“A safe and secure work environment is a top priority for the league and its collective ownership” – Alex Morgan The National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) has recently faced some serious allegations and players are not holding back when describing the “unforgivable” conduct they have endured. These serious revelations have sprung a series of events: the league’s commissioner resigning, a coach’s termination, and the inception of multiple investigations. Allegations include sexual misconduct, homophobic remarks, inappropriate utterances, and other behaviors. North Carolina Courage coach, Paul Riley, who has held this position for four years, has been fired. Players, Sinead Farrelly and Mana Shim have accused Riley of harassment and sexual coercion. Farrelly and Shim reported this conduct to The Athletic and the story was published on September 30th. Riley has denied these allegations to multiple outlets and was ultimately fired from his position as head coach hours later. Shortly after, Lisa Baird, NWSL commissioner resigned. After these events and appalling revelations, Orlando Pride goalkeeper Erin McLeod spoke out and reported to NBC News that NWLS can no longer be seen as a safe workplace. NJ/NY Gotham FC midfielder, McCall Zerboni, told NBC, “How do we know that if we turn up to work every day that this is not going to happen to us? Or that it’s not going to happen again? Because it did, again and again, and again, and no one in a position of power or ability stopped it” Attorney General Sally Yates has been appointed to lead an investigation. It can be predicted that this is not the first time players have felt uneasy and unsafe. Players have stated that the league is no longer protecting players from abusive coaches. Since the report, NWSL postponed all the games over the weekend. Fans rallied outside stadiums demanding answers. The report has caused a domino effect and multiple coaches have been identified and accused of similar misconduct. On October 6th, NWSL Players from Washington Spirit and Gotham FC stopped playing in the sixth minute of their match and joined arms in protest. The National Women’s Soccer League Players Association (NSWLPA) put out a powerful statement claiming that “teams will stop play in each of tonight’s games at the sixth minute… Players will join together in solidarity at the center circle for one minute in recognition of the six years it took for Mana, Sinead, and all those who fought too long to be heard”. They also said, “We call on fans to stand in silence with us… during that time, we ask you to stand in that pain and discomfort with us, as we consider what too many of us have been asked to sit with for too long.” The NWSLPA also stated that players will not answer any questions that do not relate to change or abuse in the NWSL. Since the start of the investigation, NWSLPA has released a list of demands regarding the investigations which include full disclosure and league-wide cooperation. These women deserve change, safety, and overall respect as female soccer players and professionals. Abuse will not be tolerated. As we await further findings, we should stand with these women in silence and demand an overall systematic revision of the NWSL. Ariana is a 2L at Seton Hall University School of Law. She is the Vice President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society (ESLS). She is currently an intern for Emily Staker Representation and previously worked as an intern at the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

Playoff baseball is back as the MLB Wild Card games kicked off this week and they did not disappoint! In one of the tightest races in recent history, the Red Sox knocked off the Yankees to win the AL Wild Card and the red-hot Cardinals were sent packing in electric fashion, as Dodgers’ utility man, Chris Taylor, secured the team’s NL Wild Card victory with a walk-off home run. Despite the edge-of-your-seat matchups we are all gearing up to watch, baseball enthusiasts are hype for more than just the post-season play–the free runner on second in extras is out! But, how did this “rule” even come about in the first place? It was Monday, June 29, 2020, when MLB Commissioner, Robert Manfred, made an announcement that would change the way baseball has been played since its inception–in the event of an extra inning game, each team would begin their half-inning at bat with a runner on second base.[1] The controversial free man on second, coined as the “Manfred man,” was implemented to support the MLB’s fight against the Covid-19 pandemic with the hopes to speed up pace of play and to keep players from being in close proximity to each other for any longer than necessary.[2] The 2020 season came and went, and, upon arrival of the playoffs, so did “Manfred’s man.” Fans were content because the classic game they grew up loving was back to normal. Despite Manfred’s statements made to the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, that the extra inning rule would not be in the league’s “long-term future,” the MLB opened their 2021 season with the rule still in full effect.[3] Manfred has been known for tinkering with the rules of America’s Pastime, which has been extremely controversial amongst the fans who have qualms as to whether the changes are good for the game.[4] Thankfully, post-season play is back, and “Manfred’s man” will not be making its appearance this year. This bears the question: will we see it next year? What is even more interesting to me, however, is the fact this specific change has never been codified into the Official Baseball Rules (“OBR”), so how is it even being enforced? The OBR states in its Foreword, “[t]his code of rules governs the playing of baseball games by professional teams of Major League Baseball and any league within the professional development league system operated by Major League Baseball in which Minor League Clubs are assigned to compete.”[5] If that stands true, then why has the Official Playing Rules Committee not modified the code? Well, it seems as though they attempted to via a subsection under its Important Notes section stating: The 2021 Official Baseball Rules do not include any of the rules that were adopted exclusively for the 2021 Major League season, which are contained in Section 5.1 of the MLB 2021 Operations Manual. To the extent of a conflict between the Official Baseball Rules and Section 5.1 of the Operations Manual, the Operations Manual shall control for Major League play.[6] Notwithstanding, Section 5.1 only contains language regarding substitutions and pitching changes, designated hitter rules, and calling “time” and dead balls.[7] There is not a single phrase or even an inkling of reference to the “Manfred man.” It is well founded that the Office of the Commissioner and the Official Playing Rules Committee have the authority to create and dissolve rules within the OBR. In fact, the code has been amended dating back to 1949![8] Nevertheless, policy, procedure, and rules are effectuated for good reason, and it is concerning to me as a traditional baseball fan to see such a huge gap in this great game’s official rules. May “Manfred’s man” take its seat back on the bench for good after the conclusion of this season! There is no doubt in my mind that Commissioner Manfred should be credited with an E1 on this one in accordance with 9.12(a)(1) for this muff.[9] Cliff Wood is a 3L and current Web Editor for the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law at Widener University Delaware Law School. He has previously worked for Geragos & Geragos, Los Angeles County DA’s Office, and Delaware County DA’s Office. Cliff also has a forthcoming publication in Del. J. Corp. Law titled, Knowing Your Rights: Stockholder Demands to Inspect Corporate Books and Records Following Woods v. Sahara Enterprises, Inc. Contact him via email at crwood@widener.edu or cj@geragos.com, on Instagram @cjayyy_wood and LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliff-wood-bb2692125/. Sources: [1]New rules, features, protocols for 2020 MLB Season, MLB.Com (June 29, 2020), https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-announces-new-features-for-2020-season. [2] Bonnie. Stiernberg, Baseball’s Automatic Runner on Second in Extra Innings Has to Go, InsideHook (May 19, 2021, 7:13 AM), https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/baseballs-automatic-runner-second-extra-innings-has-go; see also supra note 1. [3] Blake Williams, MLB Likely Eliminate 7-Inning Doubleheaders, Runner On 2nd Base For Extra Innings Rule, Medium Large Sport Media, LLC. (July 15, 2021), https://dodgerblue.com/mlb-likely-eliminating-seven-inning-doubleheaders-runner-on-second-base-extra-innings-rule/2021/07/15/. [4]See supra note 1; see also Tom Verducci, The Nine Big Changes. Coming to Baseball in 2021, ABG-SI, LLC. Sports Illustrated (Apr. 1, 2021), https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/04/01/mlb-rule-changes-2021-shift-pitch-clock-extra-innings (providing insight on just a few of the recent changes). [5]Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Official Baseball Rules 2021 Edition (2021), at iv. [6]Id. at v. [7]Id. at 51-63. [8]Id. at iii. [9]Id. at 123.

