It is a bad month to be a PR representative within the motorsports industry. If the Alex Palou saga wasn’t bad enough, it seems Alpine F1 and Oscar Piastri have not learned from the conflict that occurred less than a month ago in IndyCar. As previously reported, Chip Ganassi Racing reported via social media that they had signed Alex Palou to a contract keeping him with the team through 2023. Palou quickly jumped on Twitter and refuted the allegations, stating that he did not sign a contract nor approve the media post and was instead leaving Ganassi for Arrows McLaren. This conflict has led to Chip Ganassi Racing suing Palou for breach of contract. This suit is currently ongoing. In almost the same fashion as seen within IndyCar, Alpine F1 has posted via social media that they have signed their developmental driver and Formula 2 champion Oscar Piastri to move up to F1 in 2023. Similar to Palou, Piastri released a tweet refuting the news stating, “I understand that without my agreement Alpine F1 have put out a press release late this afternoon that I am driving for them next year. This is wrong and I have not signed a contract with Alpine for 2023. I will not be driving for Alpine next year.” (Piastri) Similarly, in both cases, we are unsure what is truly occurring. Within the Palou case, the team has maintained that Palou is signed to be a driver at Chip Ganassi Racing in 2023, while Palou has stated that he has no obligations to Ganassi and will leave for McLaren at the end of the season. While we currently have less information in the Piastri case, it is clear that the logic runs parallel to what has been said in the IndyCar case. It is bizarre how this error could occur twice in such a short time span. The news comes as longtime Alpine driver Fernando Alonso announced that he was leaving the team to join Aston Martin F1 Team. Alpine were quick with their announcement making it less than 24 hours after Alonso’s. Oscar Piastri last drove for Prema Racing in Formula 2 as well as being a part of Alpine’s developmental program. While Piastri has not raced in F1, he holds an impressive resume, including winning the 2020 F3 Championship and the 2021 F2 championship. Given Piastri’s results in lower series, it is clear that several F1 teams would be interested in recruiting his talent. We will see in the coming days how Alpine F1 and Piastri will decide to handle this conflict. It is important to note that Alpine F1 is based in the United Kingdom, and its parent company Renault s.a.s., is based in France, while Piastri is a citizen of Australia. If a suit is filed, it will be interesting where it will be held. Jack Bradley is currently a Law school student at Duquesne Univesity School of Law and alum of Georgetown University (MPS) and Penn State University (BA). Jack is also the Co-founder and President of Poppy Packs a 501c3 charity and former Head of Marketing and Communications for Norm Benning Racing. Source Piastri, Oscar Twitter. Aug 2.2022. https://twitter.com/OscarPiastri/status/1554527452231262210

Phil Mickelson, Bryson Dechambeau, and nine other golfers competing in the Saudi Arabian-funded LIV Tour are suing the Professional Golfers Association (PGA). LIV claims the PGA is acting as a monopoly in the professional golf market. The LIV tour, LIV is the Roman numeral for the Arabic number 54, started play this year, and they are going head-to-head with the PGA to be the number one professional golfing league. As reported by CNN, Greg “The Shark” Norman is a leader for LIV, and he recruited Mickelson, Dechambeau, Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford, Matt Jones, and others to join LIV after these golfers competed in the PGA. As reported by CBS Sports and other networks, Norman and LIV even tried to recruit current NBA on TNT analyst Charles Barkley, but they were unsuccessful. LIV is seeking a temporary restraining order that would allow its golfers to compete in the PGA’s FedEx Cup Playoffs. However, PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan banned LIV golfers from joining or rejoining the PGA Tour. LIV responded by claiming that PGA is a monopoly under antitrust law. A monopoly is defined under the Sherman Act §2, 15 U.S.C. §2 states “[e]very person who monopolizes, attempts to monopolize, combines, or conspires with person(s) to monopolize trade or commerce with the United States, or foreign nations, commit a felony].” There are two elements for an entity to be classified as a monopoly. First, they must possess monopoly power in their relevant market, and the power’s willful acquisition or maintenance must be distinguished from growth or development as a superior product. Simply, there must be monopoly power, and the individual or entity must show they have anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct over those trying to enter the same market. In the golfing market, the PGA has not had serious competitors entering the male golfing market until LIV entered the market this year. The PGA has shown they have monopoly power because no other male professional golfing league could compete with the PGA. This year, they have shown anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct by banning LIV golfers from the PGA Tour or sharing in the revenues the PGA made from the tournaments they held, such as the Masters, the U.S. Open, the British Open, and so forth. The PGA banned LIV golfers from competing in next week’s FedEx Cup playoffs, and the LIV golfers argue this action by the PGA is exclusionary. This action by the PGA excludes LIV golfers because the PGA does not want other golfers from another professional league taking up spots when golfers from the PGA, in their mind, rightfully deserve those spots. The PGA has a negative view of Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia funds LIV. If the PGA Tour wants to avoid this lawsuit, in my opinion, they should allow these eleven golfers to compete in the FedEx Cup Playoffs. Mickelson and DeChambeau are two recognizable names and extraordinary golfers the two past generations recognize. Should they compete, the PGA would gain a larger profit and fan support. The PGA is, essentially, holding a monopoly over the male golfing world, and LIV, by suing and asking for a temporary restraining order, is trying to show to the sports world that the main pro leagues are monopolies in their respective sports. Take the NFL for example, the United States Football League recently concluded its season, and the Xtreme Football League will kick off in the next few years. Ever since the AFL and NFL merged back in 1970, no other football league has been able to compete with the NFL. The XFL’s second stint was the best and most efficient to do so until the COVID-19 pandemic shut it down back in February/March of 2019. Should LIV prevail in this lawsuit, and are granted their request for a temporary restraining order, they are setting a precedent for other leagues to challenge the “Big Four,” the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor’s in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

