bloodshot eyes and slurred/slow speech. The driver was also unable to locate his driver’s license. When Mr. Maye got out of the vehicle, he was slow to walk and had a sway in his balance. Mr. Maye was allegedly asked to performed Field Sobriety Exercises which he refused. Mr. Maye was then arrested and charged with DUI by FHP. Mr. Maye refused to provide a breath sample. The police report noted that there is a video of this incident. I have watched many FHP DUI dash cams videos during my time as a prosecutor. The video will very likely show the interaction with Mr. Maye and the Trooper as well as Mr. Maye sitting in the backseat of the patrol car subsequent his arrest. Additionally, the presence of vomit is the most damning piece of evidence against Mr. Maye in his DUI case. Every potential jury member knows what that means and he would have an uphill battle to prove he wasn’t impaired at the time of driving. I once watched a video where the driver vomited on camera while speaking to law enforcement. Needless to say, it didn’t go to trial. Subsequent his arrest, he was charged via information with three separate counts: Driving under the Influence, Driving under the Influence with Property Damage or Injury, and Leaving the Scene of a Crash with Property Damage. The regular DUI and the Leaving the Scene of the Crash with Property Damage are both 2nd degree misdemeanors in the State of Florida. Usually they are only punishable by up to 60 days in the county jail but DUI is a hybrid offense where it can be punished by up to 6 months in the county jail. The DUI with Property Damage Charge is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in the County Jail. There is some good news for Mr. Maye. The DUI and the DUI with Property Damage or Injury arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and as such, Mr. Maye cannot be convicted of both offenses. The Broward County State Attorney’s Office should have just filed the DUI with Property Damage or Injury. At trial, the DUI would be a lesser-included offense anyways of DUI with Property Damage. Thus, filing both DUI charges was unnecessary. However, that is where the good news ends for Mr. Maye. Also stated in the article was that Mr. Maye is being sued by the driver of the vehicle he allegedly hit in excess of $30,000. The reason damages sought are in excess of $30,000 is because the Plaintiff’s attorney wants to ensure this case ends up in Florida Circuit Court as that amount is the minimum amount for the case to be heard in Circuit Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, “That as a direct and proximate result of the negligent operation of the aforementioned vehicle by the Defendant (Marcus Maye), as aforesaid, the Plaintiff, was seriously and severely injured, in among other areas, the neck and back.” If Plaintiff truly is seriously and severely injured, that could be a huge problem for Mr. Maye. That is because the Leaving the Scene charge and DUI with Property Damage could both be elevated to felonies. Thus, if the Plaintiff was injured and Mr. Maye knew or should have known the crash would cause injury, Mr. Maye could be charged with Leaving the Scene of a Crash with Injury. That charge is a 3rd degree felony and punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The same is true for the DUI charge. If the Plaintiff’s injuries are much worse than initially thought, the State could up the charges to DUI with Serious Bodily Injury. That is a 2nd degree felony punishable by up to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. Actual knowledge of injury is immaterial for this charge. If he were charged and convicted of either, it would be nearly impossible for him to escape a jail cell. Mr. Maye better hope that the alleged victim’s injuries aren’t as severe as the victim in the case involving Andy Reid’s son because if they are, not getting a mega contract will be the least of his worries. Matthew F. Tympanick is an Attorney in Sarasota, Florida. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. In over three years as a prosecutor, he prosecuted thousands of domestic violence cases and driving under the influence offenses. You can follow him on Twitter @Tympanick20.

Today, Sebastian Telfair's conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was affirmed by the NY Appellate Division, Second Department. Telfair was originally arrested in 2017. According to court documents, after a search of his vehicle in the early morning hours of June 11, 2017, police recovered numerous items, including luggage, clothing, sneakers, jewelry, various bags, two small bags of marijuana, and cash. The officers also found a loaded 45-caliber gun in the center console of the truck, and three additional handguns and ammunition in the flatbed area. Telfair was charged with various crimes related to weapons and ammunition possession, as well as certain vehicle and traffic violations. After trial, the jury convicted Telfair of one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in connection with the .45 caliber gun recovered from the center console of the truck. At issue on appeal was whether the prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of prior firearm possession to prove that Telfair knowingly possessed firearms when he was arrested on June 11, 2017. The defense unsuccessfully argued that the evidence was too remote and that its probative value was outweighed by the potential for prejudice to Telfair. Telfair's 3.5 year sentence, first issued by NY Supreme Court, Kings County in 2019, is now affirmed. Earlier this year, Telfair's sister pled guilty to threatening his wife after his wife testified against Sebastian in court. 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 @Jason_Morrin.