After years of Newcastle fans wanting Mike Ashley to sell the club, the Magpies fans now have their wish granted as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) have completed the purchase of the club for 300 million pounds ($409 million). This purchase now makes Newcastle not only the richest club in the Premier League by a large margin, but also the richest club in the world. To put into perspective just how much money the club has, you could combine the assets of all of the other owners in the Premier League and Newcastle’s owners would still have more money. They are worth a reported $435.8 billion, which means the takeover of Newcastle is only about 0.09% of the fund’s total value. The next richest owner is Manchester City’s Sheikh Mansour, who is worth about $31.2 billion. Since Pep Guardiola has taken over at Man City in 2016, the club has spent close to a billion pounds on transfers. Newcastle’s owners have over 10 times the assets that Mr. Mansour has, so this takeover can bring a power shift in the Premier League along with potentially world football. Last year, PIF were close to acquiring Newcastle but there were some obstacles they had to get over. There were concerns from the Premier League about how much control the Saudi state would have in running the team. Part of the agreement to buy the team included an assurance that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the state would not have a say in the team. Another obstacle in the takeover is that since 2017, Saudi Arabia has blocked the Qatari sports network BeIN Sports, one of the Premier League’s biggest broadcast partners, from operating within its territory due to the conflicts between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Qatar have also accused Saudi Arabia of failing to take effective action against piracy of BeIN’s content. Saudi Arabia have now overturned the ban on BeIN in the kingdom which has helped clear the path for the takeover of Newcastle. PIF becomes 80% owners of the club with the Reuben brothers and PCP Capital Partners owning the other 20%. This deal is akin to when Manchester City and PSG were taken over by state-owned funds. Since PSG and Manchester City were taken over by these state-owned funds, they have enjoyed much success on a domestic level, although both clubs are still seeking European glory. We’ve seen both clubs open up the checkbook and spend heavily since the new owners have come in. PSG have shattered the transfer record with the signing of Neymar in 2017 along with the signing of Kylian Mbappé the next summer. Of course, this past summer saw PSG have arguably the best transfer window ever with the signings of Lionel Messi, Sergio Ramos and Achraf Hakimi to name a few. Man City on the other hand, have spent over a billion pounds since Mansour has taken over and continue to break transfer records in the Premier League. Just this past summer, we saw them break the record for most expensive English player ever when they captured the signing of winger Jack Grealish for $129 million. While the takeover from PIF will be well received by many Newcastle fans, human right organizations have made their objections to the deal and have called on the Premier League to change the rules to ensure that those accused of human rights violations cannot take charge of soccer teams. Along with that, many soccer fans across the globe do not like that clubs can be owned by states and the money they are injecting in the club. Many Newcastle fans were seen outside of St. James Park celebrating the takeover as they had enough of Mike Ashley holding the club back. Certainly, PIF’s takeover of the club should mean that Newcastle will soon be playing for trophies as we’ve seen after PSG and Man City went from mediocre clubs to two of the top clubs in the world. Newcastle are already being linked to players like Philippe Coutinho and managers like Antonio Conte, something Newcastle fans could have never imagined under the ownership of Mike Ashley. It is to be determined how Newcastle will plan to use the money and how much they will spend, but it is exciting times for Newcastle fans and it should make the Premier League even more competitive than it already is. Greg Termolle is a 2L at Pace Law. He can be followed on Twitter @Gregterm.

For fans of English Premier League clubs outside the traditional big six (Manchester United; Manchester City; Tottenham; Arsenal; Chelsea; and Liverpool), any chance to crack into the top four in the league standings, thus qualifying for the UEFA Champions League, is nothing short of a fairytale come-to-life.[1] While supporters of clubs such as Leicester City, Everton, and West Ham may have felt they were closing in on finally seizing the moment and stealing the spotlight, Newcastle United have just unprecedently threatened to shatter their dreams. After years of the Newcastle United supporters pressuring Mike Ashely into selling the club, he has finally caved in, as a Saudi-Arabian consortium are set to purchase the club for a fee of $408 million.[2] Although financial takeovers are not all too uncommon, because the consortium is valued at approximately $430 billion, the Newcastle United one has a chance to change the landscape of the sport like never before. With seemingly limitless funds to splash around in the transfer market, Newcastle could well be on their way to forming a super team and perhaps even replacing the big six with the “superior one.” But what are the legal implications of a deal like this, and how does it work? From an investors point of view, the best leagues in which to perform a takeover are England’s Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga, as they are regarded as the current top, and most competitive global leagues; thus granting the greatest opportunity for maximizing return-on-investment (ROI).[3] Next, like Newcastle did in 2018, you approach a lawyer who will then begin conducting an estimate on the overall valuation of the club using the “EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) before player trading” in order to gage the profit margin.[4] The deal itself then mirrors that of normal contract law, but includes the use of an escrow account.[5] An escrow agreement functions when two parties agree to surrender their bargained for property to an escrow agent, and then the agent disperses the agreed to items in the contract once the terms of the deal have been met.[6] For Newcastle, the timeline of events began in 2017 when previous owner Mike Ashely put the club up for sale.[7] Despite years of stagnant talks, prominent English financer Ashley Staveley, in a consortium with Saudi-Arabian investors, submitted a bid to Mike Ashely that sent shockwaves through both the soccer, and legal worlds.[8] With immense concerns over human rights violations committed by the prospective Saudi purchasers, the deal yet again stalled, which led to fans piling on the pressure via protests.[9] With Mike Ashely determined to get the deal done, he employed the London-based law firm Blackstone Chambers, who represented him in a court case in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), in which the Premier League sought to have the club expelled from the Premier League.[10] However, due to the Saudi consortium issuing a compromise with BeIN Sports, the ban on the deal was lifted, thus making the case moot, and allowing the deal to go through.[11] While the legal battle entailed far more hoops to jump through than a normal team sale would, given the troubling political concerns, Newcastle may have already prevailed victorious in their most challenging battle. The key question emerges of whether or not this deal essentially guarantees Newcastle the ultimate crown of the UEFA Champions League. Despite the notion that in American sports, where a salary cap is present, the overall management of a team is crucial to its success, not just its finances, the same cannot be said for soccer.[12] Currently, the five richest owners in the NFL (from top to bottom) are David Tepper (Panthers); Jerry Jones (Cowboys); Stan Kroenke (Rams); Shahid Khan (Jaguars); and Stephen Ross (Dolphins).[13] Between those five teams, since the turn of the century, they have a combined one Super Bowl trophy (Rams in 2000), two Super Bowl appearances (Rams in 2000;2019), and a measly total of 21 victories in the playoffs.