In February, shortly after former Dolphins head coach Brian Flores filed a lawsuit against the National Football League (NFL) and certain teams, including the Miami Dolphins, the NFL began investigating the Miami Dolphins over the claims made in Flores’s complaint. Today, the NFL announced its findings from the investigation, including a suspension for owner Stephen Ross. On January 10, 2022, after posting a winning record in two of his three seasons with the Dolphins, the Dolphins fired head coach Brian Flores citing a lack of collaboration. Specifically, Ross stated, “I don’t think we were really working well as an organization that it would take to really win consistently at the NFL level.” On February 1, 2022, Flores filed a class-action lawsuit against the NFL, the New York Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the Miami Dolphins. Since then, the plaintiffs have amended the complaint to add multiple coaches, including former Cardinals head coach Steve Wilks, and other teams. In the complaint, Flores alleged that the Dolphins racially discriminated against him by depicting Flores as an “angry black man” due to Flores’s refusal to follow the owner’s directive, which was to lose games to acquire higher draft picks. The allegations include owner Stephen Ross telling Flores that “he would pay him $100,000 for every loss.” Other allegations include Flores meeting with “a prominent quarterback” on a yacht for lunch with Ross, a violation of league tampering rules. After meeting with the quarterback and Ross, Ross painted Flores as difficult. In response to the allegations, the NFL launched an investigation led by former Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White. A veteran of football investigations, White also led investigations into the Washington Commanders and Dan Snyder. White’s investigation was limited to (1) whether the Dolphins violated NFL tampering rules and (2) whether the Dolphins intentionally lost games to improve the team’s draft position. As to tampering, White found that beginning in 2019, the Dolphins had “impermissible communications” with Tom Brady while Brady was under contract with the New England Patriots. Further, the Dolphins had impermissible contact with Brady after the 2021 season while Brady was under contract with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Lastly, in January 2022, the Dolphins had impermissible contact with New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton. “The investigators found tampering violations of unprecedented scope and severity,” said Commissioner Roger Goodell. As to intentionally losing, White found that the Dolphins did not intentionally lose games. On the other hand, “Mr. Ross expressed his belief that the Dolphins’ position in the upcoming 2020 draft should take priority over the team’s win-loss record.” However, any comments from Ross about paying Flores $100,000 to lose were not to be taken seriously. As a result of the findings, among other punishments, the Dolphins will forfeit a first-round selection in the 2023 draft (the Dolphins own two first-round picks) and a third-round selection in the 2024 draft. Additionally, Ross is suspended through October 17, 2022, and fined $1.5 million. What Does This Mean? At the very least, the findings support some of the allegations in the Flores lawsuit, which is still ongoing. Currently, the lawsuit is waiting on a ruling on the NFL’s motion to compel arbitration, which would prevent the public from hearing the lawsuit. In May, Nevada Judge Nancy L. Allf denied a similar motion in the NFL’s case against Jon Gruden. Thus, reading between the lines, the NFL could be releasing White’s findings because it anticipates a denial in Flores’s suit, which would keep the lawsuit in open court. Now, Flores has support for his allegations, and if the lawsuit remains in court, more could be on the way. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber

BY: JACKIE ADEDOKUN In the coming months the Great Britain will be stepping up their review of gambling in the country in an effort to reform their Gambling Act of 2005 (Gambling Act). This important piece of legislation governs all regulation of gambling in Great Britain. Just last week, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, appointed Chris Philip as the new Gambling Minister. Philip is expected to take a more stringent approach to the gambling legislation overhaul than his predecessors, having previously campaigned for stricter regulation on the subject before. One of the biggest changes to possibly come out of this reform will be the banning of gambling sponsors on sports jerseys. This could have huge ramifications for many sporting teams in the UK and none bigger than the Premier League and the Championship. Of the 20 teams currently apart of the English top flight nine have front shirt sponsorships with gambling companies that are worth $79.22 million (£57.64 million).[1] There are currently six clubs in the Championship with such sponsorships on the front of jerseys. The increased movement to clamp down on gambling’s influence in the sport comes after a greater need to address mental health concerns, decrease gambling addiction, and for prominent sporting leagues to set a better example for all viewers, but especially younger viewers. In the past, teams in both the Premier League and the Championship have decided to not sell children shirts with gambling sponsors on the front of the shirt. Many believe that this in of itself should tell clubs and others alike that gambling should not have a place in football. In addition to the aforementioned reasons to address gambling’s effect in the UK, the Gambling Act has largely been viewed as outdated. As its name suggest, it was created in 2005 but didn’t take affect until 2007. Its main aims were to keep gambling crime free and promote transparency. However, it has been ill prepared to address online gambling which has exploded in popularity in recent years. The ability to place bets wherever one is, has welcomed a level of comfortability that could not have been foreseen 16 years ago and this has only increased after the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous country-wide lockdowns. Transparency, or a lack thereof, has also become a major issue in recent years. Under the Gambling Act, gambling operators selling into the British market must have a gambling commission license to transact with and advertise to British consumers. Much to the annoyance of the British government and some British citizens, many foreign-based gambling companies have struck partnerships with UK based companies that hold gambling licenses and then they operate through them. British companies and licenses are at the forefront of some of these gambling operations, but the real owners are not British. In the end it is unclear who exactly is running the business and who bettors are giving their money to. So, what could a gambling ban mean for the likes of the Premier League and the Championship? Talks of a gambling reform in Britain have been ongoing for years, but even though it is now picking up steam, we probably will not see any real change take affect until the 2023 season. The 21-22 season has just begun and legislation on this matter will most likely go into 2022. Broadcasting rights revenue are massive in the Premier League and will soften the blow if gambling is ousted. Furthermore, different businesses other than gambling will always be looking to sponsor a team in the Premier League given the amount of exposure clubs in that league get. The Championship is a slightly trickier since many teams in this league do not make as much money as those in the Premier League. Additionally, the league’s title sponsor is a gambling company. The official name of the league is the SkyBet Championship. Gambling reform has not arrived yet, but many clubs and leagues are going to have to rethink the sponsorships they have in place. 1. https://www.yahoo.com/now/uk-ban-gambling-jersey-ads-040154565.html