BY: XANDER LANDY Are you ready for some football? For the last 20 plus years, DirecTV has been the exclusive provider of non-regional NFL games on Sundays. In order to watch those games, you must watch through DirecTV. Until now, or more specifically, in a couple years it will not be that way. The 27-year-old deal expires after the 2022-2023 season. Amazon is the front runner to acquire rights to NFL Sunday Ticket according to a CNBC report. The expected cost is somewhere around $2.5 billion per year. One reason for the change I personally think is that more and more younger people are cutting the cord. People are moving over to streaming games and other entertainment, rather than having a cable subscription. (Personally, I only have cable to watch live sports). While DirecTV allows streaming without a subscription, Amazon has a bigger streaming market. Roger Goodell echoed something similar, telling CNBC that the package may be “more attractive on a digital platform”. The Sunday Ticket provides a different problem for any buyer. Not only is it enormously expensive. There is current litigation on whether the package is in violation of the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act was created to break-up monopolies. It states that the there cannot be a concerted action to unreasonably restrain trade. That is the claim that customers have against the NFL and the 32 teams. The allegation is that the NFL’s 32 teams are colluding with each other instead of allowing members to sell competing streams. Part of this case is now going to arbitration, but there is a trial with a target for 2024. One of the most important aspects of an antitrust is defining the product. The customers are going to want to make the product defined as narrow as possible, non-regional NFL games. The NFL will try to define the product as broad as possible, entertainment across the globe. The reason for each side to define it as narrow or as broad as possible is to show market control, or lack thereof. If the product is defined as entertainment, then the NFL does not have control on the market, at least not the requisite control needed to be a monopoly. This definition is usually left up to the trier of fact. The next step for the plaintiffs is to prove anti-competitive effects. Because DirecTV is currently the only provider of NFL Sunday Ticket, and assuming there are no substitutes, then DirecTV is engaging in price fixing because they are subjective due to a lack of competition. Along with price fixing, reduced output is also anti-competitive. There is a restriction of output because there is no other way to watch the games. Xfinity cannot stream the games; Comcast cannot stream them. It is only through DirecTV. There appears enough to be a case against the NFL and the NFL Sunday Ticket Package. Amazon and others interested in the Sunday Ticket Package should be very wary of purchasing it. The deal could be worth significantly less if the exclusivity rights are deemed anti-competitive and in violation of the Sherman Act. This is just a brief introduction into antitrust. There are much more complications that go into antitrust cases. But in antitrust cases, violations can be costly. Damages are trebled. Something the future purchaser must keep in mind. Xander Landy is an Associate Attorney at Knight Hoppe, Kurnik, & Knight, he graduated as part of the Marquette Law School Class of 2021. He can be found on Twitter at @zoolandy.

BY: DAN WALLACH AND STEPHANIE WEISSENBURGER Conduct Detrimental has obtained copies of pertinent court documents filed in relation to Dallas Cowboys starter La’el Collins’ lawsuit against the NFL. Collins is seeking to block the rest of his NFL suspension with a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction. While the lawsuit was initially filed in Texas state court, the NFL and Roger Goodell opted to remove the lawsuit to federal court and now may be regretting that decision. In a crazy turn of events, La’el Collins’ federal court case has been assigned to the Honorable Amos Mazzant III -- the same federal judge who granted Ezekiel Elliott a preliminary injunction blocking the NFL from suspending him in 2017 (before the case got transferred to New York). In his 2017 #Zeke ruling, Judge Mazzant recognized "fundamental fairness" as a ground for vacating a labor arbitration award. With Judge Mazzant officially assigned to the case, it is almost definite that Collins’ legal team will not be seeking a remand to state court. A copy of the Notice of Removal is below. So, how did we get to this point? On January 6, 2021, Dallas Cowboys right tackle La’el Collins was suspended for five games without pay for violation of the NFL’s substance abuse policy. The suspension stems from Collins missing seven mandatory drug screenings since 2020 and allegedly trying to bribe the test collector. Collings timely appealed his suspension on January 7, 2021, and at one point, the NFLPA negotiated his suspension down to two games. Collins nevertheless continued pursuing the appeal, and the arbitrator ultimately reinstated his initial five-game suspension on September 9, 2021. Collins, however, is clearly not giving up without a fight. On Wednesday afternoon, Collins’ attorneys, Scott J. Becker and Levi G. McCathern, filed a request for a restraining order and immediately injunctive relief to reinstate Collins from league suspension. A copy of the Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction is below. The petition alleges that the NFL “failed to follow the National Football League’s Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse 2020 (the “Policy” or the “2020 Policy”) and wrongfully suspended Mr. Collins by making material misrepresentations to the tribunal.” In citing immediate and irreparable harm caused by such “wrongful actions”, it is revealed that Collins has already lost over $182,352. (2/17’s of Mr. Collins $1,550,000 base salary for 2021) from missing two games. Collins highlights important changes to the Policy pursuant to the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. Most importantly, the changes made regarding the kinds of discipline players may face for violations of the Policy. A copy of the Policy attached to the Petition as Exhibit 2 is below. In Paragraph 1.5.2(c), the 2020 Policy sets forth the sole and exclusive disciplinary measures that the NFL may impose on a player already in the Intervention Program based upon the number and kind of Policy violations shown to have occurred: Collins argues that, “In both its plain text and in the structure of the permissible penalties it provides, the 2020 Policy thus makes clear that positive tests or unexcused failures to appear for testing are never grounds for suspension or banishment, no matter how many violations occur and regardless of the player’s status in the Intervention Program.” Collins alleges that at the Hearing, on two separate occasions, the NFL intentionally mislead the arbitrator by stating Mr. Collins had previously received a four (4) game suspension from the NFL. First, in its opening statement, the NFL stated: “Mr. Collins was written up for a four-game suspension. And Mr. Collins was warned that any future failures to cooperate would result in a suspension. So here we are again with another failure to cooperate, and the NFL has suspended [Mr. Collins] for five games. That is progressive discipline, four to five.” Second, in its closing statement, the NFL stated: “Mr. Collins is only suspended for five games, and that is not outrageous, especially since we warned him after the four-game suspension.” A copy of Exhibit 1, the pertinent portions of the Hearing transcript, is attached below. Furthermore, Collins cites to the fact that the arbitrator stated in the Award that “Mr. Collins previously had received a four-game suspension based on prior conduct, and the discipline imposed, a five-game suspension, is ‘additional’ to that and is the next logical progression from prior discipline. It is proportional and reasonable.” A copy of the relevant portions of the Arbitral Award is below. This story will be updated as more details are provided. Be sure to follow us on Conduct Detrimental. You can find us on Twitter: Dan Wallach @WallachLegal and Stephanie Weissenburger @SWeissenburger_.

Tom Winter, NBC News Correspondent for Investigations, and Jonathan Dienst, WNBC Chief Investigative Reporter and NBC News Contributing Correspondent, broke the news on the morning of October 7th that 18 former National Basketball Association (“NBA”) players had been arrested.[1] The NBA players were arrested, per Winter’s reporting and law enforcement officials, and charged federally for allegedly defrauding the NBA’s Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, which provides certain health and welfare benefits to certain former NBA players as well as their spouses and eligible dependents. Among the players that were arrested were Terrence Williams, the player whom the indictment states “orchestrated” the scheme, Sebastian Telfair, Darius Miles, Tony Allen, Shannon Brown, and Glen “Big Baby” Davis. According to the indictment[2], Williams allegedly worked with the other players to conduct a scheme whereby Williams would supply false invoices for medical services received to a group of former players in exchange for kickback payments to Williams. The alleged kickback payments were made to Williams by the other NBA players after they were reimbursed for their allegedly fraudulent schemes. In total, the indictment states that nearly $3.9 million in fraudulent claims were submitted, nearly $2.5 million in fraudulent payments were received, and Williams netted nearly $230,000 in kickback payments from the other NBA players. While the case against Williams and the other NBA players is not one brought under The False Claims Act, The Physician Self-Referral Law, or the Anti-Kickback Statute, the regulatory scheme created by these laws provides a helpful understanding of the reason for increased scrutiny on billing in the healthcare context and may also be implicated by the doctors who were involved in this alleged scheme. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, in relevant part, prohibits anyone from “knowingly present[ing] or caus[ing] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” or from “conspir[ing] to commit a violation” of The False Claims Act. A “kickback,” while the term may be familiar from popular parlance (e.g., the kickbacks Williams received from the other NBA players would be an example of a kickback in the popular parlance) and may be allowable in some business contexts, is defined and specifically prohibited (unless certain exceptions apply) in the healthcare context in relation to the Physician Self-Referral Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn), commonly known as the Stark Law, and the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320(a)-7b(b)) (“AKS”). The Stark Law and AKS, working together with The False Claims Act, other federal laws, and similar state laws and regulations, seek to prevent the payment of remuneration[3] to induce or reward patient referrals in the healthcare industry unless, as mentioned previously, certain exceptions apply and to prevent the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to Medicare or Medicaid. Simply put, the government has an interest in ensuring i) that patients are referred from one doctor to another because of the level of care they will receive, not because of a financial arrangement between the two doctors, and ii) that the government is not defrauded through false claims submissions – these losses due to fraud are in the tens of billions of dollars per year according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York’s press release regarding this indictment.