[14] On the flipside, in soccer, the five richest clubs in the world, excluding newcomer Newcastle, are Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, and Liverpool. Since the turn of the century, these clubs have combined to win a whopping 16 UEFA Champions League titles – club soccer’s greatest crown.[15] Evidently, in soccer, money creates trophies; so perhaps the question we really should be asking is not if or when Newcastle will win a trophy, but rather how many times they will be crowned champions. Sources: [1] See Ibrahima Mustapha, Premier League Return: ‘Big Six’ Is No More But Manchester City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea Are Pulling Away Fast, Eurosport (Nov. 8, 2021, 11:38AM), https://www.eurosport.com/football/premier-league/2021-2022/opinion-premier-league-big-six-is-no-more-but-manchester-city-united-liverpool-and-chelsea-are-pulli_sto8455308/story.shtml. [2] James Benge, Newcastle United Takeover: What to Know About the Historic Saudi-Arabian Backed Deal for Premier League Club, CBSsports (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/newcastle-united-takeover-what-to-know-about-the-historic-saudi-arabian-backed-deal-for-premier-league-club/. [3] Amitai Winehouse, How to Buy a Football Club: Newcastle are on the Cusp of £300m Buyout…and Here’s How the Deal Will be Done, Why Mike Ashely’s Price Dropped by up to 20 Percent and Whether BeIN Sports’ complaint Really Could Scupper the Saudis’ Bid, Daily Mail (May 1, 2020, 5:34 EDT), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8250503/An-insiders-guide-football-club-takeovers-Newcastle-deal-done.html; see Dan Weil, So, You Want to Own a Sports Team, WSJ (Oct. 18, 2019, 12:27PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-you-want-to-own-a-sports-team-11571416055. [4] Winehouse, supra note 3. [5] Id. [6] See generally Escrow Accounts, Wells Fargo (2021), https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/manage-account/escrow/ (explaining how different escrow agreements function). [7] James Robinson, Newcastle United Takeover Timeline: Everything That Has Happned as the deal Goes Through, (Oct 7, 2021, 8:01PM), https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-united-takeover-premier-league-21785687. [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] See generally Greg Termolle, Futbol Finance: Newcastle United Becomes Richest Club in the World, Conduct Detrimental (Oct. 8, 2021), https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/futbol-finance-newcastle-united-becomes-richest-club-in-the-world (exploring the complications that arose in the Newcastle deal involving a challenge from BeIN Sports). [12] Weil, supra note 3. [13] John Breech, NFL’s Richest Owners Revealed for 2021: Panthers, Cowboys and Rams Top List of Teams With Wealthiest Owners, CBSsports (Apr. 9, 2021, 1:26PM), https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-for-2021-panthers-cowboys-and-rams-top-list-of-teams-with-wealthiest-owners/. [14] Since 2000, the New England Patriots Have the Most Wins by a Team in the Playoffs, With 30 Wins, StatMuse (2021), https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-playoff-wins-since-2000. [15] Igor Mello et al., Champions League Final: Full List of All UCL and European Cup Winners as Chelsea, Man City Try to Make History, CBSsports (May 27, 2021, 12:39PM), https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/champions-league-final-full-list-of-all-ucl-and-european-cup-winners-as-chelsea-man-city-try-to-make-history/.

On September 6th Gonzaga Men’s Basketball Coach, Mark Few was given a DUI citation while coming home from his vacation in Idaho. According to the affidavit, “Few was driving erratically, had difficulty finding his paperwork in the center console and glovebox, while speaking he sometimes started a sentence and trailed off without finishing what he was saying, struggled to follow directions, had to lean against his car for support as he stood, and when asked to take a field sobriety test, Few refused and began arguing with police about whether they were subjective or not.” His blood alcohol content samples were .119 and .120 where the legal limit is .08. More than a month after the incident Gonzaga’s first-year athletic director, Christ Standiford has suspended Few for only the two preseason exhibition games, the team's season-opener vs. Dixie State, and Saturday's Kraziness at the Kennel Midnight Madness event. Coming off a loss in the National Championship game against Baylor, Gonzaga will most likely be the number one ranked team to start the season. The first game back for Few will be a highly anticipated top 10 matchup against Texas. Few was a graduate assistant at Gonzaga from 1989-1990, an assistant 1990-1999, and finally being the head coach 1999 till now. He has won 17 Western Coast Conference Championships, led multiple number one seed teams in the NCAA Tournament, two Final Four appearances, and two National Championship appearances. Few has created a winning culture that very little coaches have ever done in the history of college basketball. Now Gonzaga is known as one of the premiere basketball schools in the country. After all the success Few has brought to Gonzaga is it a coincidence that he will be back just in time for one of the most important games of their season? In 2004 Bob Huggins, head coach for the University of Cincinnati at the time was arrested for DUI charges which became headline news. He was suspended for 76 days and was given an ultimatum at the end of the following season to either be fired or take a $3 million buyout. Huggins brought Cincinnati back to being National Championship contenders after years of being nonexistent. He was the head coach from 1989-2005 winning eight tournament championships, post season appearance in all 16 years, a Final Four appearance, and has the most wins in the program’s history. Cincinnati has not made a Final Four or Elite Eight since. Even his success at Cincinnati could not help Huggins from being forced out. Also, there have been numerous assistant college coaches that have been arrested for DUIs that were fired immediately. For example, Duke great and 10 year NBA veteran Chris Duhon was fired immediately from Marshall University in 2016, Dalonte Hill at the University of Maryland in 2013, and Tony Bland at the University of Southern California in 2017. Many of their careers were tarnished and found finding a new job to be very difficult. Coaches are not the only ones that could ultimately lose everything. Players could lose their scholarship, kicked off the team, or even lose their chance to play college basketball all together. In 2017 Grayson Allen made headline news and was talked about nonstop by the media for weeks for tripping an opponent on a couple occasions. The media crucified him, and people called him all sorts of names for not acting mature. If the media recently went this far just for Allen tripping players, what would they do to a player arrested for a DUI? Few received a slap on the wrist compared to what other coaches have gone through in the past. Is Gonzaga trying to keep the incident on the low for the sake of the school? Surprisingly the DUI and suspension is hardly being talked about by the media. When one of the faces of college basketball does something so careless it has to be handled correctly. Having practically no consequence in order for Gonzaga to play at full strength for a nationally televised game is alarming. Firing Few would hurt Gonzaga drastically by not being able to recruit the high-level talent that they have been getting. When schools are not getting top recruits, it will lead to them not making it far in the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately those schools will not make nearly as much money. Gonzaga was not a huge basketball program with coaches lined up to take the head coaching job before Few arrived. Without Few the school could lose millions of dollars and have their program tarnished. After being so close to winning the National Championship recently the school has clearly shown that winning is their main priority. It is not fair compared to what Huggins had to go through while at Cincinnati or the other coaches that have made the same mistake. The NCAA should step in and make an example of Few to show coaches all around the country that this behavior is not tolerable. No matter their level of success they cannot get out of these types of situations as easily as Few did here.

