First reported by Evan Drellich of The Athletic, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has responded to the letter from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, which questioned the impact of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption on Minor League Baseball. Commissioner Manfred’s response paints a different picture of the antitrust exemption’s impact than the response submitted by Harry Marino, Executive Director of Advocates for Minor Leaguers. Highlights Commissioner Manfred issued a 17-page response to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Thus, Commissioner Manfred covers multiple topics, including Major League Baseball attempting to add an international draft, which is currently off the table due to the league failing to reach an agreement with the Major League Baseball Players Associations (MLBPA). In Marino’s response to a similar letter from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Marino notes that the uniform player contract is a byproduct of the antitrust exemption. The uniform player contract limits a Minor League baseball player’s ability to negotiate better living conditions and better wages. In response, Commissioner Manfred recognizes that all professional sports have a uniform player contract, and the terms and conditions are the “product of collective bargaining with the Major League Baseball Players Association [“MLBPA”] and therefore qualify for the non-statutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws.” Moreover, Commissioner Manfred notes that Major League Baseball’s First-Year Player Draft is a product of collective bargaining with the MLBPA. “Thus, because many of the most significant terms and conditions of employment for Minor League players are the product of collective bargaining with the [MLBPA], removing the baseball exemption would not subject them to antitrust scrutiny because of the non-statutory labor exemption,” Commissioner Manfred wrote. Commissioner Manfred highlighted a number of benefits that the antitrust exemption allows Major League baseball to control, including housing, training standards, benefits, and meals. Another point Commissioner Manfred harped on is that by allowing Major League Baseball to require each team to have four Minor League affiliates, Minor League players actually benefit. If the government removed the antitrust exemption and teams were allowed to make their own decisions, teams may disaffiliate with minor league teams and move their development system to their spring training complexes in Florida or Arizona, which would limit opportunities for players and deprive Minor League baseball communities of their team. A final point that Commissioner Manfred considered important: due to the antitrust exemption, only one Major League Baseball team has relocated to another market in the last 50 years. Other professional leagues have had multiple teams relocate to other markets in the same time period. The antitrust exemption allows Major League Baseball to prevent fan bases from losing their teams. Overall, Commissioner Manfred pins many of the issues with Minor League baseball on collective bargaining between Major League Baseball and the MLBPA. Further, Commissioner Manfred flips the script and paints the antitrust exemption as a benefit to communities due to Major League Baseball controlling the amount of Minor League teams and the location of Major League teams. However, the story remains the same, Minor League baseball players are consistently underpaid, subject to lengthy contracts, and subject to suboptimal living conditions. Now, it is up to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee to change the narrative. 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

The 2021 Formula One (F1) season has been regarded by many as one of the most competitive and entertaining in recent memory; a high level of competitive racing supported by new tracks, new fans, and now a new F1 World Drivers’ Champion in Dutchman Max Verstappen. Despite all the hype (real and dramatized), the 2021 season ended in an "insane" and "chaotic" fashion last Sunday evening (local time) at the newly remodelled Yas Marina Circuit in Abu Dhabi. While the race and the season are now over, the lawyering may have just begun. This article analyses the protest against the race results (the Classification) established at the end of the 2021 F1 Season (the Competition) by the Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team (Mercedes) and the swift dismissal of the protest by the race Stewards (Stewards). The team has notified that it intends to appeal the Stewards’ dismissal. Though it has been reported at the time of writing (early on 14 December (AEDT)) that the Mercedes Team Principal and CEO, Toto Wolff, considered withdrawing said intention, this article also goes through the potential arguments and considerations that Mercedes and the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) may make in appeal proceedings. What Happened? (And What Didn’t) After a year of thrills and spills, the two best drivers all season long - seven-time World Drivers’ Champion Sir Lewis Hamilton (who will be officially knighted this week) of Mercedes and Red Bull Racing Honda’s (RBR) Verstappen - came into the finale sitting equal on points, though with Verstappen ahead in the important count of race wins. After what was becoming an inevitable win for Hamilton, both he and Verstappen ended up duking it out in a one-lap dash to the chequered flag in the final race of the season, the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix (the Race). While that may sound like a worthy ending to one of the best seasons of the premier international motor sport category, the actual final lap (lap 58 of the Race) resulted in a predictably lop-sided 'battle' where Verstappen in his fresh soft-tyred Red Bull Honda overtook Hamilton’s Mercedes with its 40 lap-old hard compound tyres, also taking the Race win and Verstappen’s first World Driver’s Championship. The chaos and confusion in the Race came before the final lap, starting with a crash at turn 14 by Williams Racing’s Nicholas Latifi on lap 53 after a brief tussle for 16th place with perennial back-marker and rookie F1 driver Mick Schumacher (son of seven-time F1 World Driver’s Champion, and legend of the sport, Michael Schumacher) of the Haas F1 Team. At the time, Hamilton had a 12 second lead over second-placed Verstappen and was seemingly cruising to the Race win and his record-breaking eighth F1 World Driver’s Championship. Latifi’s crash caused the neutralisation of the Race with the deployment of the safety car by the FIA Race Director, Michael Masi. Under safety car conditions, drivers slowed down to follow the safety car, with some diving into the pits for fresh tyres. Crucially, while Verstappen pitted for a set of the faster soft compound tyres, Hamilton was not instructed to pit, Mercedes radioing their greater concern for him to maintain track position, critical to ensure he was best placed on the restart or in the conclusion of the Race under safety car conditions. This left Hamilton at the front of the Race, but on hard compound tyres that were put on the car back on lap 14. When Verstappen re-joined the track, he lined up behind the safety car with five other cars - driven by Lando Norris, Fernando Alonso, Esteban Ocon, Charles Leclerc, and Sebastian Vettel (collectively, the Five Drivers) - now between him and Hamilton. The safety car remained on the circuit for the next four laps of the Race and the racing was neutralised as track marshals attended to the removal of Latifi’s car and related debris. During this time, team personnel from both Mercedes and RBR communicated with Masi and queried the application of the FIA’s 2021 Formula One Sporting Regulations (Sporting Regulations) in the situation. Understandably, both sides were advocating alternate applications of the Sporting Regulations with Masi. Masi initially informed the teams that the lapped cars driven by the Five Drivers would not be released to drive ahead of the safety car and rejoin that back of the pack. This virtually guaranteed Hamilton the Race win and the title of 2021 World Driver's Champion as Verstappen would have to attempt to navigate his way through the lapped traffic on one or perhaps two remaining laps to contend for the title. Confusingly for Mercedes, Hamilton, the drivers and teams of lapped cars behind Verstappen on track, and many fans watching along, on lap 57 - the penultimate lap- after a query from RBR Team Principal, Christian Horner, Masi announced his new decision that the cars driven by the Five Drivers between second and first place (but only these cars) would be released and that the safety car was returning to the pit lane on that lap. The new decision from Masi effectively engineered the lop-sided finish to the Race, or what Masi referred to as “a motor race” in his final broadcast radio communication with Wolff. Verstappen was in essence handed his first championship in F1 - and first in any major category of motor sport. All was not lost for Mercedes on the day, as they finished the Constructor's Title in first place and won that important championship (some regard it as more important than the driver's title as it linked to financial rewards for teams). Mercedes Protests As the RBR team and Verstappen were celebrating his win, Mercedes filed two protests. The first protest, detailed in a FIA Summons to RBR (Verstappen noted as the driver of Car 33) and Mercedes (Hamilton identified as the driver of Car 44) timestamped at 7.25pm and 7.30pm (local time) (respectively) set out a: “Protest by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team against Car 33, alleged breach of Article 48.8 of the 2021 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations” (the First Protest). The First Protest related to Mercedes’ claim that Verstappen 'overtook' Hamilton while the safety car was deployed and during lap 57. We see this to be the 'lower priority' and ‘weaker’ of the two protests. RBR