We have new developments in the exhausting, ever-changing saga surrounding Kyrie Irving and his vaccination status. Fans shouldn’t start dusting off their Brooklyn #11 jerseys anytime soon. Irving reportedly still isn’t vaccinated, but his status for the 2021/2022 NBA season has become clearer. The Brooklyn Nets announced earlier this week that Irving will not be a part-time member of the team for the upcoming NBA season. In terms most of us can understand – Irving needs to show up 40 hours a week or not show up at all. To place this announcement into context, we have to backup and ask why the point guard was ever considered a part-time basketball player in the first place. I wrote weeks ago on New York City adopting a mandate which required members of the Brooklyn Nets to be vaccinated to play and practice in their home arena. At the time, there was hope this mandate would persuade Irving to become vaccinated and reclaim his status at point guard for the Brooklyn Nets. San Francisco also adopted a similar rule and their vaccination requirement, along with the potential of losing $15 million, was enough to push Golden State Warrior Andrew Wiggins to get the shot and rejoin his team. Unlike Wiggins, Irving still hasn’t been convinced. Every member of the New York Knicks and Brooklyn Nets has been vaccinated besides Irving. Irving’s thoughts and feelings around the vaccine remain unclear. Irving conducted an Instagram live session on Wednesday night where he attempted to get his side of the story out. He talked for over 20 minutes in which he stated he “was against people losing their jobs to vaccine mandates” and he was coming to this decision “from logic and not emotion.” If Irving is just buying time while he “conducts his own research”, please don’t tell ESPN NBA announcer Jeff Van Gundy. While a cloud of confusion lays over this entire story, one part remains obvious – Irving’s hesitancy has left the Brooklyn Nets caught between a rock and a hard place. The Brooklyn Nets have their sights set on an NBA title and Kyrie Irving playing basketball helps them get them there. Unless something changes, the only way Irving plays for the Nets this season is if he joins the team for road games and becomes a part-time player. This week, the Nets shot down that possibility. Kyrie Irving was set to make $35 million this year. The NBA, along with the Players Union, has already announced that any game a player misses because of his refusal to get vaccinated will cost them a game check. In Irving’s case, game checks amount to a hefty $381,181.22. Based on this announcement from the league, Irving will lose game checks for every home game he remains unvaccinated.[1] As a result of not receiving the shot, Irving is forfeiting nearly half his salary. So one question remains, what about the other half? The Nets announced that while they do not welcome Irving’s part-time presence in their organization, they will still pay him as if he were there. That means Irving will be paid half his salary (the half he would have received for playing road games) to sit at home and contemplate his views on modern science and freedom of choice. This decision is a signal that the Brooklyn Nets and their pro-vax owner Joe Tsai are walking on eggshells.[2] It wasn’t feasible from a basketball standpoint to only have Irving join his teammates on the court for road games. But they also don’t want to upset the superstar in hopes that he eventually joins the team and helps bring a championship to the borough. So, the solution the Nets came up with is to pay Irving his road game checks while the team foots the bill. In a league that revolves around its superstars, Brooklyn had no choice but to cater to Irving by paying half his salary. The Nets still have players on their current roster, Kevin Durant and James Harden, who remain close to Irving. Revoking his entire salary sends a dangerous message to other superstars around the league. But for curiosity’s sake, what would happen if the Nets completely turned their back on Irving and withheld his entire pay? We can break down Irving’s salary into two categories: · Home games – Irving is ineligible by N.Y.C. mandate so he will not be paid · Away games – Irving is eligible but the Nets have refused his services The NBA has not required their players/employees to be vaccinated after it received major pushback from the Players Union. Since then, the league has pushed pro-vaccine information and relied on local mandates to persuade players who remain on the vaccine-shaped fence. The NBA has nothing to do with local mandates being placed on players, and that’s why the league and the Players Union agreed that players who fail to comply with local requirements will not be paid for games missed. However, by law Irving can still play in road games and it was Brooklyn’s decision to turn him away. If the Nets decided to withhold his entire salary signaling an act of war with Irving, it would almost certainly be challenged by the Players Union. Whether you think it’s realistic to have a player only join the team while residing in hotel rooms or not ­– Irving would still be offering his services to the Nets who are refusing to acctept. Irving hasn’t officially been suspended by the league or his team for violation of contract. If his entire pay was withheld, the Players Union would undoubtedly file a grievance under Article XXXI of the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement. This battle would be turned over to a neutral third-party arbitrator who would sort out what the Nets owe their point guard. It’s a fascinating debate if it were to ever happen. Irving is offering his services but only at half the rate. The Brooklyn Nets have zero control over the New York City mandate and can argue that keeping a player onboard for only half the games isn’t sustainable. Therefore, under the Nets line of reasoning, by choosing to only play in half the games Irving is cratering his overall value to the franchise. All of this is just a hypothetical thought exercise, for now. Brooklyn Nets GM Sean Marks made it clear he won’t be ruffling any feathers and the team will pay Irving half his salary in addition to welcoming him back with open arms if/when he joins full-time.[3] However, in a league that often transforms into a reality television show designed for sports fans, nothing is off the table. We’ll just have to wait and see how this NBA season progresses, with or without Kyrie Irving. Matthew Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN. [1] Ben Rohrbach, Failure to get vaccinated could cost Nets star Kyrie Irving more than $381K per home game, Yahoo Sports, (last visited Oct. 13, 2021) https://sports.yahoo.com/failure-to-get-vaccinated-could-cost-nets-star-kyrie-irving-more-than-381000-per-home-game-144044969.html. [2] Brian Lewis, Nets owner Joe Tsai’s message to Kyrie Irving amid vaccine drama, NY Post (last visited Oct. 13, 2021) https://nypost.com/2021/09/30/nets-owner-joe-tsais-kyrie-irving-hope-amid-vaccine-drama/. [3] Tim Bontemps, Brooklyn Nets say Kyrie Irving won't play, practice until eligible under local COVID-19 vaccination mandate, ESPN (last visited Oct. 13, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32387481/brooklyn-nets-say-kyrie-irving-play-practice-eligible-local-covid-19-vaccination-mandate.