If you are unaware of the Jack Eichel medical and trade rumors it is not surprising. The Buffalo Sabres have tried to keep his medical controversy out of the public eye. On March 7, 2021, in a game against the New York Islanders, Eichel took a hit that would ultimately end his season. Following the hit Eichel was examined by team doctors and diagnosed with a herniated disc. While the injury ended his season, how to treat the injury is caused the most trouble. The Sabres organization originally recommended a 12-week rehab, but Eichel sought a second opinion. Sections 32-50 of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) lays out the Medical – Legal Issues of the agreement. Section 34 Second Medical Opinion List – Selection and Removal is applicable in Eichel’s situation. Attachment C of Section 34 says; “A Player may seek a second medical opinion regarding a diagnosis made by a team physician or a course of treatment (including the timing thereof) prescribed by a team physician ("Second Medical Opinion") from a list of medical specialists with outstanding reputations and experience in their area of expertise...”.[1] Under terms of the CBA, teams control the medical decisions made for their players.[2] The surgery that Eichel is requesting is an artificial disk replacement surgery, which has never been performed on an NHL player. The disk replacement surgery, which would have him sidelined for six weeks and carries a much lower risk that the Eichel would need future surgeries. The Sabres want him to have a standard fusion procedure, which Eichel refused.[3] The fusion surgery would have Eichel back on the ice in six months. In the off-season trade rumors began to fly about whether Eichel would be traded and to who. The complicated part of this situation was that the Sabres were limiting teams access to Eichel’s medical records unless the trade was serious. The off season came and went and Eichel was not traded nor was his medical issues addressed. The Sabres and Eichel did meet with the NHL and NHLPA in the off-season to resolve the issue but ultimately no solution came about. Eichel did however change his representation from Peter Fish and Peter Donatelli of Global Hockey Consultants to Pat Brisson of Creative Artists Agency.[4] The change in agents seems to suggest that maybe Eichel was unhappy with the events of the offseason. The question that was on everyone’s mind, would Eichel play in the 2021-22 season? Training camp rolled around and with that came Eichel’s physical examination with the Sabres. Eichel failed his physical, was stripped of his captaincy and will be placed on the injury reserve for the start of the season.[5] Sabres GM Kevyn Adams said "To this point, Jack is not willing to move forward with the fusion surgery that our doctors are suggesting. So, we're going to continue to work towards solutions."[6] Based on that statement from Adams it seems unclear whether Eichel will be cleared to play this season. However, Eichel’s agent seems positive that a trade can be facilitated. In a statement Brisson confirmed there are teams willing to let Eichel to go through with alternative dispute resolution.[7] This issue has not gone unnoticed by Commissioner Bettman. In a statement the Commissioner said "It's a terrible situation. I don't think it's fair to point the finger at anybody in terms of who's right and wrong. I think everybody's approaching this with the best intentions and that the injury is complex both in its diagnosis and its treatment and I think people need to be a little more patient."[8] With the season beginning with week, it will be interesting to see if Eichel will get the surgery he wants or be traded to a new team. [1]Collective Bargaining Agreement, The PA | NHLPA.com, www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba. [2] Id. [3] Harrington, M. (2021, Oct. 4). NHL commissioner Gary Bettman on Sabres/eichel dispute: 'it's a terrible situation'. The Buffalo News. https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/nhl-commissioner-gary-bettman-on-sabres-eichel-dispute-its-a-terrible-situation/article_ac92b5b2-253b-11ec-842c-ab88ac28561f.html. [4] Staff, S. (2021, October 4). Gary Bettman speaks on Robin Lehner tweets, Jack Eichel situation. Sportsnet.ca. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/gary-bettman-speaks-robin-lehner-tweets-jack-eichel-situation/. [5] Wyshynski, G. (2021, Sept. 23). Buffalo Sabres Center jack eichel fails physical, stripped of captaincy. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32262693/buffalo-sabres-center-jack-eichel-fails-physical-stripped-captaincy. [6] Id. [7] Johnston, M. (2021, October 7). Jack Eichel's new agent Pat Brisson updates latest on Sabres Star. Sportsnet.ca. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/jack-eichels-new-agent-pat-brisson-updates-latest-sabres-star/. [8] Staff, S. (2021, October 4). Gary Bettman speaks on Robin Lehner tweets, Jack Eichel situation. Sportsnet.ca. Retrieved https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/gary-bettman-speaks-robin-lehner-tweets-jack-eichel-situation/.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 in 3 women and more than 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of sexual violence.[1] And, unfortunately, the world of sports, which so often serves as a microcosm of society at large, is rife with allegations of sexual violence being perpetrated by its athletes, coaches, and other personnel. The last few years have brought to light alleged instances of abuse in the National Women’s Soccer League, against Major League Baseball’s Trevor Bauer, against the National Football League’s Deshaun Watson, against the Chicago White Sox organization, and against Major League Baseball’s Marcell Ozuna. Not to mention the years and years of abuse perpetrated by Larry Nassar against the women and girls on the United States’ gymnastics team that were swept under the rug, ignored, and allowed to continue by those in power. And that is what is perhaps most striking in these cases of alleged and proven sexual violence within the sports world: those in power have continuously, and oftentimes horrifically, failed the victims. Multiple players in the National Women’s Soccer League, including United States Women’s National Team star Alex Morgan, have alleged that the league knew of the allegations and failed to properly investigate them or do anything about them. Major League Baseball chose to conduct an investigation into the allegations, and ultimately placed Trevor Bauer on administrative leave beginning July 2nd through the end of the baseball season, but the league waited to make any firm decision chose to extend the administrative leave multiple times – rather than making a decision at the onset of its investigation – and has yet to issue any kind of suspension or fine (administrative leave is paid). Deshaun Watson is currently in an odd state of limbo – he is healthy but not playing for the Houston Texans and is not being traded by the team