argued against the claim that Verstappen had overtaken Hamilton under the safety car. The Race Stewards considered the First Protest to be admissible but dismissed it in a decision issued at 10.15pm (local time) on the basis that: “… although Car 33 did at one stage, for a very short period of time, move slightly in front of Car 44, at a time when both cars where accelerating and braking, it moved back behind Car 44 and it was not in front when the Safety Car period ended (i.e. at the line). The second protest, detailed in a FIA Summons to RBR (Car 33) and Mercedes (Car 44) timestamped 7.33pm and 7.34pm (local time) (respectively) set out a: “Protest by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team against the classification established at the end of the Competition, alleged breach of Article 48.12 of the 2021 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations” (the Second Protest). The Second Protest was in relation to Masi’s application of the procedure in the Sporting Regulations to allow lapped cars to be released while under safety car conditions and rejoin the cars lining up behind the safety car in order of position in the race and the return of the safety car to the pits. We see this as the stronger of the claims by Mercedes and is considered to be the main priority in the protests. The rest of this article now focuses on the Second Protest. Why Mercedes Filed the Second Protest Mercedes filed the Second Protest due to two alleged breaches of Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations. Article 48.12 is extracted below (emphasis added): "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car… Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap. If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for overtaking the message “OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED” will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system." It is clear that Article 48.12 provides the Race Director with significant discretion and the ability to exercise their judgment within the ‘field of play’ that is a safety car situation during a race. Again, at first, Masi, directed (per Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations) that all lapped drivers "will not be allowed to overtake". His subsequent reversal of his initial decision with respect to only the Five Drivers on lap 57 appears contrary to the references in Article 48.12 that: the message to allow overtaking must be sent to all drivers; and "any cars that have been lapped by the leader" have to unlap themselves. (Masi’s new decision left drivers of the three other lapped cars behind Verstappen on track rather confused as a result.) The issue of when the safety car is supposed to come into the pits was the second plank of the Second Protest. Per Article 48.12, the safety car can only return at the end of the lap after all lapped cars have passed the leader. Though not all lapped drivers had passed the leader (Hamilton), let’s assume for the sake of the argument that the Five Drivers’ passing Hamilton on lap 57 satisfied this requirement. Even then, a literal reading of Article 48.12 would require that the safety car come in at the end of lap 58, the final lap of the race. In effect, the race would have to end under a safety car, which is hardly befitting of the finale many may have anticipated to such an outstanding year of racing. Instead, the safety car came in at the end of lap 57 and racing resumed at the start of lap 58. Hamilton’s 12 second lead on lap 53 was now reduced to Verstappen starting the final lap directly behind him on fresh tyres. Verstappen was thus neatly placed on a path to victory in the race and effectively handed the F1 World Drivers’ Championship. In this regard, Mercedes argued that if the alleged breaches had not occurred, Hamilton would have won the race. They requested the Stewards to amend the Classification under Article 11.9.3.h of the FIA International Sporting Code (the Code) such that it reflect the field as at the end of lap 57. What the Stewards Decided The Stewards ruled against Mercedes’ Second Protest. Their decision was based on three points: 1. Article 15.3 of the Sporting Regulations provides Masi with (to quote the provision) "overriding authority" in "the use of the safety car"; 2. even if Masi acted contrary to Article 48.12, Article 48.13 requires the safety car, in any case, to come in at the end of the lap during which the message, "Safety Car in this lap", is displayed (here, lap 57); and 3. Mercedes’ desired remedy would comprise "effectively shortening the race retrospectively". Hence, the Stewards retained Masi’s decisions and, in essence, confirmed Verstappen as the 2021 World Drivers’ Champion. Note that this is would not have been the first time in Formula 1 that the Stewards ruled after a race, including in a manner which affected the final Classification: · After the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix, the Stewards disqualified Ayrton Senna from the race for rejoining the track illegally. Given the points standings, that decision ultimately handed the World Driver's Championship to his title rival, Alain Prost. · After the 1997 European Grand Prix at Jerez, Spain, the FIA stripped Michael Schumacher of all of his 78 championship points from the 1997 season after he collided with title-rival and eventual Champion, Jacques Villeneuve. · After the 2017 United States Grand Prix, Verstappen himself was given a five-second time penalty for an illegal overtake, which demoted the Dutchman to fourth. (A very good explainer of the role of the Stewards, and an overview of similar F1 disputes is provided by Autosport.) Mercedes’ Appeal Shortly after the Stewards handed down their decision, Mercedes notified them of their intent to appeal it to the International Court of Appeal (ICA), per Article 10.1.1.a d) of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules (the Rules), and Article 15.1.5 of the Code. Procedure Mercedes are required to notify the Stewards of their actual appeal within 96 hours of that notification, per Article 10.3.1 a) of the Rules. At 7.02am (AEDT) on Monday 13 December 2021, Mercedes posted on Twitter that: “We have lodged notice of intention to appeal the decision of the Stewards under Article 15 of the Sporting Code and Article 10 of the Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.” Article 10.6.4 of the Rules gives Mercedes (the Appellant) at least fifteen days to "submit… grounds for appeal", following which the FIA (the Respondent) will have fifteen days to file its response, subject to the decision of the President of the ultimate Hearing. Per Article 10.9.1, the Hearing will be an adversarial one (like a common law court proceeding). In arriving at its decision, the ICA will have "all the decision-making powers of the" Stewards, per Article 10.10.1. Note that the ICA is not bound by its previous decisions, per Alfa Romeo Racing(Decision) (Case No ICA-2019-06 and Case No ICA-2019-04, 3 October 2019) at para [33] (Alfa Romeo). The governing law of the ICA is set out in Article 14.4 of the Rules: "The applicable law is the regulatory texts of the FIA (Statutes, Regulations, other binding rules), as well as French law." So how may the chips fall before the ICA in any appeal proceedings? What May Mercedes Argue? Firstly, given the above analysis of why they filed the Second Protest, Mercedes have an arguable case that the provision was not complied with by Masi. The Stewards accepted this possibility by stating, "Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap". Secondly, Mercedes is also likely to argue that the Stewards’ invocation of Article 15.3 of the Sporting Regulations in their dismissal of the Second Protest is incorrect. From their perspective, the Stewards invoked the "overriding" discretion which the provision grants to the Race Director to justify Masi’s potential failure to apply Article 48.12 properly, as above. Mercedes’ counsel can highlight that while Article 15.3 affords the Race Director with powers, it does not allow a Race Director to override the Sporting Regulations. Instead, the provision merely provides the Race Director, in essence, a power of veto over the decisions of the clerk of the course (a person appointed by the FIA’s ASN, or the local national motorsport governing body) in relation to the matters which the provision lists, including "use of the safety car". We contend that Article 15.3 merely operates to make the locally appointed clerk of the course subordinate to the FIA’s Race Director in relation to the matters set out within. The provision does not expressly provide either official the power to disregard the Sporting Regulations. It also does not appear conceivable that the FIA drafted Article 15.3 with the intention to provide such a power by implication from the words of the provision. This is because Article 2.1 of the Sporting Regulations expressly binds all Formula 1 officials (emphasis added): "... to observe all the provisions as supplemented or amended of the International Sporting Code (the Code), the Formula One Technical Regulations (Technical Regulations), the Formula One Financial Regulations (Financial Regulations) and the present Sporting Regulations." The structure of the Sporting Regulations reinforces the importance of this obligation: Article 2.1 is the third provision of the Sporting Regulations. If a Race Director is required to comply with the Sporting Regulations, why would the FIA seek to legitimise what the Stewards themselves have acknowledged is the potentially incorrect application of the Sporting Regulations? That too after Masi himself commented after the 2020 Eifel Grand Prix that: ”There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past. From that point, it was position six onwards that were still running [on the lead lap], so between 10 or 11 cars had to unlap themselves. Therefore the Safety Car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally expected.” In his own words, Masi has stressed the obligation of the Race Director to