[4] AKS is a criminal statute that carries an intent requirement – “knowingly and willfully.” A violation of AKS is a felony and liability may attach for both those offering the kickback and those receiving kickbacks. Those violating AKS may face fines of up to $25,000 for each violation and prison terms of up to 5 years. AKS also carries civil penalties including potential fines of up to $50,000 per violation and civil assessments of up to three times the amount of the kickback. What is interesting in this case, however, is that despite a chiropractic and rehabilitation office, two dental offices, and other doctors and doctors’ offices being referenced in the indictment, the indictment was not brought against these persons. It is unclear what role these offices and doctors had in the ultimate scheme, and if they also received kickbacks in violation of AKS and The False Claims Act, or to what extent they knew of and participated in the fraudulent scheme, but it appears based on the indictment that some of these offices and doctors may have aided Williams in perpetrating the alleged scheme by providing false invoices for Williams to then provide to the other former NBA players. It is possible that an indictment against these offices and doctors for violations of AKS could be coming next. According to the indictment and the reporting of Winter and Dienst, Williams allegedly orchestrated the fraudulent scheme from 2017 to 2020 that allegedly involved, among other alleged acts, Williams helping other players obtaining fake medical letters to support false invoices, Williams impersonating an individual who processed plan claims, and filing for chiropractic and other services that were allegedly never received. The charges brought against Williams and the other NBA players are for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, as well as a charge of aggravated identify theft against Williams, not the potential violations of AKS as described above which the doctors involved may face. If found guilty, Williams and the other players allegedly involved in this scheme could face significant fines and even prison time of up to 20 years. [1] Further reporting on this situation from Winter and Dienst can be accessed here, here, and here. [2] The indictment can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1440076/download. [3] Remuneration in this context might be in the form of cash or other items or services of value. [4] 19 Defendants Charged With Defrauding The National Basketball Association Players’ Health And Welfare Benefit Plan | USAO-SDNY | Department of Justice.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, an indictment listed 18 ex-NBA players charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for an alleged $4 million health care fraud scheme. Allegedly led by Terrence Williams, picked 11th by the Nets in the 2009 draft, this scheme was a way to defraud a supplemental health plan for active and retired players, roping in several others to submit false claims for “reimbursement of expenses for medical and dental services that were not actually rendered.” One of the false reimbursements claims that was described in the indictment is a $19,000 claim filed by Williams for chiropractic services that never happened and gave a $7,672.55 reimbursement. In furtherance of this scheme, Williams also allegedly used a template for a fake invoice designed to make it look as though these invoices were official and issued by an office. Other players involved with this scheme include, Darius Miles, Alan Anderson, Tony Allen, Desiree Allen, Shannon Brown, Will Bynum, Glen “Big Baby” Davis, Christopher Douglas-Roberts, Marvin Ely, Milton Palacio, Ruben Patterson, Eddie Robinson, Greg Smith, Sebastian Telfair, Charles Watson, Antoine Wright, and Tony Wroten. Members of this fraud scheme were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud as a part of what New York prosecutors call a “widespread scheme to defraud” the NBA benefit plan. This scheme was carried out from at least 2017-2020, though it could have gone over a longer time frame. In running this alleged ruse, the plan received false claims of approximately $4 million and the defendants received approximately $2.5 million in fraudulent proceeds. Per court documents, several of the fraudulent invoices and medical necessity forms drew attention due to their lack of consistency. These documents were not on letterhead, contained grammatical errors and had logistical errors, i.e. being sent on the same date but from different offices. While some players were told to repay the money they received, this was not required of all involved players. As this is just breaking, developments are still forthcoming. Stay locked in with Conduct Detrimental for developments as this action progresses. Stephon Burton is a 3L at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 2019. He can be contacted via email at [email protected], on twitter @stephonburton3 and LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephon-burton-7abb06125/