either all while the National Football League has yet to put him on the commissioner’s exempt list as it had previously done with stars including Michael Vick, Adrian Peterson, and Kareem Hunt for other offenses. The Chicago White Sox organization’s general strategy in defending itself in the lawsuit brought against the team and its affiliate, the Birmingham Barons, has been to separate itself from the minor league affiliate and thereby avoid liability. Major League Baseball placed Marcell Ozuna on administrative leave, as it chose to do with Trevor Bauer, and the Atlanta Braves have kept Ozuna away from team activities, but no further penalties have come out as a result of the league’s investigation into the allegations against Ozuna that have now been dismissed. Despite the prevalence of sexual violence in the United States and its prevalence in the sports world specifically, there seems to be no improvements in how leaders in the sports world handle allegations of sexual violence. Investigations are conducted by sports leagues that often drag on for months, sports leagues frequently fail to work effectively with local law enforcement and others involved in these allegations, and, even worse, sports leagues often prioritize self-preservation and preservation of their own at the expense of the victims. The issue is out in the open – it is now time for leadership to do something about it. Earlier this month, a football player at a Charlotte-area high school played in a game despite having been charged with sexually assaulting another student. (Allegedly, coaches covered up the player’s ankle monitor before the game.) A walkout was organized by student Sereniti Simpson and several members of Olympic High School’s volleyball team to highlight how poorly the school’s administration had handled the situation. Two of the members of the volleyball team who spoke out were suspended by the high school for violations of the school board’s policy on student protests.[2] The failure to protect athletes, students, coaches, employees, staff, and other personnel against sexual violence is a serious problem in the sports world that needs to be fixed at the highest levels of the sporting world all the way down to the lower levels. As Sereniti Simpson said after being suspended: “I will not play for a team or school that punishes its athletes for wanting a safer environment. It’s time to take a stand. We need to take action now.”[3] We need to take action now. Sports leagues can no longer wait until issues of sexual violence among their ranks arise before they react; proactive measures and policies must be adopted that acknowledge the very real problem of sexual violence in the sports world. The excuse that league rules do not contemplate how to handle situations where conduct is alleged, and not yet proven, is no longer valid. The situations arise frequently enough that it is nothing but a failure for sports leagues to still not have comprehensive policies and procedures in place for how to handle allegations of sexual violence. [1] Preventing Sexual Violence |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC. [2] Female Student Athletes Suspended For Challenging Their School (blackenterprise.com). [3] Female Student Athletes Suspended For Challenging Their School (blackenterprise.com).

Maximilien Robespierre, the architect of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror in the late 1700’s executed over seventeen thousand of his enemies during his rule. His life saw the same end when his constituents turned against him. Today in Las Vegas, Jon Gruden’s football coaching career is seeing the same demise. The New York Times published an article over the weekend that uncovered a repulsive, but not shocking slew of emails that showed Gruden using abhorrent language when describing N.F.L. leadership, players and officials. The icing on the cake, and what has to have the former Super Bowl winning head coach truly sick to his stomach is that the investigation where the emails were discovered had nothing to do with him. Much like Jordan Belfort’s takedown in the movie “Wolf of Wall Street '' where his empire begins to crumble when one of his partners is arrested along with the founder of Benihana. The center of this investigation was the Washington Football Team and Dan Snyder’s toxic work environment. It had nothing to do with Jon Gruden or the Las Vegas Raiders. Conveniently enough, the eleven-month investigation led by Beth Wilkinson which reviewed over 650 thousand emails, yes that number is correct, 650 THOUSAND concluded Snyder and his partners in Washington had everything running in accordance with league policies. The N.F.L. Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, who was the subject of a racial trope in an email written by Gruden issued this statement today regarding the investigation: “We have had communications with the league, and the NFLPA plans to request that the NFL release the rest of the emails.” Interesting. This report was finished and the findings were presented three months ago over Fourth of July weekend. Why all of the sudden is Smith and his team demanding to see the emails that involved the main focus of the entire investigation? Seems very strange, considering Snyder and his cohorts were accused of the wrongdoings. League commissioner Roger Goodell is smart enough to realize that the players and coaches don’t pay his salary, the owners do. He’s demonstrated that knowledge frequently, a prime example being back in 2017 when now deceased Texans owner Bob McNair said the following at an owners meeting “We can't have the inmates running the prison.” In response to N.F.L players taking a knee during the United States national anthem. Goodell didn’t bat an eye and no punishment was given to McNair. The former owner did issue a mediocre apology in the days following but later went back on it a year later saying “The main thing I regret is apologizing; I really didn’t have anything to apologize for.” The league’s personal conduct policy reads: “Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL. This includes owners, coaches, players, other team employees, game officials, and employees of the league office, NFL Films, NFL Network, or any other NFL business.” Well, comments like that certainly were detrimental to the league’s image, so where was the punishment/fine for McNair? Nowhere to be found. Goodell however takes a great deal of exception when a color analyst on Monday Night Football which is what Jon Gruden was at the time of his ignorant and insensitive email exchanges is critical of him. Gruden got what he deserved. It is a privilege to be in the position he was in and anyone who speaks and feels the way he clearly did is no leader. However, he was the scapegoat for a much larger issue that the N.F.L has. Roger Goodell continuing to pick and choose who has to abide by the league’s policies is a recipe for disaster. This is only the tip of the iceberg and Goodell is the captain of the Titanic.

BY: DAN WALLACH AND STEPHANIE WEISSENBURGER Last week consisted of numerous court filings in the La’el Collins case, all of which have been a precursor to this pivotal moment. Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has ruled in favor of the NFL and denied Collins' request for an injunction against the NFL’s five-game suspension without pay for violating the NFL’s substance abuse policy. A copy of the judge’s ruling is available below. Collins initially filed this lawsuit in Texas state court seeking a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction to block the NFL from enforcing the remainder of his suspension. The NFL then quickly removed the suit to federal court, opening up the possibility that the case could land in the hands of Judge Amos Mazzant – the same federal judge who overturned the NFL's suspension of Ezekiel Elliott in 2017 (before the case got transferred to NY) citing “fundamental unfairness.” Well, guess what… it did. Judge Mazzant was officially assigned to the La'el Collins federal court lawsuit on Thursday and Collins and his legal team worked quickly to try and get a favorable ruling just like Zeke did. On Thursday, the Cowboys right tackle filed an emergency motion on for a temporary restraining order with the Texas federal court seeking an immediate hearing before Judge Mazzant "at the earliest possible date" to enjoin the NFL from continuing his suspension. Just a few hours later, Judge Mazzant scheduled an emergency hearing for Friday at 1 pm CST on the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and/or temporary injunction against the NFL, Roger Goodell and the NFL Management Council. Now that U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III has made his ruling in favor of the NFL, Collins will not see the field until his entire five-game suspension is up... which is really only one more game. With the Cowboys bye next week, Collins will look to take the field again in Week 8. Follow us on Conduct Detrimental for more updates. You can find us on Twitter: Dan Wallach @WallachLegal and Stephanie Weissenburger @SWeissenburger_.

The Phillie Phanatic is one of Major League Baseball’s most recognizable mascots, but did you know that its existence and ownership was at the heart of a recent sports law controversy? You would be excused if you didn’t, but thanks to a recent out-of-court settlement, it appears that both the Phanatic’s creators and the Philadelphia Phillies are satisfied with their new arrangement, even though terms of their settlement are not immediately apparent. The Phillie Phanatic was commissioned after the 1977 season, when the Phillies and executive vice-president Bill Giles[1] decided that a zany mascot like the San Diego Chicken would serve them better than their current mascots, Revolutionary War-era brother Philadelphia Phil and sister Philadelphia Phillis.[2] The Phillies commissioned former Jim Henson artists Bonnie Harrison and Wayde Erickson to create the Phillie Phanatic, which, according to canon, is a flightless bird born in the Galápagos Islands that emigrated to the Phillies’ then-ballpark, Veterans Stadium.[3] While the Phanatic made his public debut in Philadelphia in 1978, Harrison and Erickson actually retained the copyright to the Phanatic at first.[4] Six years later, the creators agreed to sell the copyright to the Phillies for a sum total of $250,000[5]--which in 1984 was a little less than one month’s salary for Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt.[6] In 2019, the creators attempted to invoke 17 U.S.C. § 203, in order to reclaim the copyright and negotiate a new license commensurate with new economic realities in Major League Baseball. If Harrison and Erickson could regain ownership of the copyright, they could potentially be free to sell the Phillie Phanatic to another team in any other market...or maybe even take the Phanatic on the road as the ultimate barnstorming free agent, once again, kind of like the San Diego Chicken. In response to Harrison and Erickson’s threats to attempt to negotiate a new copyright deal, the Phillies sued Harrison and Erickson, asserting that they are the true copyright owners of the Phillie Phanatic and that the creators had “an improper copyright.”[7] The next year, in 2020, the Phillies literally made their own Phillie Phanatic, in what was clearly a maneuver to prove how little the Phillies thought the creators’ copyright was worth. The changes are easy to see in this side-by-side[8]...the Phanatic’s blue feathers are now a lighter shade of blue, it has a slightly smaller snout (a Ryne-oplasty by Ryne Sandberg, perhaps?), and it wears blue socks with red shoes instead of red stirrups with green shoes. But Harrison and Erickson still saw a green bird wearing a Phillies jersey with a star for a number and the name Phanatic on the back, so they amended their countersuit against the Phillies citing “willful violations” of the copyright.[9] After the Phillies and the Harrison/Erickson team exchanged their first pitches, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburin (that’s a special kind of judge who specializes in sorting out evidence...kind of like pre-calling the balls and strikes), from the Southern District of New York (that’s the federal courthouse based in Manhattan, New York City), concluded that Harrison and Erickson owned the copyright to the original Phillie Phanatic, but that the Phillies made enough substantial changes to make their new Phanatic a “derivative product” that was eligible to stay on the Phillies’ payroll.[10] Reading Netburin’s verdict, it sounds like she had no choice but to rule in the Phillies’ favor for the new Phanatic: To be sure, the changes to the structural shape of the Phanatic are no great strokes of brilliance, but as the Supreme Court has already noted, a compilation of minimally creative elements, ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious,’ can render a work a derivative.[11] Meanwhile, in this writer’s opinion, the Phillies were smugly confident all along in their likelihood of success in this case. In a tweet from the Philadelphia Phillies themselves, they said their Phillie Phanatic “has evolved, but clearly hasn’t matured.”[12] Ultimately, after the Magistrate Judge made her findings, she transferred the case to Senior U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.[13] But as of last Friday, the parties agreed in principle to settle their lawsuit.[14] Why would the Phillies settle the lawsuit if they were so confident? We don’t know the terms of the settlement, but maybe Harrison and Erickson accepted peanuts to go away. Or at least enough money so that the Phillies could know that “The Original Phillie Phanatic” wouldn’t be sticking its tongue out at the Phillies, stealing publicity and goodwill. Ultimately, unless something goes terribly wrong, the Phillie Phanatic will not be a free agent and he will still be delighting and/or terrorizing fans of all stripes at Philadelphia Phillies home games. Mike Engle is an associate attorney for the United States federal government. During his time at Hofstra Law School in New York, his articles were published in the Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal and the DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems. He was also an invited guest on the now defunct vlog Law & Batting Order. Mike resides in Upstate New York with his wife, Gillian. Interact with him on Twitter @EngleLaw29, but only during off-duty hours and preferably not during Montreal Canadiens games! [1] Moran, Robert, Phillies Should Be Allowed to Use Modified Phanatic, Federal Judge in Copyright Dispute Says, THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (Aug. 11, 2021), https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/philadelphia-phillies-phanatic-mascot-lawsuit-copyright-20210811.html. [2] Philadelphia Phil and Phillis, BASEBALL REFERENCE (June 7, 2019, 13:31) (accessed Oct. 12, 2021), https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Philadelphia_Phil_and_Phyllis. [3] Felthousen-Post, Cyn, 1978: Phillie Phanatic Makes His First Ever Appearance, Starting Weird Legacy, GROOVY HISTORY (Apr. 25, 2020) (accessed Oct. 12, 2021), https://groovyhistory.com/phillie-phanatic-philadelphia-history-facts [4] AlBaroudi, Wajih, Phillie Phanatic Staying in Philadelphia After Phillies Settle Lawsuit with Mascot Creators, CBS SPORTS (Oct. 8, 2021, 20:14), https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/phillie-phanatic-staying-in-philadelphia-after-phillies-settle-lawsuit-with-mascot-creators/ [5] Id. [6] Mike Schmidt Stats, BASEBALL REFERENCE (accessed Oct. 12, 2021), https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schmimi01.shtml#all_br-salaries [7] Reichard, Kevin, Split Decision on Phillie Phanatic Copyright Battle, BALLPARK DIGEST (Aug. 24, 2021), https://ballparkdigest.com/2021/08/24/split-decision-on-phillie-phanatic-copyright-battle/. [8] Moran, supra at Note 1; Farzetta, Marc, TWITTER (@MarcMarzetta) (Feb. 23, 2020, 11:42), https://twitter.com/MarcFarzetta/status/1231620380764311553?s=20. [9] Hermann, Adam, Phillie Phanatic Legal Battle Reignites With a Fiery Update, NBC SPORTS (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/phillies/phillie-phanatic-creators-reignite-legal-battle-claim-team-now-stealing. [10] Reichard, supra at Note 7. [11] Id., quoting Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). [12] Philadelphia Phillies, TWITTER (@Phillies) (Feb. 23, 2020, 13:26), https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/1231646496929480707?s=20. [13] Moran, supra at Note 1; Reichard, supra at Note 7. [14] AlBaroudi, supra at Note 4.