In 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided its seminal case dealing with college athletics, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, one thing became very clear: college football on television was a business. And in 2021, business is good. College football’s television ratings are off to a roaring start in 2021. Through the first six weeks of the season, 12 games have brought in at least five million viewers. Fox’s broadcast of Ohio State visiting Minnesota on Thursday, September 9 is the most-watched opening Thursday game on record. And so far this season, there’s only been one week – week 5 – that did not have at least one game that had more than five million viewers. And it was more of the same this past weekend (Week 6) -- CBS announced this week, for example, that its October 9th broadcast of Alabama vs. Texas A&M was the highest-rated television program that aired on any network during that day, averaging more than 8.3 million viewers, with more than 12 million viewers tuning in during the dramatic ending.[1] The thriller between Oklahoma and Texas at the Cotton Bowl resulted in an increase of 21% in ratings compared to the teams’ game last year. And, overall, Week 6 in college football featured three of the season’s top nine audiences (thanks also to a matchup of top #5 programs, Iowa and Penn State).[2] The biggest reason obviously behind the booming numbers is the return to normalcy for college football broadcasts – fans are back in the stands this year at full capacity, networks are no longer doing remote broadcasts like viewers saw during the pandemic-disrupted season of 2020, and teams are back to playing full 12-game regular season schedules with both non-conference and conference games slated. Another reason is that the premiere non-conference games in 2021 have been highly compelling, such as Oregon-Ohio State, Penn State-Auburn in a whiteout under the lights in Happy Valley, Wisconsin-Notre Dame at Soldier Field, and a top-5 clash between two powerhouse programs, Clemson and Georgia. And, undoubtedly, the constant uncertainty of games being either postponed or cancelled due to COVID turned some fans off from the product last year. This lack of normalcy clearly impacted last year’s ratings. The 2020 regular season, for example, had only 10 games that topped at least five million viewers, with the first 5-million-plus viewer game of the season happening in Week 6. Meanwhile, five games in Week 1 of the 2021 season easily reached that number (with more than 8 million viewers watching Florida State-Notre Dame and nearly 9 million viewers tuning in to see then #3 Clemson face off against then #5 Georgia in Charlotte).[3] The Clemson-Georgia game beat ABC’s most watched primetime regular season game last year by nearly 2.3 million viewers.[4] But it’s not just the figures from 2020 that 2021 is showing major differences from -- FOX’s overall viewers, for example, are up a whopping 30% from 2019, with the network averaging nearly 4 million viewers for its Saturday broadcasts.[5] And the Georgia-Clemson matchup was the highest-rated week one game since the 2017 college football season. This ratings increase has also been impacted by Nielsen’s decision to integrate viewing that takes places at bars, restaurants, and other public establishments into its ratings measurements (“OOH ratings”)[6]. Nielsen introduced OOH ratings in 2020, and they undoubtedly have led to an increase in the overall number of viewers. These booming ratings bode well for what has so far been a wildly fun and unpredictable college football season. Buckle up and get ready for more great football broadcasts for the next three months. John Rigby is an Associate Attorney at Venable LLP in Los Angeles. He is a graduate of the University of Iowa and the UCLA School of Law. He’s attended two UCLA games at the Rose Bowl this season – the rest he’s watched comfortably on TV. [1] https://247sports.com/Article/CBS-Sports-presentation-of-Alabama-Texas-AM-football-game-most-watched-TV-program-of-the-day-172963821/ [2] https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/10/alabama-texas-am-ratings-sec-cbs-oklahoma-texas-penn-state-iowa-viewership/ [3] https://apnews.com/article/college-football-sports-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-television-programs-8cc6fd80f01557b2dd3c98c2e97bfea3 [4] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/tv-ratings-saturday-sunday-sept-4-5-2021-1235009729/ [5] https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/10/alabama-texas-am-ratings-sec-cbs-oklahoma-texas-penn-state-iowa-viewership/ [6] https://frontofficesports.com/in-win-for-networks-nielsen-begins-incorporating-out-of-home-viewership/

When the news came in that Texas and Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, we knew a major trickle-down effect was on the horizon in terms of conference realignment. While initial rumors suggested that the Big 12’s future was in serious jeopardy, Bob Bowlsby was able to bring in BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF to help fill the void and keep the league alive. However, as I wrote earlier on the website, the Big 12’s misery was passed on to the AAC as Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF are among the conference’s best programs on an annual basis. Therefore, the power structure in the Group of 5 is currently up in the air. Before this latest round of realignment, the AAC was universally renowned as the best Group of 5 league in college athletics for the better part of the last decade. With the best teams and the most lucrative television contract of any non Power 5 league, it was clear that the MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, and Conference USA all looked up to the AAC. Now, with the recent success of athletic programs like Coastal Carolina, San Diego State, Appalachian State, and Louisiana (Just to name a few) in those other leagues, it’s fair to wonder if the AAC’s reign atop the Group of 5 is sustainable. With all of this context, an interesting development occurred this week on the conference realignment front. On Tuesday, Conference USA Commissioner, Judy MacLeod, sent a letter to the AAC requesting a dialogue on conference realignment and regionalization. While the letter didn’t lay out any explicit plans, the idea would be to discuss potential reorganization between the two leagues, such as creating one conference in the east and one in the west. As it sits, the C-USA and AAC have little geographic identity and have vast footprints. Both stretch from the Eastern Seaboard all the way to Texas, with overlapping members in many states. So what is the motive behind the proposed reorganization? Saving money. ADs and commissioners often talked, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic, about their desire to decrease travel expenses. However, the current geographic footprint of the AAC and C-USA doesn’t cater to reducing travel expenses at all. For instance, Temple and SMU, separated by 1,600 miles, are both in the AAC. In fact, the only school that SMU can “bus” to in conference is Tulsa. In the proposed reorganization, the AAC and C-USA reorganization would likely be made along East–West lines. An idea of the changes could look like this: CURRENTLY (Cincinnati, Houston, UCF as Big 12 Members) *Wichita State is a non football member of the AAC Potential Reorganization Proposal This reorganization would allow neighboring schools to compete in the same conferences, injecting more natural geographic rivalries and allowing schools to save on travel expenses at a difficult time financially. C-USA schools like FAU and FIU would be in the same conference as USF, currently in the AAC. East Carolina, in the AAC, would find itself in the same conference as Charlotte, currently in C-USA. The same goes for SMU, an AAC member, and C-USA schools North Texas, Rice, UTEP, and UTSA. Not only will it significantly reduce travel expenses, the geographic rivalries can spark more ticket revenue and sponsorships. Even though this proposal seems like a great idea, initial reports suggest that it won’t come to fruition. AAC commissioner Mike Aresco is still focused on creating the top Group of 5 league and a push for Power 6 status, and league sources say the conference has no interest in such a move. So the idea of dropping down and offering a lifeboat to the weaker C-USA is a non-starter in their eyes. While this proposal is prudent and financially responsible, it’s not a surprise that it’s looked down upon by the AAC. Self-preservation and self-interest rule the day in conference realignment. It always has, and it always will. The American has been rumored to be attempting to pry UAB and Charlotte from Conference USA in recent weeks. So even though Judy MacLeod’s proposal definitely has a little self-preservation element to it, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a rational idea for both leagues. But as we know, you can’t assume rationality when it comes to the business of college sports. I hope in the future, people in power in college athletics grow to understand that oftentimes, they are better off when they are together, not apart.