observe Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations, in full. Thirdly, Mercedes may seek to undermine the Stewards’ belief that Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations overrides Masi’s potential failure to apply Article 48.12 fully and correctly. The first paragraph of Article 48.13 reads as follows (emphasis added): "When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system and the car's orange lights will be extinguished. This will be the signal to the Competitors and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap." Since the stated message was sent to all drivers in Lap 57 (putting to one side again the fact that not all lapped drivers were allowed to pass Hamilton), Article 48.13 requires the safety car to come in at the end of Lap 57, which it did. This was a result contrary to what a literal application of Article 48.12 would require — that the safety car come in at the end of Lap 58, as above. Article 48.13 does not expressly empower the Race Director to rule on the withdrawal of the safety car in violation of Article 48.12. It is unclear how such a power can be implied, given the arguable intent of the FIA in drafting the Sporting Regulations, which is evidenced by Article 2.1, as above. Mercedes can run an argument similar to that which can be deployed concerning the Article 15.3 issue: that Article 48.13 cannot authorise the breach of Article 48.12. Hence, Mercedes’ arguments are likely to revolve around the principles of legality and predictability. The ICA defined the principle of legality in Pekaracing (Decision) (International Court of Appeal, Case No 24/2009, 3 December 2009) at para [16] (Pekaracing) as follows (emphasis added): "In all cases the Court retains its supervisory function of ensuring that the rule of law is respected and that when drive through penalties are applied, they are applied only as authorised in the ISC and any Supplementary Regulations. Any other conclusion would imply that Court could exercise no legal control even where a drive through penalty had been imposed in circumstances far outside the [Code]." While that case was in relation to the Stewards’ imposition of a drive through penalty under the Sporting Regulations (and, in the present facts, Hamilton was not penalised), the ICA can be argued to possess a plenary jurisdiction to protect the rule of law and ensure that the Stewards act within the bounds of the Sporting Regulations. Mercedes can stress that the ICA needs to ensure that the F1 Championship is conducted strictly according to the prescribed rules — that the rule of law be preserved. The team can press that the Stewards’ application of Articles 15.3, and 48.12-48.13 to dismiss the Second Protest was ultra vires, unlike the decisions of the Stewards in Alfa Romeo that had a "sound legal basis" (at paragraph [40]). The principle of predictability concerns that of decision making by the Stewards. While the appellant in Alfa Romeo (at paragraph [41]) argued the principle to, in part, bar the sanctioning of drivers on an inconsistent basis, the principle arguably extends to how the Stewards adjudicate on the Race Director’s actions in relation to a safety car, given the potential for drivers to be penalised for conduct under a safety car (see, eg, Article 48.8 of the Sporting Regulations). The need for predictability of the Stewards’ decision making in this context is critical especially when Articles 48.12-48.13 may contradict each other, as above. Teams and their drivers need certainty as to how that potential contradiction will be resolved because of how tight the margins between drivers at the end of a safety car period become, as seen in the Race. Very few, if any, situations are closely analogous to what transpired at Yas Marina. A proper legal precedent is required as to how the Sporting Regulations will treat such a fact set. What May the FIA Consider? In addition to reiterating the above reasoning of the Stewards’ decision to dismiss the Second Protest, the FIA may argue that Masi’s application of Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations comprised ‘field of play’ decisions. To apply what the FIA argued in Alfa Romeo at paragraph [23], there would be "strong sporting reasons [to] justify that [Masi’s decisions] should not be subject to appeal". Separate to the ICA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) held in Horse Sport Ireland v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (Award) (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No 2015/A/4208, 15 July 2016) [2]-[3] (HSI) that the "principle of respecting field of play decisions… [is] a sport specific rule that guides much of sports competition at a fundamental level". Deviating from this doctrine may run contrary to the underpinnings of sports law itself. The FIA can perform a similar analysis to counter Mercedes’ arguments and attack the remedy it pursued in the Second Protest, namely that the Classification be retrospectively amended to reflect the field as at the end of lap 57. The FIA can stress that Mercedes is seeking to change the outcome of not just one race, but the 2021 World Drivers’ Championship, through litigation. This is contrary to the core idea of the ‘field of play’ doctrine that "match officials must be allowed to officiate a sporting event freely without any legal interference". The FIA can highlight what the CAS ruled in HSI (at paragraph [2]) to be "strong sporting-based principles" that justify match officials’ decisions being left undisturbed, including: "... the need for finality and… the need to avoid constant interruption of competitions, the opening of floodgates and the difficulties of rewriting records and results after the fact." The FIA can present the above doctrine of the CAS as persuasive for the ICA, given that Article 9 of the Rules establishes the latter as a sports law dispute resolution body. The FIA can submit that the same ideas and principles from the CAS jurisprudence represent "strong sporting reasons" (Alfa Romeo, at paragraph [23]) for the ICA to respect Masi’s decisions in applying Articles 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations. But then again, Mercedes can rebut any such submission by the FIA. How Might Mercedes Respond? Firstly, Alfa Romeo is not analogous to the present facts. That ICA decision concerned a challenge to a stop-and-go penalty, which teams could not appeal according to the applicable versions of the Code and the Sporting Regulations at the time. The FIA argued that the explicit bar on appeal was for "strong sporting reasons" and the imposition of the penalty was thus a ‘field of play’ decision. In the present case, however, the wording of Article 12.3.4 of the current Code and Article 17.3 of the current Sporting Regulations does not bar an appeal against decisions of the Stewards under Article 48.12 of the current Sporting Regulations. It is unclear what "strong sporting reasons" would render decisions under Article 48.12 ‘field of play’ decisions that must be respected on appeal. To the contrary, using the excuse of "strong sporting reasons" to quash an appeal founded in relevant rules contradicts the principles of predictability and legality, which Mercedes can argue, as above. Secondly, in Alfa Romeo, the ICA did not seem to rely on the FIA’s specific argument as to the ‘field of play’ doctrine in its judgement. The ICA focused on how the Stewards imposed the relevant penalty in a fashion compliant with the relevant rules. To the contrary, the Stewards, according to Mercedes, have not applied Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations correctly in the Race. This can dovetail with Mercedes’ argument invoking the principle of legality, further weakening the FIA’s case. Thirdly, and though the CAS will not hear any appeal by Mercedes (rather, the ICA will), it makes a vital point in HSI at paragraph [2] that Mercedes may rely upon: "According to CAS jurisprudence it is the rules of the game that define how a game must be played and who should adjudicate upon the rules." Mercedes may use such an argument to require the proper and complete application of the Sporting Regulations. Potential Remedies Hamilton Wins Clearly Mercedes is seeking that the race Classification be amended to award the win (and thus the World Driver’s Championship for 2021) to Hamilton, with Verstappen relegated to second place. Win-Win Article 13 of the Rules allows for a party to seek 'alternative remedies'. But in the 'binary' world of motor racing there is only ever one winner of the World Driver's Championship each season (hence why the race win count is important in the case where drivers are level on points at the end of a season). Or is there? Perhaps such an alternate remedy may be that both Verstappen and Hamilton jointly be classified as co-Champions for 2021. This sounds 'out there', but in light of the very real practical issues faced with the removal of Verstappen's Championship, this 'far out' idea may have legs - as is considered further in the conclusions below. Conclusion - Mercedes' Options Within the context of the decisions handed down by the Race Director during the Race and what transpired at the end of the Race and the following dismissals of the Mercedes protests (and in particular the Second Protest), it is our opinion that the Sporting Regulations, the Code and the Rules allow Mercedes the scope to argue that the Race Director erred in his application of the Sporting Regulations and that the race Classification be amended to award the win (and thus the World Driver’s Championship for 2021) to Hamilton. Practical Effects However, in very practical terms, and within the context of the celebrations and the numerous congratulatory social media posts that have followed the awarding of the Race win and the Championship to Verstappen, how would such a reversal play out? Should Mercedes notify the FIA of their actual appeal, the Hamilton fans and the sports law purists will claim that a wrong can be made right. Though the Verstappen fans, citing that he and RBR