Roberto Clemente's three sons: Roberto Clemente Jr., Luis Roberto Clemente, and Roberto Enrique Clemente sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its Governor, Hon. Pedro R. Pierluisi Urrutia, among others. Pierluisi imposed a mandatory $21 commemorative license plate purchase on Puerto Ricans who acquire a license in 2022. The yellow license plate celebrates the 50th anniversary of Roberto Clemente's 3,000th hit with a picture of Clemente, the number "21," and the phrase "3,000 hits." Plaintiffs say they did not authorize any use of their Father's likeness. The plaintiffs say the revenue from this government action are funneled in their entirety to the Roberto Clemente Sports District Fund, administered by the Department of Treasury for the exclusive use of the Department of Sports and Recreation. "The Government has informed publicly that it expects to obtain $15,000,000.00 from these endeavors in year 2022." Competing with that notion, the Clemente children explain that they are not associated with the license plate program and never authorized it. The plaintiffs claim they are the sole owners of the Roberto Clemente trademark, his right of publicity, and his likeness. A search in the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that Roberto Clemente is a registered trademark owned by Clemente Properties, Inc., a company owned by Clemente's sons. "It is hard to imagine a more appalling use of the Roberto Clemente mark," the Plaintiffs say. "The Roberto Clemente mark is being used as a source of funds destined to destroy his dream and his creation: Ciudad Deportiva." They say Puerto Rican people have assumed they were behind it and, as a result, have "suffered innumerable attacks and disdains in the televised, written and on-line press, in social networks, in events, and during every day activities." "The People righteously rejected the imposition of a charge for the use of the Roberto Clemente mark and likeness in the license plates and vehicle certification tags, in times when our economy is suffering and the cost of living in Puerto Rico increases every day." Plaintiffs say on March 30, 2022, they notified Defendants through the Secretary of Justice about the trademark infringement and lack of authorization for its use. However, they claim, Defendants continued to "knowingly" and "intentionally" misappropriate the mark. Plaintiffs filed suit for Lanham Act violation in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, seeking injunctive relief and damages. They retained intellectual property management agency CMG Worldwide. Jason Morrin is a recent graduate of Hofstra Law School. He was President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He will be joining Zumpano, Patricios, & Popok as a law clerk, awaiting July, 2022 Bar Exam results. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

The Phil Mickelson v. PGA Tour feud is no longer confined to the media, as the embattled lefty now heads a group of ten other golfers – including Bryson DeChambeau and Talor Gooch – in suing the Tour for alleged violations of antitrust law. The 105-page complaint includes several allegations, including (1) unlawful “monopsonization” of the market for elite golf event services; (2) unlawful agreement to restrain trade (with the European Tour); (3) unlawful restraint of trade; (4) breach of contract; and (5) a declaratory judgment that the Tour’s suspensions of the plaintiffs violated their right to a fair procedure. Below are key takeaways from the complaint. Unlawful Monopsonization of the Market The first count of the complaint alleges that the Tour is behaving as an illegal monopsony, which occurs when a single buyer substantially controls a market because they are the exclusive purchaser of services in that market. In this case, the market is the competition and play of elite professional golf. The count alleges that the Tour has abused its monopsony power through anticompetitive conduct including the threat of lifetime bans, restrictions on players competing in conflicting events, and suspending players who defected to the Saudi-backed LIV Golf. These actions, the complaint alleges, harm the plaintiffs by preventing competition for their services, preventing sponsors from working with them, and “depress[ing] compensation for the services of elite professional golfers below competitive levels.” In short, the argument is that the Tour has excessive control over where golfers can play and sell their services, and that control has an anti-competitive effect on the market. Some of these arguments are a symphony of inconsistency. To begin with, many of the plaintiffs received jaw-dropping money – in some cases more than their entire career earnings – just as a sign-on bonus for joining LIV. While it’s true that some plaintiffs may not have received bonuses exceeding their career earnings, LIV is shelling out $255 million in purses over its eight events this year, with the last place finisher in each event earning $120,000. By comparison, the purse for the Master’s tournament – golf’s crown jewel – was $15 million last year, the most in the history of the event. Massive sign-on bonuses, record-breaking tournament purses, private jets, and guaranteed six-figure payouts for last-place finishers do not exactly scream “depressed compensation below competitive levels.” Additionally, although many sponsors have dumped golfers who have defected to LIV, there is no indication that such actions were the result of direct or even indirect pressure from the PGA Tour. It is far more likely that these sponsors simply do not wish to be associated with LIV due to the source of its funding – the Saudi Public Investment Fund – which has been accused of spending billions of dollars to “sports wash” its long track record of human rights abuse. For instance, UPS severed its 14-year relationship with Lee Westwood following his request for a release to play in LIV’s first event. Notably, UPS is not even an official sponsor of the PGA Tour. Far from attributing their decision to any alleged pressure exerted by the PGA Tour, UPS instead pointed to the fact that continued sponsorship of Westwood would be “inconsistent with their business priorities.” The PGA Tour will argue that they are not telling the plaintiffs that they cannot play on the LIV Tour, but simply telling them to pick a side and that doing so is not illegal. In that respect, the plaintiffs are not precluded from playing golf on any other Tour. Additionally, since the Tour is a membership organization, its members agree to abide by certain rules and conditions, and the plaintiffs have chosen not to do so and were well-aware of the repercussions. Moreover, LIV has poached several big names and has drawn vast media attention over the last several months. Although LIV itself is not a plaintiff, this early success is starkly inconsistent with claims of anti-competitive effect. Finally, the plaintiffs here will be hard-pressed to show the actual injuries they claim given their significant sign-on bonuses, collateral benefits, and the guaranteed prize money in their new league. Unlawful Restraint of Trade and Unlawful Agreement to Restraint Trade Under these counts, the complaint alleges that the PGA Tour and DP World Tour (formerly European Tour) have unlawfully reached agreements with the purpose of eliminating competition by way of a group boycott of the plaintiff’s services. The complaint makes an interesting revelation that Saudi Golf representatives met with European Tour officials about a potential partnership in July 2021. At this meeting, European Tour officials allegedly expressed interest and acknowledged LIV’s appeal but stated that