Since he burst onto the scene at 19 years old, Juan Soto has been one of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) best hitters. He is a rare example of a young prodigy panning out exactly the way his organization promised. The transfer of power from Washington’s former right field prodigy to Soto has been seamless and, in many ways, Soto has exceeded the success of his predecessor. Now, Soto will get to reap the rewards of his elite play as he enters his second year of arbitration eligibility. MLB arbitration is a process that was established in the 20th century that allows players to earn more money while giving teams more control over their players. After three years of “service time,” a player is eligible for arbitration for the next three seasons. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, they will both set figures on what they think the value of the player is. From there, they will argue their case in front of an independent arbitrator, who will decide which figure is more appropriate. The MLB’S Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) sets forth criteria for the purposes of salary arbitration argumentation. The following are the five most common considerations: Player’s performance in their platform year (PY), the year immediately preceding the arbitration year. Their performance in the two years before the platform year (PY-1 and PY-2). How players of similar performance have performed and been compensated. Player marketability. Team success. Soto’s production can be best compared to three notable players who have settled in arbitration in the last 4 years: Cody Bellinger, $11.5 million (2020) Carlos Correa, $11.7 million (2021) Mookie Betts, $10.5 million (2018) Statistical Comparison Juan Soto’s most favorable set of statistics comes from Statcast, which includes measures like exit velocity, barrel percentage, and hard-hit rate. Unfortunately, the CBA doesn’t allow Statcast in arbitration. However, Juan Soto isn’t limited to one set of statistics to break the limits of arbitration in 2022. Let’s take a look at the platform years of these athletes. We will use the traditional stat line and power numbers (Home Runs and OPS+). OPS+ measures the athlete’s On-Base Plus Slugging numbers against the league average, which is 100 OPS+*. Carlos Correa’s platform year was played in a pandemic, so I have extrapolated his home run total to match Juan Soto’s 151-game total in 2021: Juan Soto: .313/.465/.534, 29 HR and 175 OPS+ Cody Bellinger: .305/.406/.629, 47 HR and 167 OPS+ Carlos Correa: .264/.326/.383, 13 HR (extrapolated) and 93 OPS+ Mookie Betts: .264/.344/.459, 24 HR and 108 OPS+ Soto begins to solidify himself at the top of this list. Statistically, he exceeds the performances of Correa and Betts, falling closer in line with Bellinger’s 2019 MVP season. PY-1, Awards, and Postseason Success Each of these players had a “separator” entering their arbitration proceedings. This separator pushed them above that year’s field and earned them a substantial amount of money. As we can see, Mookie Betts’s platform year doesn’t necessarily line up with his compensation. However, the year preceding, his PY-1, was the first inkling of proof that Boston had something special. Let’s compare the PY-1 of Betts and Soto, which is extrapolated to the 158 games Mookie Betts played in: Soto (2020): .351/.490/.695, 43 HR (extrapolated) and 217 OPS+ Betts (2016): .318/.363/.534, 31 HR and 133 OPS+ Cody Bellinger’s separator was his personal accolades. Let’s look at some key awards that both Soto and Bellinger earned entering arbitration: Soto: NL Rookie of the Year (2nd, 2018); 2 Top-10 MVP finishes; 1 Silver Slugger (2020); All-Star Appearance (2021) Bellinger: NL Rookie of the Year (1st, 2017); MVP Award (2019); 1 Silver Slugger (2019); 2 All-Star Appearances (2017 & 2019) Taking a quick glance at everything, Juan Soto doesn’t necessarily perfectly match the separators of Bellinger and Correa. But he has come close enough to prove that no matter how you cut it, Juan Soto is special. He sufficiently checks every box, from Platform Year performance to career accolades and postseason success. One may ask, however, what is Juan Soto’s separator? Soto is the face of baseball. From being on video game covers to perennial MVP candidacies, Soto gives Washington more attention than it deserves. Plus, he’s only 22 years old, two years younger than any of the other athletes discussed entering their second year of arbitration. With Washington trading away almost its entire roster, the Nationals have made it clear that the 2021 NL MVP contender is not a guy they want to get rid of1. Nothing is more valuable than a young superstar to build an entire organization around. Soto’s Outlook Let’s say Juan Soto miraculously make it to arbitration. How much would he earn? What amount should his side of the “vs.” file for? The winner-take-all process requires a meticulous balance to be struck in the process of determining the amount to submit. Go too low and win, you may be underpaid. Go too high and lose, you may be criminally underpaid. It’s not crazy to think that he could file anywhere in the range of $13 million to $15 million and have a winning case. If his salary settled in that range, it would set an arbitration record. Juan Soto’s skillset is special. His compensation will reflect that. The bottom line: front offices don’t allow their franchise players to make it to arbitration. It is far too unpredictable and has the propensity to damage the fragile relationship between a player and the front office. Soto won’t make it to arbitration, but sometimes it’s fun to imagine how the market would react if he did.. Regardless, the Nationals would rather lock down their franchise cornerstone for as long as they can. With Soto becoming Spotrac’s first ever “$500 million man,” he is destined to sign a major deal this offseason2. Britton Yoder is a 1L at Penn State – Dickinson Law. He can be found on Twitter @yoyoyoder04. * All statistics and awards were taken from baseball-reference.com 1. https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/mlb/nl-al-mvp-odds/ 2.https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/nationals/juan-soto-now-projected-earn-more-500-million-next-contract

Major League Baseball (MLB) will now require teams to provide housing for minor league baseball players starting in 2022.[1] With that backdrop in mind, it’s time to reevaluate whether the “Save America’s Pastime Act” (SAPA) actually saves professional baseball or really obstructs major avenues of it.[2] SAPA, a federal law passed by Congress, must be read in conjunction with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which “establishes [federal] minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private [and public] sector[s].”[3] The FLSA specifies exemptions for employees of certain establishments and in certain occupations. Minor League Baseball (MiLB)[4]—and specifically the baseball players within MiLB—are subject to the FLSA’s “Seasonal Exemption.” The Seasonal Exemption specifies that any employee “employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment” is exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime provisions “if [] it does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year . . .”[5] Because a minor league baseball season does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year (the season takes place primarily between April and August), MLB deems MiLB players “seasonal workers” who are generally exempt from minimum wage requirement and overtime lawsuits brought by players. This result has sparked fierce debate.[6] Courts have historically sided with both MLB and the players in deciding baseball-related wage issues. In Jeffrey v. Sarasota White Sox, for example, the court sided with MLB. The plaintiff, a groundskeeper for the defendant Sarasota White Sox Inc. (a MiLB team), claimed that he was entitled to recover payment of time and a half for hours that he worked in excess of forty hours per week under the FLSA’s Seasonal Exemption.