did nothing wrong, may equally claim that a successful Appeal is an invalid reversal of a field of play decision and therefore a denial of ‘justice’. The latter group would seek to rely on the Stewards dismissing the Second Protest partly because Mercedes was seeking for the race to be shortened after the fact “and hence not appropriate”. Withdrawing the Appeal In a sport that is becoming as much about entertainment and brand equity as it is about the actual competition between the teams and the sport itself, Mercedes may elect to drop their intent to appeal and settle the matter. Though this effectively ends the matter (and forces sports law nerds to put away the popcorn), this would allow Mercedes to 'take the high road', which Hamilton has done in what has been an exceptional public display of grace, humility, and good sportspersonship in the face of what happened after the Race. Alternative Remedy Or, as a goodwill gesture to the sport and in seeking an alternative remedy under Article 13 of the Rules, Mercedes may argue further or in the alternative in their appeal that both Hamilton and Verstappen be awarded the 2021 World Driver's Championship title jointly. Conclusion - FIA Recommendations For the FIA, the win-win scenario of the proposed co-Champion remedy may allow the governing body to save face and move forward. But regardless of how the various scenarios may play out, or the lasting impact on die-hard fans of the issues arising from Sunday's Race finish, the FIA can still look to what took place as a chance to improve its position as regards its governance and competitive integrity. While recent reports seem to make out that Team Managers will not be able to have ongoing discussions with the Race Director (including as to rule interpretations) from the 2022 F1 season, the FIA should also consider: · giving the Race Director additional support during race weekends with extra dedicated personnel who are expert in the Sporting Regulations, the management of safety-related applications of these, and broader integrity matters - in addition to the Stewards who are expert in considering on track and 'racing' issues from their perspectives as ex-drivers. The additional personnel could be tasked up with specific sections of the Sporting Regulations as subject matter experts in certain situations, to be called upon on an as needs basis; and · revise the Sporting Regulations to make the Articles that are broadly-worded (like Article 15.3) and/or ambiguous and contradictory (as in the conflict created by Articles 48.12 and 48.13) clearer and more definite in their application at such critical times of a race. F1 is now a major global sport providing a high level of entertainment on (and off) the track and also a valuable property in its own right and a large international business and, without any disrespect to Michael Masi, the stakes are clearly too high to leave somewhat ambiguous field of play rule interpretation, consideration, arbitration, and application to just one person (even where supported by Stewards), especially where that plays such a part in deciding a race winner and World Drivers’ Champion. As in other sports (especially those that have been commercialised to F1’s extent), F1 sells integrity. The integrity of the Competition should be central to the interpretation and application of the Sporting Regulations and be above all other considerations and outcomes, including entertainment. About the Authors: Ravi Nayyar holds a LLB from the University of Sydney and is a PhD candidate looking at how critical software regulation fits into critical infrastructure regulation. Ravi is passionate about many sports, including Formula One. Mat Jessep is a Sydney-based commercial/corporate lawyer and business consultant with specialist skills and experience in Sports, Esports, Media and Entertainment, acting for clients in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, North America, the UK, and Europe. Mat is experienced in commercial and corporate matters, including transactional, contractual, procurement, company secretarial, governance, integrity, branding, reputational, strategy, regulatory, compliance, and legal project management advice and support. Leveraging off of more than 10 years’ experience as a lawyer and a career in marketing and brand management before that, Mat has established Game Legal and Game Consulting to deliver focused legal, governance, and strategic commercial advice to clients involved in Sports, Esports, and Pop Culture - Gaming, Media, Tech, Internet, Brands & IP, Entertainment, TV, Music, Film, Art, & Fashion - as well as to Businesses and for new Start-Ups.

As teams around the world continue to qualify for the 2022 World Cup, the host country, Qatar, finalizes its preparations for the teams and their fans to arrive. Included in those preparations is an unexpected major public relations cleanup for both FIFA and the host country. Qatar and FIFA, the international governing body of association football, have been under fire since the country’s successful bid in 2010. From allegations of underlying corruption in the bidding process to severe human rights infringement in construction development, criticism and controversy have surrounded most news regarding one of the most-watched sporting events in the world. To prepare for such an anticipated event, Qatar has poured an unprecedented amount of funds into developing an infrastructure for the tournament, costing upwards of $200 billion. Among these developments are the construction of eight stadiums, an airport city, transportation/housing developments, and the expansion of luxury hotels across the country.[1] The construction for the 2022 World Cup has been carried on the backs of migrant workers from South Asian and African countries that traveled to Qatar in search of stable job opportunities. Instead, these migrant workers are exploited through dangerous working conditions and dismal labor laws. According to The Guardian, more than 6,500 migrant construction workers have died in the process of constructing this project. Qatar’s winning bid has not only provided the country with the opportunity to subject itself to economic growth, but it has also allowed the country to subject itself to public scrutiny regarding the region’s “kafala” system of labor.[2] This system requires workers to give up their passports and work in the country until released by their employer. The kafala system also discourages laws designed to protect the labor and human rights of migrant workers. The workers’ common grievances include nonpayment/delayed payment, poor living conditions, and extraneous manual labor in poor working conditions. In addition, Qatar’s intense summer heat has been found to be a significant factor in many deaths that occurred throughout the construction process. In 2015, the FIFA Task Force suggested moving the tournament to the fall months due to the fear that players and fans would suffer from heat-related injuries. The Qatar 2022 World Cup will be the first tournament to not be held in the usual summer months.[3] Although Qatar and FIFA officials considered the health of future world cup attendees, the same consideration was not given to the health of the migrant workers. Football federations and fans from around the world have asked for FIFA to address the concerns and property investigate the deaths and corruption related to Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup 2022. After about a decade of protest and controversy, Qatar began to amend laws pertaining to the labor and individual human rights of migrant workers in the country. New labor laws were introduced in 2020 to guarantee a basic minimum wage and reduce the exploitative factors of the kafala system.[4] In early December 2021, FIFA held a meeting with “political institutions and rights organizations to discuss human rights in Qatar ahead of the 2022 World Cup.” This meeting allowed the stakeholders to voice their concerns about crucial issues, from the rights of laborers to those of the LGBTQIA community.[5] Qatar believes that the opportunity to host the World Cup 2022 will be invaluable in diversifying the country’s economy and providing many more opportunities of international involvement to come. This global vision is shown to be a potential reality given recent efforts. In November 2021, Qatar hosted its first ever Formula One Grand Prix and signed a 10-year deal to continue hosting in future Formula One seasons. Qatar continues to be under an international spotlight as the world awaits the arrival of the 2022 World Cup. Human rights organizations have critically watched Qatar’s recent labor reforms and hope that more meaningful change is soon to follow. [1] https://www.globalvillagespace.com/qatar-to-spend-a-whopping-6b-on-construction-for-fifa-2022/ [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-21/why-qatar-is-a-controversial-venue-for-2022-world-cup-quicktake [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/qatar-world-cup-exploited-migrant-workers-human-rights-rcna2889 [4] ​​https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/02/migrant-workers-and-qatar-world-cup [5] https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/fifa-holds-meeting-address-human-rights-concerns-ahead-qatar-world-cup-2021-12-14/