their main concerns were the PGA Tour’s “mighty power” and the need to avoid a “collision course” between the two tours. These statements, the complaint alleges, prove that the PGA Tour’s influence prevented the European Tour-LIV partnership from ever taking shape and instead led to an unlawful strategic alliance between the European Tour and the PGA Tour. However, reports of a strategic alliance between the two tours stretch as far back as November 2020, more than eight months before this alleged meeting. In turn, it is far more likely that the European Tour made a business decision to maintain its existing partnership with an established and respected organization rather than sever ties in favor of an unproven, upstart venture. These counts repeatedly refer to a memo written by PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, which outlined the strategic alliance plans, as a “Monopoly Manifesto,” and claims that after the agreement was reached, the two tours enforced their regulations in a manner that had not been previously seen. The regulations the complaint refers to are conflicting-event releases, which have previously been granted to golfers seeking to compete in non-Tour affiliated tournaments. The complaint alleges that the two tours departed from their “longstanding practice” of granting such releases when they denied all requests from golfers to play in the LIV series. However, Jay Monahan has repeatedly distinguished the historical practice of granting such releases with the requests made by those seeking to play in LIV. In short, the Tour has freely permitted its members to play in one-off events that happen to conflict with a PGA Tour-sanctioned tournament. These one-off events pale in comparison, however, to an eight-event series where many of the events directly conflict with its existing tournament schedule. The complaint further alleges that the PGA Tour has “leaned on” the Major governing bodies, including the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Augusta National, and the PGA of America, to “do its bidding” by maximizing the threat to defectors that they may be excluded from playing in Major tournaments. These allegations are inconsistent with the fact that each of these governing bodies have permitted LIV players to play in their respective Major tournaments despite the PGA Tour’s imposition of suspensions. Additionally, the complaint does not appear to reference any specific instances of conduct by the PGA Tour with respect to these governing bodies and simply makes blanket statements alleging threats and coercion. It remains to be seen whether the governing bodies will change their criteria for tournament entry moving forward. Miscellaneous Notes Mickelson Suspension. One notable takeaway from the complaint is that Phil Mickelson was suspended by the PGA Tour in March for attempting to recruit players to LIV. His request for reinstatement was then denied in June after he played in the first LIV event in London, and his suspension was extended again into March 2024 after he played in the second LIV event. After Mickelson’s controversial comments early this year about joining LIV despite their “horrible record on human rights,” Mickelson suggested that he was voluntarily stepping away from the game of golf to focus on himself. The substance of this complaint, however, suggests that this decision may not have been entirely voluntary. DeChambeau Signing. According to reports, Bryson DeChambeau initially signed on with LIV on June 10, 2022. The signing came as a surprise to many since Bryson made a public statement that he was staying on the PGA Tour just a few months prior. However, according to the lawsuit, Bryson was actually under contract with LIV at the time he made this public statement. Bryson has never been very popular among PGA Tour members or fans. Although his talent is unquestionable, he has often been criticized for being a “phony” by PGA Tour members who claim that his public persona is inconsistent with who he actually is. Making public statements of loyalty to the PGA while under contract with a competing entity would seem to validate those criticisms. Jury Trial. In addition to a temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs are also seeking a jury trial to recover monetary damages. Such damages would amount to the loss of career opportunities, reputation harm, and loss of income-earning opportunities as a result of being unable to play in the FedEx Cup Playoffs As mentioned above, it seems like an uphill battle at best for many of these plaintiffs who are making more money than at any point in their careers to prove loss of income-earning potential. Timing of Filing. The plaintiffs, in this case, were notified of potential consequences of defection to LIV, including exclusion from the FedEx Cup Playoffs, as far back as early 2021. Additionally, the plaintiffs were actually suspended on June 9, nearly two months ago. Despite these warnings, three players (Talor Gooch, Matt Jones, and Hudson Swafford) are now seeking a temporary restraining order stressing the urgency of the matter and the threat of immediate harm since the Playoffs are set to begin on August 8th. This delay will likely be featured heavily in the Tour’s response, as reflected by Monahan’s letter to members after the filing stating that the lawsuit came this week “despite knowing they would be ineligible for tournament play as early as June, and of course, the years’ worth of communication in advance of their decision to join the Saudi Golf League.” Final Takeaways Although the complaint alleges dozens of anti-competitive practices, the PGA Tour has successfully defended against similar allegations in the past. In response to the onslaught of allegations, the Tour will assert that they are not restraining competition, but merely protecting their own business interests by telling golfers to pick a side. The golfers who have chosen the side of LIV golf will be hard-pressed to show any actual injury since they are flaunting their newfound riches all over social media. In my opinion, being unable to play in a couple of FedEx Playoff events with purses far less than each individual LIV event despite months of notice that they would be excluded from doing so does not rise to the level of irreparable harm the complaint posits. The source of LIV’s funding – the Saudi Public Investment Fund – is a double-edged sword. Although it provides LIV with seemingly endless amounts of money, it also presents a key vulnerability in their unlawful group boycott claims. Namely, sponsors and Major governing bodies have plenty of independent justifications for refusing to align themselves with the Saudi-backed league separate from any anti-competitive motivation. With the FedEx Cup Playoffs just around the corner, we can expect the PGA Tour’s response in the coming days. Expect the Tour to lean heavily on the fact that the plaintiffs agreed to be subject to the PGA Tour’s policies and conditions, that they are not restraining competition by telling the plaintiffs to choose a side, and that their actions are necessary to protect their own business model, and that the plaintiffs should not be rewarded by the delayed filing. For its part, the PGA Tour has assured members that they should be confident in the legal merits of its position. Ultimately, this case will take quite a while to resolve and will have massive consequences for both the PGA Tour and the game of golf. John Nucci is a recent graduate of Penn State Law where he served as President of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society. He can be found on Twitter at @JNucci23 or reached via email at JNucci57@gmail.com.