[7] The Eleventh Circuit found that the Sarasota White Sox Inc. was entitled to the Seasonal Exemption because it was an amusement or recreational establishment that operated for less than seven months out of the year.[8] In Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, however, the Sixth Circuit sided with the players.[9] There, the Sixth Circuit found that the Cincinnati Reds organization was not entitled to the Seasonal Exemption because it did not qualify as a seasonal entertainment establishment under the FLSA (i.e., the organization operated for more than seven months out of the year).[10] In analyzing the organization’s entire operations, the court reasoned that, although the Cincinnati Reds received income during the off-season, almost all of it was tied directly to the playing of baseball games during the season.[11] Again, in a class-action lawsuit captioned Senne v. Kansas City Royals, forty-five minor league baseball players challenged the Season Exemption.[12] After the players navigated various procedural hurdles (including complicated choice-of-law and forum-related questions), the players filed a Second Amended Complaint, generally alleging that the players should qualify as protected employees and no longer be subject to the Season Exemption.[13] In October 2015, the court preliminarily certified the collective action—of which over 2,200 players opted in—but MLB successfully moved to decertify the players’ collective action.[14] Subsequently, the players moved for reconsideration after addressing the district court’s concerns, and the district court re-certified the FLSA collective action.[15] Against this backdrop, MLB aggressively lobbied to diminish Senne’s scope, which ultimately culminated in the enactment of SAPA.[16] Congress passed SAPA to exempt minor league baseball players from the protections of the FLSA. Read in conjunction with the FLSA, SAPA thus fortifies the Seasonal Exemption by capping the federal compensation of minor league professional baseball players and preventing all professional players from qualifying for overtime pay. Most minor league baseball players make less than $15,000 per year, work multiple jobs, and don’t receive a livable annual salary.[17] Even more, MiLB players are not compensated during spring training—a mandated work requirement. In effect, even though many professional players work more than forty-hours per week, SAPA disrupts the efficacy of bringing suit and reinforces the idea that players should be precluded from the benefits received by non-exempt employees under the FLSA. Inconspicuously placed on page 1,967 of a 2,232-page omnibus spending bill, SAPA seems to actually obstruct major avenues of professional baseball, rather than save it.[18] Although the housing mandate was a win for the players, it was simply one major step in the right direction. Until SAPA is revised or replaced, it will continue to accelerate the denigration of minor league baseball and threaten the stability of MiLB. Michael Fasciale is a third-year law student at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey. He serves as the President of the Seton Hall Entertainment & Sports Law Society, and as an Articles Editor on the Seton Hall Law Review. He can be reached on LinkedIn @Michael-Fasciale or on Twitter @MFasciale_. [1] See Jeff Passan, (@JeffPassan), Twitter (Oct. 17, 2021, 6:26 PM), https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1449864524945936397. [2] See John Brucker, [Screw America’s Pastime Act: The Mirage of SAPA & Minor League Baseball Wages], 51 Seton Hall L. Rev. 517 (2020) (providing a comprehensive analysis of this argument). [3] Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. Dept. Of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa. [4] How The Minor Leagues Work, MiLB.Tv (Apr. 20, 2016), https://www.milb.com/news/gcs-173407668 (defining MiLB as “teams made up of players under the control of a major league system”). [5] The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(3)(A) (2018). [6] See Brucker, supra note 1, at 522–33 (arguing that the exemption is “almost offensively inconsistent with the modern realities of the sport’s main attraction [i.e., the players,]” and contending that such immunity “contradicts the original legislative intent of the law.”). [7] Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, 64 F.3d 590, 596–97 (11th Cir. 1995). [8] Jeffrey, 64 F.3d at 597. [9] Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 832 (6th Cir. 1998). [10] Bridewell, 155 F.3d at 829. [11] Id. at 830. [12] Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d 906, 908 (N.D. Cal. 2015). [13] Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 2019). [14] Senne, 934 F.3d at 925. [15] Id. [16] Save America’s Pastime Act, H.R. Con. Res. 5580, 114th Cong. (2018). [17] Jeff Passan, Major League Baseball to Require Teams to Provide Housing for Minor League Players Starting in 2022, ESPN (Oct. 17, 2021), https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32412532/boston-red-sox-hit-2-grand-slams-first-2-innings-alcs-game-2-first-team-do-postseason. [18] Note that, even though SAPA appears to shield MLB from federal wage law disputes, it does not preempt state-law based claims.

Major League Baseball’s postseason is in full swing as Houston/Boston and Los Angeles/Atlanta battle for the AL and NL Pennants, respectively. Despite my disappointment over last week’s nonsensical check swing call by Gabe Morales, I’ve been trying to make the most of these games because it will be some time before we see baseball again, and it could be even longer than usual before we get regular season baseball back. This week, I appeared on the Simply Amazin’ Podcast with Tim Ryder, where we talked about the parameters surrounding the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) discussions. For those that are not aware, the current CBA will expire on December 1 of this year. Under federal labor regulations, both sides must make the other aware of their intention to seek a change in labor terms more than 60 days before the expiration of the existing agreement and must inform a mediation service within 30 days of giving notice[1]. Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) both filed such notices with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at the end of August. In 1994, Major League Baseball suffered a months-long work stoppage that only ceased when then-NY Federal District Judge Sonia Sotomayor ended the 232 day lockout by reinstating the previous labor agreement and order baseball to start its season with its regular players and not replacements while the negotiations proceeded[2]. It took some time for the game to recover, and that is my current fear for the game. For the first time in a while, Major League Baseball has done an effective job at marketing its young stars. Shohei Ohtani, Fernando Tatis, and Juan Soto are superstars that have now joined other marketable stars like Bryce Harper at the top of the game. Now may be the worst time ever for baseball to avoid playing its next season on time. With that said, this negotiation will come down to money, not fan concerns, so let’s look at what the two sides will battle over. Key Battles In 1994, MLB owners were hoping to implement a salary cap to create cost certainty. Today’s goals are not dissimilar. It’s not that the owners are openly campaigning for a salary cap akin to that found in the NFL or NBA, but instead for the new CBA to clarify service time and arbitration costs. This is the primary battleground for negotiations. Currently, MLB has a luxury tax that acts as a soft cap on team spending. The “Competitive Balance Tax” is currently set at $210M for the 2021 season and penalizes teams that go over that threshold by adding a “tax” to each dollar over that threshold. In the first year of exceeding the threshold, the team must pay 20% tax on the excess, 