I have heard or read both MLS and USL officials claim that the leagues are not in competition with each other. Both leagues seem convinced of the upward trajectory of soccer in the United States and an apparently boundless population of new soccer fans. But is that true? This claim is particularly skeptical in light of the fact that MLS clubs are pulling their affiliates out of the USL and starting a separate league, MLS NEXT Pro. This article will explore the relationship between MLS and the USL and generally argue that reality is not quite what the two leagues claim it to be. As an initial matter, it is important to understand that soccer in the United States is organized unlike the other major professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL). In 1978, Congress passed the Amateur Sports Act,[1] which granted what is today known at the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) the authority to govern all Olympic-related athletic activity in the United States. As part of the statute, the USOPC is authorized to certify a national governing body (NGB) for each sport.[2] Pursuant to that authority, the USOPC has certified the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) as the NGB for soccer in the United States. While there are NGBs for football, baseball, basketball, and hockey in the United States, the professional leagues preceded those organizations and do not themselves derive their standing from those NGBs. In contrast, MLS and USL are formed pursuant to and governed by USSF Bylaws and Policies. Most significantly, USSF Policies dictate that there shall be three levels of men’s professional soccer (Divisions I, II, and III).[3] The Divisions are separated by different standards for cities of play, stadium sizes, financial viability, television broadcasts and more.[4] For example, a Division I league (such as MLS), requires at least fourteen teams and stadiums that hold at least 15,000 fans. Division II stadiums are only required to hold 5,000 people. While MLS is the only league ever certified as Division I, there has been a rotating cast of Division II and III leagues. Today, the USL Championship (USLC) is the sole Division II league while there are two Division III leagues: USL League 1 (USL1) and the National Independent Soccer Association (NISA) (which, to be honest, I’ve almost never heard anything about and seems precarious). Importantly, this current structure is the subject of ongoing litigation. The North American Soccer League (NASL), a Division II league from 2011 through 2017, has an ongoing lawsuit against USSF, MLS, and the USL, alleging that the three parties, in violation of antitrust law, illegally conspired to divide up the American soccer market. The NASL folded after it failed to obtain a preliminary injunction,[5] but the suit is ongoing (comments by MLS and USL that they are not competing would not seem helpful from an antitrust perspective). The NASL’s departure paved the way for the USLC to move from Division III to Division II and for the creation of USL1. With the NASL out of the picture, the American soccer market appeared to be stabilizing. In 2015, MLS folded its own Division III Reserve League and reached an agreement with the USL to coordinate on player development.[6] In the 2021 season, USLC had 32 clubs, 11 of which were owned, controlled, or otherwise affiliated with MLS clubs. USL1 had 12 clubs, five of which were affiliated with MLS clubs. Consequently, American soccer seemed to be morphing into a major/minor league structure similar to that which exists in baseball, hockey, and basketball (despite the USL’s strange position that it is not a “minor league”). Indeed, the USL seems to have had considerable success building smallish stadiums in small and mid-size cities as part of economic development plans, not unlike what has often happened in minor league baseball. I will pause here to note an important component of MLS clubs’ involvement in the USL. The MLS LLC agreement[7] contains a covenant not to compete, in which each MLS club agrees, among other things, not to “anywhere in North America, carry on, own, manage, join, operate or control, or participate in the ownership, management, operation or control of, or be connected as a director, officer, employee, partner, member, consultant or otherwise with, or permit its name to be used by or in connection with, any soccer-related business which, directly or indirectly, competes with or is otherwise similar to the business of [MLS].” As a result of this provision, MLS must approve each MLS club’s involvement in the USL. This provision could potentially be subject to antitrust attack, as rules prohibiting sports team owners from owning teams in other sports have previously been struck down.[8] Nevertheless, the rule stands. If it appears that American soccer has found a previously unattainable homeostasis, why is that being disturbed once again? The MLS and USL development partnership ended at some uncertain recent date (I would guess that the NASL case played a role in that). But then MLS announced that beginning in 2022, it is going to operate its own Division III league,[9] recently named MLS NEXT Pro. To populate the league, the clubs previously playing in either the USLC or USL1 and which were owned by or affiliated with an MLS club, will be leaving the USL immediately or in the near future.[10] The USL insists that it does not perceive the new MLS league as a problem but I see at least two major issues. First, the sudden departure of clubs from USL1 threatens the league’s licensing. The USSF’s standards require Division III leagues to have at least eight teams. Consequently, USL must – and seemingly is on track to – replace the departing MLS-affiliated clubs to maintain its sanctioned status. While this problem may be solved for now, Division III soccer clubs are not a stable (or profitable) business enterprise and there is sure to be turnover among the clubs in future years. Second, the USL and its clubs have now lost a significant part of its marketing cache by losing affiliation with MLS clubs. Part of the draw of seeing any minor league athlete is knowing that they are in the pipeline to one day reach the major leagues. And USL clubs undoubtedly sought to market their players as the future of MLS. This is largely no longer going to be the case. Young players will no longer use the USL as a stepping stone to MLS – instead, they will jump from their MLS Division III club to MLS. As a result, the USL begins to resemble independent minor league baseball. As most anyone knows, Minor League Baseball (MiLB) is a network of more than 100 teams competing at various levels of baseball below that of MLB. Most of these clubs are owned, controlled, or otherwise affiliated with MLB clubs. The MLB clubs provide economic support and marketing cache for the clubs to remain viable, while working to develop the MLB club’s next generation of players (the relationship between MLB and MiLB has been fraught in recent years but those issues are beyond this article). When affiliation agreements expire, the MiLB clubs scramble to find a new MLB partner. The failure to do so can be catastrophic to the club. To this point, some MiLB leagues – the independent leagues – have generally operated without any affiliation with MLB clubs. Not surprisingly, they have historically been far less stable, as both the leagues and the clubs in them come and go from time to time. Is that the future of the USL? Of note, I think there is another important fact cutting against the idea that there is enough soccer interest to go around for both MLS and the USL. None of these organizations is profitable. I went through the financial situation of MLS and its clubs in my article from last week, and suffice to say, there is no reason to believe that of the USL and its clubs is any better (in fact, it is almost certainly worse). Competition has proven fatal to numerous American soccer leagues and clubs in the past. I think the new MLS Division III league is a body blow to USL, whether it admits it or not. Time will tell whether it is a knockout. [1] 36 U.S.C. §§ 220501-220552. [2] 36 U.S.C. § 220521. [3] Policy 202-1, United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Policy Manual, available at https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/bylaws. [4] The 2014 USSF Professional Standards are available here: https://kennethrusso.com/ussf-professional-standards/. [5] See N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018). [6] https://www.si.com/soccer/2015/05/26/mls-usl-partnership-player-development. [7] The 2012 version of the MLS LLC Agreement can be found at Nowak v. Major League Soccer, LLC, 14-cv-3503, Dkt. 23 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2015). [8] See North Am. Soccer League v. Nat’l Football League, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982). [9] https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/4415507/major-league-soccer-to-launch-development-league-in-2022; MLS Next Pro: ‘We’re going to use this new league as a way to test concepts’ – The Athletic [10] https://theathletic.com/2136000/2020/10/13/mls-reserves-league-usl/

The last month in the world of college athletics has generated a lot of conversation. Every year around this time, coaches are hired and fired in what’s called the “coaching carousel.” However, this year’s cycle has been far more chaotic than one’s we’ve seen in recent years due to the movement from blue-blood program to blue-blood program and the significant amount of money being thrown around for some of these coaches. As a result of high-profile schools like USC and LSU firing their coaches so early in the season, several athletic directors and fans across the country feared their coach would leave their school for those jobs. While labeling a certain coaching job as a “top 5 job” is extremely subjective and varies by each individual coach, USC and LSU are widely considered to be among the best places to attract elite talent and compete for national championships on an annual basis. Therefore, we saw several coaches get massive contract extensions to levels that raised eyebrows from many in the industry. Despite only being in his second season at Michigan State and third overall as a head coach, Mel Tucker received a 10 year/$95 million contract extension to stay in East Lansing. James Franklin, whose Penn State Nittany Lions slumped down the stretch to a 7-5 record, netted a 10 year/$85 million extension for himself. Not to mention, Lincoln Riley and Brian Kelly, who got the USC and LSU jobs respectively, each inked deals at or near nine figures. Furthermore, Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M), Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss), Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State), PJ Fleck (Minnesota), Dave Clawson (Wake Forest), Mark Stoops (Kentucky), Jonathan Smith (Oregon State), Jeff Hafley (Boston College), Jeff Traylor (UTSA), and Hugh Freeze (Liberty), have all signed contract extensions in the past three months as well due to the interest they’ve garnered from other schools. All this activity has generated a lot of attention on college athletics. So much so that Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut said that the recent flurry of what he termed “outrageously astronomical” contracts for college football head coaches is getting the attention of Congress and could spark reform. Now, it’s worth mentioning that coaches deserve to be handsomely compensated. I happen to be a big proponent of coaches and love to follow them as they build each of their respective programs. From an X’s and O’s, recruiting, and relational perspective, the number of hours they put into their jobs cannot be understated. However, in this new era of college athletics with the advent of NIL, the Transfer Portal, and Alston, is solely investing heavily in a head coach’s salary enough to help maintain a sustainable program? I don’t think so. This week, the University of Texas announced an unprecedented NIL initiative where each offensive lineman at the University of Texas will receive $50,000 annually to promote selected charities through a newly created Horns With Heart non-profit entity. While Texas might’ve been the first school to publicly announce this type of NIL deal, they most certainly shouldn’t be the last. When it comes down to it, the teams that compete annually for national titles are the ones with the best players. You can have the best coaches, the coolest uniforms, the nicest facilities out there, but the lifeblood of college athletics is recruiting. Kirby Smart, the Head Coach of the CFP bound Georgia Bulldogs, put it bluntly with “There's no coach out there that can out-coach recruiting. I don't care who you are. The best coach to ever play the game better be a good recruiter because no coaching is going to out-coach players.” Therefore, whether everyone likes it or not, a big part of recruiting nowadays comes down to what a school can offer from an NIL standpoint. Now, a school cannot actually provide their student athletes NIL deals, but there are certainly things they can do to let all of their prospective recruits know they will be taken care of when they arrive on campus. Every school that competes at the highest level of college athletics have an abundance of well-connected donors and boosters who run successful companies. Since NIL was enacted on July 1st, we’ve seen no shortage of NIL deals for individual student athletes and a decent number of team-wide deals as well. But what’s going on at the University of Texas right now is something I think could be one of the biggest recruiting tools out there: Endowed NIL deals. Similar to how certain donors or corporations endow scholarships to college students at a university, the Horns with Heart non-profit entity is endowing NIL deals to the offensive lineman at Texas. Instead of donating money to either pay for a coach’s salary or to the athletic department in general, the army of boosters some of these big-time college athletic programs have could come together and create NIL endowments for players on their respective teams. This could be broken down by position group or other factors, but I think it could be the future of college athletics. It goes without saying that the top offensive lineman in high school right now took notice of the announcement of the $50,000 that could be coming their way if they went to Texas. Many around the country have asked how or if we can stop this trend of escalating coaching salaries and the arms race of facilities in college athletics. From a legal perspective, capping coaching salaries is probably not practical, but that doesn’t mean things cannot be done. From a booster’s perspective, taking the investment that has gone to paying for or buying out a coach’s contract and redistributing it into the hands of student athletes through endowed NIL deals like we’re seeing for the offensive lineman at the University of Texas could be an option where everyone wins. While they may not get the 1o year deals in nine figures, coaches will have an easier job recruiting to their schools with the NIL outlook they can point to (which in turn will likely lead to good results on the field). Student athletes, who are obviously prohibited from being paid directly by the schools, can earn money many people think they deserve for the revenue they generate. And although athletic departments might not like that their boosters aren’t investing directly in their hands, I think it’s clear that by getting the best student athletes to their campuses, they will benefit in the long run by winning games and competing for championships. Times are changing rapidly in college athletics. A decade ago, no one would’ve envisioned a non-profit entity offering $50,000 to a position group on a college football team. To succeed, people involved will need to adapt to the modern era or risk falling behind on the field, court, or pitch. To be clear, schools cannot contribute to these deals or explicitly guarantee recruits will get them, but they can certainly do their due diligence with their donors and boosters. Endowed NIL deals could be the best way to redistribute some of the money that many have described as being “carelessly thrown around” in terms of astronomical coaching contracts and luxurious facilities. It will be interesting to see how soon we’ll see more of these type of NIL deals in the future. Brendan Bell is currently a Junior at Auburn University majoring in Finance with aspirations to attend law school. He is passionate about the business of college athletics and would love to obtain a career in the industry some day. You can follow Brendan on Twitter @_bbell5

If a person doesn’t pay their taxes the IRS can place a lien and if it comes to it levy a person’s property and assets to pay the bill. In some cases, if a person fails to pay taxes for years, they could face jail time. But what happens when an NHL team doesn’t pay their property taxes and arena chargers? Does the team lose their home ice? Can they pay the amount due and stay? This is the current situation for the Arizona Coyotes for run the risk of being locked out of Gila River Arena, their home ice. Earlier this month, the Arizona Department of Revenue filed a tax lien notice against IceArizona Hockey LLC, which owns the Coyotes. The notice was for unpaid state and city taxes for more than $1.3 million.[1] There is no report about how long the club has not paid taxes and arena charges. Of the 1.3 million that is owed, $250,000 is owed to the city of Glendale and the remaining balance to the state of Arizona.[2]Glendale informed Coyotes that it plans to lock them out of Gila River Arena if the club does not pay its delinquent charges by December 20. This is more bad news for the Coyotes who has struggled this season with a 5-18-2 record and rumors of relocation because of lease agreement issues. The Coyotes released a statement about the ongoing situation "We have already launched an investigation to determine how this could have happened and the initial indications are that it appears to be the result of an unfortunate human error.''[3] While the unpaid taxes and bills may be the result of human error, that does not dismiss the fact that this happened in the first place. The Coyotes go on to say that the club is going to take steps to make sure that all bills are paid and that this doesn’t happen again. The NHL has not commented on the situation. The incident adds to the current arena saga that the Coyotes have been dealing with since August of this year. Glendale was opting out of its lease agreement with the team at the end of 2021-22 NHL season. Both sides have participated in ongoing negotiation about a potential extension, but nothing has been finalized.[4] Since 2016, the Coyotes having been leasing Gila River Arena on an annual basis after moving from the America West Arena in 2003.[5] There has also been rumors that the team could relocate to Houston, but they have been denied by the team. As a back up for the Glendale negotiations, the Coyotes proposed a $1.7 billion development in Tempe, a city east of Phoenix. The development would include a hockey arena, restaurants, shops and apartments.[6] The arena would primarily be funded by private investors but would seek city sales tax revenues to help pay for $200 million in additional costs, including infrastructure work. Tempe has not gotten back to the Coyotes yet about the possible city change.[7] The location change could benefit the club who has seen poor fan attendance and sales in recent years. The Coyotes are ranked 30 out 32 for average attendance at games this year at 12,205 fans per game. Additionally, Forbes valued the Coyotes as the least valuable NHL franchise at an estimated $400 million.[8] However, the location is the only factor to consider for poor sales, Covid led to a shortened season and less fans in attendance for the 2020-21 season. It may take teams years to make up the lost revenue due to the pandemic. In the coming months it will be interesting to see whether the Coyotes will stay in Glendale or relocate to Tempe. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Shilton, Kristen. “Arizona Coyotes Face Dec. 20 Eviction from Gila River Arena over Unpaid Taxes, Fees; Club Cites 'Human Error'.” ESPN, Dec 9, 2021, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/32825821/arizona-coyotes-face-dec-20-lockout-gila-river-arena-unpaid-taxes-fees-report-says. [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] Sportsnet Staff. “Coyotes Blame 'Human Error,' Vow to Pay All Bills to Avoid Arena Lockout.” Sportsnet.ca, Dec 9, 2021, https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/coyotes-blame-human-error-vow-pay-bills-avoid-arena-lockout/. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id.