30% in the second year, and 50% in the third year[3]. Generally, teams try to stay below this tax threshold or reset their tax status after a year or two above the threshold. Some teams, however, don’t even exceed $100M in salary. MLB’s recent proposal during their first face-to-face meeting with MLBPA seeks to address both issues. First, MLB proposed creating a salary floor, which would require teams to spend at least $100M. However, the proposal also calls for a new, lower luxury tax threshold of $180M with a new 25% tax on excess spending[4]. The taxes collected would be shared with certain low-budget teams to help those teams reach the $100M threshold. Despite a salary floor being a win for the players, a lower salary threshold may have a chilling effect upon player salaries, which is obviously a primary concern for the players. MLB teams used to control a player’s rights forever. However, these days they are limited to 6 years of service time, as agreed upon by the MLBPA and the owners. MLB’s new proposal suggests a universal free agency age of 29.5 years. The result would be young stars like Juan Soto and Vladimir Guerrero, Jr. being controlled by their clubs for 10 years before they could reach free agency due to their early debuts. Under the current system, players are eligible for arbitration after 2 or 3 years of service time. MLB has proposed doing away with the arbitration system, which rewards players with higher pay for their good play. Instead, arbitration-eligible players would receive some portion (as determined by a new algorithm) of a $1B pool, which would be tied to league revenue in the future. The concept of tying a salary pool to league revenue is eerily similar to a salary cap, which will undoubtedly be a source of consternation for the players[5]. Final Thoughts At this moment, I have serious concerns over whether a deal will be reached between the owners and players ahead of the expiration of the current CBA on December 1st. There seems to be a lot of daylight between the MLB proposals and the players’ goals for the next generation of baseball. These proposals theoretically create methods for the owners to make more money by selling their teams because cost certainty leads to greater organizational value (see NBA, NFL), but may fall short in compensating the players for giving more freedom away. Any delay in reaching an agreement would have disastrous consequences for the game, beginning with pushing back the ability of teams to retool their rosters due to market uncertainty, and ending with a canceled World Series in the worst case scenario. Additionally, the MLBPA’s lawsuit against the owners, focused on Commissioner Manfred’s decision to unilaterally implement a 60 game season in 2020[6], hangs over these negotiations. My fingers are crossed for a fair and timely deal, but I won’t hold my breath. Keep it tuned to Conduct Detrimental for more on this issue as it develops! Tarun Sharma is a current 3L at the University of Minnesota and former Baseball Operations Professional for the San Francisco Giants and Arizona Diamondbacks. He is an occasional co-host on the Conduct Detrimental podcast and handles some social media and legal research for the Conduct Detrimental Group, as well. You can find his thoughts in the weekly Big Boom(!) Sports Law Newsletter by Conduct Detrimental or on twitter @tksharmalaw. Sign up at conductdetrimental.com to get the week’s biggest sports law news in your inbox! [1] “MLB, Players' Union File Labor Notices as Expiration of CBA Nears.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 23 Sept. 2021, https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32263799/mlb-players-union-file-labor-notice-expiration-cba-nears. [2] Fleisher, Larry. “Remembering the Time Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Saved Baseball from Using Replacement Players.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 Apr. 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryfleisher/2020/04/03/remembering-the-time-supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-saved-baseball-from-using-replacement-players/?sh=752577674271. [3] Pistone, Andrew. "MLB Luxury Tax Explained: How It Works and Why It Exists." Franchise Sports. 15 July 2021. Web. 18 Oct. 2021. [4] Anderson, R.J. "MLB Proposes $100 Million Salary Minimum and $180 Million Luxury Tax in Latest CBA Negotiations, per Report." CBSSports.com. 19 Aug. 2021. Web. 18 Oct. 2021. [5] Axisa, Mike. "MLB Proposes New Service Time Rules in Latest CBA Negotiations, per Report." CBSSports.com. 02 Sept. 2021. Web. 18 Oct. 2021. [6] Axisa, Mike. "MLBPA Seeks $500 Million in Damages in Grievance against MLB over Shortened 2020 Season, per Report." CBSSports.com. 13 May 2021. Web. 18 Oct. 2021.

We’ve all seen it happen. A “no-touchdown” call gets reversed after the video footage showed the football barely crossing the invisible plane that separates the first yard line from the endzone. A safe-at-first call gets overturned after the high-definition camera captured the opposing runner’s cleat barely beating the baseball to first base. A “good-goal” call gets reversed after the film revealed the left-winger interfering with the goaltender before the puck entered the net. And a common foul gets elevated to a flagrant foul after the tape showed the center engaging in excessive contact against the opposing team’s point-guard. Many sports fans, if not most, want the same thing—the call ultimately made to be the one most likely to be correct. The specific standard of review employed for re-watching the video footage, therefore, has far-reaching ramifications. To promote justice throughout professional sports, the National Football League (NFL),[1] National Hockey League (NHL),[2] National Basketball Association (NBA),[3] and Major League Baseball (MLB)[4]—the four major professional sports leagues in the United States (i.e., the Big Four Leagues)—should employ a de novo standard of review for instant replay review. A de novo standard of review requires an appellate court to review a matter anew, as if no court had heard or decided on the matter before. The Big Four Leagues should use a de novo review for instant replay challenges because instant replay officials have access to superior information as compared to on-field referees (e.g., slow-motion replay, multiple camera angles, and the ability to re-watch a play numerous times). Accordingly, under a de novo standard, the instant replay officials (i.e., the “appellate court”) will not give deference to the on-field referees’ conclusions (i.e., the “lower court”) and will decide what the most likely call is only by consulting the video footage. Implementing such a standard will (1) promote accuracy and justice in sports; (2) benefit the league, the players, the referees, and the fans; and (3) ensure that the ultimate call was the one most likely to be correct. Some argue that using heightened replay review standards “maintain . . . the human element of sports” and “discourage coaches from frequently and frivolously challenging calls.”[5] Under the NFL’s clear and obvious visual standard, for example, a “pass interference ruling . . . will be changed in replay only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence that the on-field ruling was incorrect.”[6] The MLB’s clear and convincing evidence standard requires instant replay officials to decide “whether to change the call on the field, confirm the call on the field[,] or let [the stand] call on the field due to the lack of clear and convincing evidence.”[7] NHL instant replay refs can overturn on-ice calls if there is a “clear view . . . of the opposite or different circumstances.”[8] And for a call to be overturned in the NBA, “there [must be] ‘clear and conclusive’ visual evidence for doing so.”[9] But using heightened replay review standards for instant replay review in professional sports is unreasonable because it subverts accuracy, creates controversy, and invites imperfection throughout the game.