We are in the midst of a lockout in Major League Baseball. This is not the first employment dispute in the sport. This article addresses the history of labor unrest in baseball and how it impacts the parties involved. There have been eight strikes and lockouts in Major League Baseball history, and there are a few differences that separate the two. Generally speaking, during a strike, the workers tell management that they are not going to show up. In a lockout, the management tells the workers not to show up [1]. What is important to note about this specific lockout is the timing. If this lockout had occurred halfway through the season, the league is then open to a strike, since players are then playing while not receiving their base salaries. While players still receive bonuses and deferred salary payments, these numbers are minute as compared to the major base salaries that players are receiving nowadays. The timing of this lockout is, of course, hurting the players. Free agents are not able to even begin negotiating new contracts, and losing this precious time is very impactful, as injuries can happen at any time. Not to mention that doing any activity and getting a major injury all but ends hopes of being on a team or maximizing the chances of getting a major contract. Not to mention, if players are hurt or rehabbing injuries, a lockout prevents them from accessing the team facilities, which can be a major roadblock when trying to recover from injury. Recovery progress from major injuries can also be a mitigating factor in terms of negotiating contract extensions, so the closing of team facilities is even more damaging. Though one argument that can be made against the impact of the lockout on major free agents is that the best players will end up on teams anyway, the same cannot be said for the more mid-tier free agents. With the major players soaking up major contracts (for example Max Scherzer signing with the Mets for $130 million over three years [2]), little salary space is left for the mid-tier players, with the minimum salaries being more prevalent than ever. This can be seen in the salary reductions of mid-tier free agents thus far in free agency such as Mark Melancon (saves leader in 2021 could only manage a 1 year, $3 million deal [3]). This example is going to be a new trend, and it is only the beginning. It is unfair all around, with the owners locking the players out, and forcing them to try to give up even more of their share of the money baseball takes in, even though they control a small portion of the pie as it is. So, it is clear that the winners of this lockout are the owners, and the obvious losers are the players. The power balance is already tipped in favor of the owners anyway, and it will just keep going further depending on how long this lockout lasts. The only hope is that this ends before February, with Spring training checks being handed out at that time, but if we get to that point without a resolution, then it’s a whole different ballgame and a completely different conversation. For the sake of the fans and the players, let’s just hope it doesn’t get there. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

Urban Meyer was fired by the Jacksonville Jaguars during the first year of a five-year contract worth up to $60 million. Let’s take a trip down memory lane to review how we got here. Immediately after taking the reins, Meyer hired assistant coach Chris Doyle, a former Iowa strength coach with a checkered past filled with racist allegations and documentation. After the decision was heavily scrutinized, Meyer backpedaled and reversed the hire. In October, Meyer broke the internet when pictures surfaced of him attending a bar and standing uncomfortably close to a woman that was clearly not his wife. The picture itself paints Meyer in a damning light. But as more news on the story broke, the optics became even worse. The Jaguars were fresh off a 24-21 week 4 loss in Cincinnati when Meyer made the puzzling decision to not fly back with the team to Jacksonville. The game took place on a Thursday and Meyer seemingly took this as an invitation to abandon his team and spend the long weekend in his old stomping grounds of southern Ohio (Meyer famously was the head coach of Ohio State from 2012-2018). As it turns out, the picture was taken at a bar that Meyer himself owned, Urbans Chop House, outside of Columbus, Ohio. To add insult to injury, the bar apparently has a picture of Meyer and his wife plastered on the wall for everyone to see. This embarrassing saga gained national attention and eventually resulted in Meyer publicly apologizing to his team and his wife Shelley for “a stupid mistake”. Reports immediately began to swirl that Meyer had lost respect within the locker room. Jaguars owner, and Meyer’s boss, Shad Khan proclaimed that Meyer needed to earn back the team’s “trust and respect”.[1] As the season continued, his status as Jaguars head coach and off the field role model only sunk deeper. Recent reports out of Jacksonville are that Meyer and his assistant coaches consistently disagreed on personnel decisions including who should be taking snaps at running back. Allegedly, these disagreements led Meyer to explode like a tyrant on his coaching staff: During a staff meeting, Meyer delivered a biting message that he’s a winner and his assistant coaches are losers, according to several people informed of the contents of the meeting, challenging each coach individually to explain when they’ve ever won and forcing them to defend their résumés.[2] Meyer later threatened the leaker of this tirade would be fired “within seconds”. We didn’t need any more evidence that Urban Meyer was a catastrophe as an NFL football coach. But when it rains it pours. What’s the weather like in Jacksonville this time of year? Ultimately kicking his own kicker (which reads like the plot of Seinfeld episode) was the final straw for Urban Meyer in Jacksonville.[3] Jacksonville decided to move on from the coach after a 2-11 record in year one. The hire was nothing short of a disaster since he signed his name on the dotted line. The writing was on the wall almost immediately that Meyer and the Jaguars were headed for a breakup that not even Taylor Swift could have imagined. Now Jacksonville’s focus must shift to moving on from the Urban Meyer era as smoothly and cost-effectively as possible. When the contract was signed, Jacksonville envisioned success that Meyer endured during his college stops at Florida and Ohio State. Meyer would lead Jacksonville to wins and in return Jacksonville would make Meyer a very rich (even richer) man. Meyer’s utter failure on the field and constant off field embarrassments complicated this contractual formula. The organization was not satisfied with Meyer’s performance, but they also didn’t want to kick him to the curb and be forced to pay $60 million on the way out. Meyer will no longer coach in Jacksonville, but the question remains how amicable this breakup will be. This could have gone down in three distinct ways: Urban Meyer resigned The Jacksonville Jaguars fired Urban Meyer The Jacksonville Jaguars fired Urban Meyer “for cause” Urban Meyer resigned This was the best-case scenario for Jacksonville, but as of now seems the most unlikely. With the reports that Jacksonville fired Meyer, it seems they decided to take matters into their own hands. If Meyer resigned, he would likely waive his right to “ongoing pay” or settle on a severance package that was much lower than the $60 million he’s owed under contract. Meyer may be in over his head, but he’s not stupid. He realizes the harsh reality of these massive coaching contracts is that even if a coach massively underperforms, they still hold bargaining power. He’s owed the money he signed for and he likely will try to fight tooth and nail to collect. Jacksonville had a few things going for them to counter this potential defiance by Meyer. First and foremost, Meyer had become a laughingstock on a national stage. The media completely turned on him and each day stories were published bashing Meyer for his ineptitude (like this one for example). The local media began to shine a spotlight at how unprepared he was: In an ideal scenario for the Jaguars, this pressure would have been too hot for Meyer to handle. With every negative media report that was published, this option became more and more likely. But also, the Jaguars had to balance that every waking moment Meyer was still employed, the disdain in the organization grew stronger. It turned into a game of chicken between Meyer and the Jaguars. Eventually, the organization blinked first and they couldn’t sit around and wait any longer for Meyer to fall on the sword. They decided to take action against the coach and move forward with his termination. The Jacksonville Jaguars fired Urban Meyer Based on the reporting so far, this option is the most likely for Jacksonville. This is the standard tool used when a coach underperforms expectations, and the franchise feels it’s best to move on. Typically, this happens after a coach has been awarded several years to implement philosophies but still shows no signs of improvement. Meyer only coached 13 games, but that was enough for the Jaguars to make the decision to move on. Under a standard termination, Meyer will still be owed a large chunk of the money as the Jaguars would be forced to buy him out. The Jacksonville Jaguars fired Urban Meyer “for cause” This final option is the most complicated and likely would involve a slew of attorneys on both sides but may save the Jaguars millions. When a coach is fired “for cause” they breach a material portion of their contract. This allows the team to rip up the deal and part ways being relieved of their obligations. In this case, Jacksonville would no longer be forced to pay Meyer. Coaching contracts in the NFL typically contain a “Good Moral Character” clause. Basically, this prevents a coach from acting in any way that brings disgrace or embarrassment to the team or the NFL. These clauses are vague and all-encompassing so it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact type of behavior that’s prohibited. But based on Meyer’s actions during his time with Jacksonville, the Jaguars have a good case. If the Jaguars terminated Meyer “for cause” back in October after the bar incident, they would have robbed Meyer the opportunity to continue making a case against his moral character with his repeated petulant behavior. The contract likely has a provision stating that the decision on if a coach’s behavior violates the “Good Moral Character” clause is determined by Roger Goodell.[4] The weight of Meyer’s pockets may rest in the commissioner’s office. We’ve already been spoiled on how this movie ends. Meyer and the Jaguars will go their separate ways and begin seeing other people. The suspense now surrounds how they’re going to get there. Matt 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 and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. [1] John Reid, Urban Meyer video at bar in Ohio goes viral. Here's the reaction on social media, The Florida Times Union (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) https://www.jacksonville.com/story/sports/nfl/2021/10/03/social-media-reacts-urban-meyer-bar-video/5979948001/. [2] Doug Farrar, Urban Meyer calls his assistants 'losers,' alienates players and coaches, TouchdownWire (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2021/12/11/urban-meyer-calls-his-assistants-losers-alienates-players-and-coaches/. [3] Tyler Sullivan, Urban Meyer fired: Ex-Jaguars kicker Josh Lambo says he was kicked by former coach during warmups in preseason, CBS Sports (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ex-jaguars-kicker-josh-lambo-says-he-was-kicked-by-urban-meyer-during-warmups-in-preseason/. [4] Mike Florio, Could the Jaguars fire Urban Meyer “for cause”?, Pro Football Talk (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/10/06/could-the-jaguars-fire-urban-meyer-for-cause/.