[10] For example, on April 11, 2021, the Philadelphia Phillies played the Atlanta Braves on ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball. In the top of the ninth inning, while the score was 6-6, infielder Alec Bohm attempted to score off of a pop fly to left field. The home-plate umpire, in real-time, called Bohm safe after he appeared to slide under the catcher’s tag. Bohm’s spike, in fact, missed the home-plate. The Braves challenged the call. Using the MLB’s current standard, the instant replay officials let the on-field call stand due to the lack of clear and convincing evidence that Bohn missed the home-plate.[11] The Phillies, with the help of the blown call, ended up winning the game 7-6. In using a de novo standard of review for instant replay review, the on-field call in the Phillies-Braves game would likely have been reversed because the replay review umpires would not have given deference to the on-field umpires’ conclusions. That is, the replay review umpires should have decided whether Bohm was safe only by re-watching the play in slow-motion and analyzing it through multiple camera angles; the home-plate umpire’s “safe” call should have been immaterial. If the MLB studied this play through a de novo lens, this call likely would have been overturned. Doing so would have promoted accuracy and justice by ensuring that the ultimate call made was the one most likely to be correct. Michael Fasciale is a third-year law student at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey. He serves as the President of the Seton Hall Entertainment & Sports Law Society, and as an Articles Editor on the Seton Hall Law Review. He can be reached on LinkedIn @Michael-Fasciale or on Twitter @MFasciale_. [1] The NFL first implemented its replay review system in 1986. See Ty Schalter, Has the NFL’s Instant Replay Run Its Course?, FiveThirtyEight (Jan. 30, 2020), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has-the-nfls-instant-replay-run-its-course/#:~:text=When%20the%20league%20first%20implemented,replays%20led%20to%20a%20reversal. [2] The NHL first implemented its replay review system in 1991. See Dana Fjermestad, The Historian: Replaying History, NHL (Oct. 28, 2010), https://www.nhl.com/islanders/news/the-historian-replaying-history/c-541889. [3] The NBA first implemented its replay review system in 2001. See Scott Allen, Upon Further Reiew: A Brief History of Instant Replay, Mental Floss (Oct. 13, 2010), https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26075/upon-further-review-brief-history-instant-replay. [4] The MLB first implemented its replay review system in 2008. See id. [5] Steve P. Calandrillo and Joseph Davison, Standards of Review in Law and Sports: How Instant Replay’s Asymmetric Burdens Subvert Accuracy and Justice, 8 Harv. J. Sports & Ent. L. 1, 25, 36 (2017). [6]Competition Committee Finalizes Replay Rule for 2019 Season, NFL Football Operations (Jun. 20, 2019), https://operations.nfl.com/updates/football-ops/competition-committee-finalizes-replay-rule-for-2019-season/ (emphasis added). [7]Replay Review, MLB, available at https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/replay-review (emphasis added). [8] Helene Elliot, Upon Further Review NHL’s Replay System is Good, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 19, 2011), https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-xpm-2011-dec-19-la-sp-elliott-nhl-20111220-story.html (emphasis added). [9]Referees in NBA Replay Center to Determine Certain Replay Outcomes for 2015-2016 Season (Sep. 30, 2015), https://official.nba.com/nba-replay-center-2015-16-season-changes/ (emphasis added). [10] See id., (arguing that sports should borrow standards of review from the world of law). [11] See Jomboy Media, MLB Gets Replay Review Wrong in Phillies vs Braves Game, A Breakdown, YouTube (Apr. 12, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ellSNbZ-4 (for a detailed video breakdown of the play).

Since August 2021, the NHL and greater hockey community have been following allegations surrounding Evander Kane. Kane’s ex-wife, Anna, accused him of gambling on and throwing his own games to win money with bookies. After an investigation, the NHL stated that they uncovered no evidence to confirm Anna’s 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. After Kane was cleared of the gambling allegations the league began investigating two new allegations against him. The first concerned claims that Kane violated the NHL COVID protocols. The second claim was that Anna alleged sexual assault and multiple instances of domestic violence in a divorce court filing. Following both allegations Kane and the San Jose Sharks agreed that he would not be participating in Sharks 2021 Training Camp. The NHL has wrapped up their investigation concerning the COVID protocol violation and the abuse allegations from Anna. The NHL has announced that Kane has been suspended 21 games for violating the NHL COVID Protocols.[1] During training camp, Kane was being investigated for using a fake vaccination card, however the NHL did not specify if he submitted a fake card. Kane will be eligible to play for the Sharks on November 30th against the New Jersey Devils. In a statement Kane said “I would like to apologize to my teammates, the San Jose Sharks organization, and all Sharks fans for violating the NHL COVID protocols. I made a mistake; one I sincerely regret and take responsibility for. During my suspension, I will continue to participate in counseling to help me make better decisions in the future. When my suspension is over, I plan to return to the ice with great effort, determination, and love for the game of hockey.”[2] The NHL COVID Protocols were adopted for the 2021-22 by the league and the NHLPA. The protocols do not specify fines and suspensions for players and teams who violate the protocols. However, the protocol says, “Established violations of, and/or lack of compliance with, the COVID-19 Protocol will result in significant Club and individual sanctions, including potential forfeiture of games, fines and reimbursements of expenses, loss of draft choices, and/or ineligibility for participation in training activities.”[3] Based on this, it is unclear how the league came up with a suspension of 21 games. Kane is the only player so far that has been reprimanded by the NHL for violating the COVID Protocols. Additionally, if Kane did submit a fake vaccination card the penalty may not seem too harsh because the NHL is recommending that players get vaccinated but is not mandating them. Section 1 of the protocol states “All individuals are strongly encouraged to become fully vaccinated (as defined below), ideally with an mRNA (Pfizer or Moderna) vaccine, where such option is available. Quite simply, vaccination is the most effective measure to protect against infection with COVID-19.”[4] However, submitting a fake vaccination card is illegal in Canada and the United States. Conversely, the NHL stated that the domestic abuse allegations by Anna could not be substantiated. It seems that the NHL has closed all matters relating to the abuse allegations. While the NHL has closed the door on the abuse allegations Anna can still press sexual assault charges against Kane. Prosecutors have the option to pursue charges even without Anna’s cooperation. California doesn’t have a statute of limitations for felony sex offenses which means Kane could be prosecuted any time in the future if there is sufficient evidence. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School’s Sports Law Society. She can be found on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Ellis, Steven. “Evander Kane given 21-Game Suspension for Violating NHL's Covid-19 Protocol.” The Hockey News on Sports Illustrated, 18 Oct. 2021, https://www.si.com/hockey/news/evander-kane-given-21-game-suspension-for-violating-nhls-covid-19-protocol. [2] Id. [3] https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2021-22/2021-22COVIDProtocol.pdf [4] Id.