As reported yesterday by KPRC2 Houston, law enforcement has sought and received a search warrant from a Judge for Houston Texans Quarterback Deshaun Watson’s social media accounts. The warrant allows law enforcement to send subpoenas to Instagram, CashApp etc. seeking Watson’s social media activity during a roughly one-year period. The warrant indicates that Houston police are requesting this information as a part of a criminal investigation into allegations of “indecent assault”. The individual who sought the warrant is an 18-year veteran of the Houston Police Department’s Adult Sex Crimes Unit. The following is my analysis of what that all means. The criminal investigation is nearly complete, and the convening of a grand jury is imminent If law enforcement has gotten to the stage where they are sending out search warrants, that tells me that law enforcement is comfortable with the alleged victims and ready to present them to a grand jury. Thus, if the prosecution and/or law enforcement did not believe the alleged victims, it doesn’t matter what Deshaun Watson said via social media. His defense attorneys would easily be able to explain anything away and the prosecution would be looking at a high-profile defeat as a jury would likely give him the benefit of the doubt. The story that will likely be told is one that Watson solicited these women via social media to perform massages at his house. Instagram will show the communications and CashApp will show exactly what Deshaun Watson paid for the alleged massages. With the social media accounts and victim cooperation, the prosecution can now tell the story. That story could potentially be that Watson lured these women to his residence under false pretenses and solicited them for sex and when some refused, he forced those women to perform oral sex on him. As we have seen in the lawsuits, three separate women alleged Watson forced their mouths onto his penis. That is textbook Sexual Assault under Texas Law. Allegations of indecent assault The 18-year veteran in the Adult Sex Crimes division who drafted the search warrant had to know that it would eventually leak to the media. An 18-year veteran sex crimes detective knows if the warrant stated Sexual Assault, this story would become national news if not worldwide news considering sexual assault is a serious forcible felony and it involves a Pro Bowl NFL Quarterback for the 4th largest city in the country. Law enforcement prefers to investigate when all eyes are not on them. Under Texas Law Sec. 22.012 (defining indecent assault) (a) A person commits an offense if, without the other person’s consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person: 3) Exposes or attempts to expose another person’s genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks or female areola. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a 1 year in jail. That definition absolutely fits the numerous accounts by various women that Watson allegedly exposed himself to them and sexually gratified himself in their presence. I believe indecent assault charges will be included but you don’t convene a grand jury for something that you can charge yourself via an information. You only convene a grand jury because felonies in the State of Texas require the prosecution to convene a grand jury. I expect the grand jury to be convened sometime in January or February at the latest. An indictment could very well come down during the week before the Super Bowl. We are in the Endgame now in the Deshaun Watson Criminal Investigation. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. In over three years as a prosecutor, he prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. You can follow him on Twitter @Tympanick20 and @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick. www.tympanicklaw.com

Mike Florio, writer for Pro Football Talk.com, reported Monday that “an expansion team was never on the table as a pre-trial settlement possibility.” The NFL had to suffer an enormous loss at trial, and they also had to lose to Stan Kroenke. When he says the NFL had to lose to Kroenke, he means the NFL had to lose on the indemnity issue, and all 32 owners paid their damages’ share, not Stan Kroenke paying on the owners’ behalf in this case. Florio further reports “Kroenke’s lawyers were ready to pay more than $790 million to end the case, and that the league’s lawyers intervened. The league drew a hard line at $790 million. They were not paying $800 million and above, and to their surprise, it got the deal done. The question for the attorneys after Stan Kroenke and the NFL offered $790 million was to take $276.5 million (35 percent of the settlement) plus costs now, or to keep fighting and pushing and chasing a pot that may be bigger, the same, or smaller. Florio, a former attorney, believes St. Louis could have received the billion dollars, but as reported by various media outlets, St. Louis, the Convention and Visitors Commission, and the Regional Stadium Authority did not want to risk losing at trial. They chose the safe route to the St. Louisans’ ire. Ben Frederickson and Joel Currier, sports and legal writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch respectively, covered this lawsuit from beginning to end. They are two among various St. Louis media members who let St. Louis and the national media know what is going on in the Gateway City. They stayed one step ahead to the point that Frederickson and Currier reported the settlement late last Tuesday night before any other media outlet caught wind that the settlement occurred the following morning. The NFL owners are a “mafia,” and they control what happens in the NFL, not Roger Goodell. Goodell makes decisions based on the owners and their best interests, which is what will make them the most money. “Karraker and Smallmon” from 101ESPN, reported that it sounds like Stan Kroenke is responsible for the entire $790 million settlement. St. Louisans can feel relieved this case is over, or frustrated that this did not go to trial. The realization for St. Louisans is this case received national coverage and the NFL’s “dirty laundry” got released to the public. Ben Frederickson reported on Tuesday night that Mayor Jones decided to settle because the lawsuit ran its course in her opinion. His article includes Mayor Jones’ decision to accept the settlement. She said: “Well, we [the St. Louis team] all know that when you take things to court, it can be a long process [.]” “We’ve already been in this process since 2017. I felt it was time to put it to rest.” Dan Lust, Dan Wallach, and guest Howard Balzer revealed Mayor Jones’ prior occupation was city treasurer. This quote and her background can mean several things, but the way I construe it is Mayor Jones settled because she had enough and the money was too good to pass up. She was the former treasurer, as “Conduct Detrimental,” along with Howard Balzer, revealed. This may answer some questions why St. Louis settled with the Rams and the NFL fifty days prior to trial. Dan Wallach, on an interview with Nestor on YouTube, stated the “attorney agreed to settle because their payment is “life-altering.” He told Nestor every equity partner received a “life-altering $10 million as payment for their work on the case. The attorneys worked on this case on a contingency basis. If they win, they get paid, but if they lost, they would not receive a payment. Dan’s fact is almost pro-“attorneys are glad they settled because they got paid” argument. In the same article, he reported County Executive Sam Page’s reasoning. His reasoning was “the experts that advised them, the county counselor’s office and their outside legal counsel advised them the settlement was a good settlement for St. Louis County and St. Louis City, and that they should accept it and move on.” Those who argue the lawyers were after the money may be right according to Page’s comments, but those who argue the plaintiffs made the decision on their own are right according to Mayor Jones’ comments. Either way one leans in this argument, this settlement is a win for St. Louis because the NFL and Kroenke paid them nearly $800 million. They exposed the NFL; they showed the league does anything to raise their revenues. They did the same when they moved the Rams to St. Louis in 1995; however, twenty-one years later, they did it behind-the-scenes with a “proper vote.” They knew Stan Kroenke was the only owner who had the pockets to move a team to the nation’s second largest market. Hopefully St. Louisans remember the good times and memories they had while the Rams were in town, and they showed their fandom because they wanted an expansion franchise. This is similar to someone willing to forgive their significant other after they cheated on their partner. They are not only willing to forgive the NFL, but they are willing to welcome them back with open arms. A franchise was not in the cards, but if they pushed for more, they may have received nothing. That is why they did not push for more. 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.

Michael Jordan and North Carolina. Patrick Ewing and Georgetown. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (known as Lew Alcindor at the time) and UCLA. All Basketball Hall of Famers that are forever linked with leading their schools to NCAA titles. Today, those players all seem like distant memories and that era of college basketball is a relic of the past. It’s becoming ever more likely that the next crop of NBA superstars will never step foot on a college campus. Teenage basketball phenoms opting out of college and taking an alternate route isn’t a brand-new concept. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Haywood v. National Basketball Association that the NBA’s requirement that a player wait four years after high school graduation, essentially forcing players to attend college before they enter the NBA, was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1] Players were no longer required to attend four years of college before going pro. However, the decision to skip college entirely didn’t become popular until 1995 when the #1 high school basketball player in the country, Kevin Garnett, made the controversial decision to enter the NBA draft just months after attending senior prom. This led to an avalanche of players in the coming years jumping directly to the NBA including Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and LeBron James. The NBA halted this momentum in 2005 when they agreed with the NBA Player’s Union to place an age restriction to enter the league. In their newly constructed collective bargaining agreement, the NBA set the minimum age at 19 years old, or one year removed from high school. This gave rise to the “one and done” phenomenon in college basketball where a player stays on campus for his freshman season before bolting for the NBA draft. Still, this didn’t force every top prospect to play college basketball. Throughout the next decade there were examples of high schoolers who recognized their earnings potential and opted on playing professionally oversees instead of college for the mandatory one-year grace period. These examples were few and far between with varying degrees of success so many failed to recognize a major shift that was taking place in the youth to professional basketball pipeline. In recent years, more players have realized they no longer have to wait to shake the commissioner’s hand as they walk across the NBA draft stage to cash in on their talents. Players can start earning much earlier and without having to open a college textbook in the meantime, and others began to take notice. Several different outlets began attempting to provide a platform for these teenagers to showcase their talent and reap the benefits. LaMelo Ball, the younger brother of NBA player Lonzo and youngest son of outspoken father LaVar, made headlines when he began playing internationally at the age of 16. His professional career included stops in Lithuania and Australia before entering the NBA and winning rookie of the year in 2021. Many questioned his decision to play internationally at such a young age, but LaMelo never seemed to waver. On the flip side, his decision to play professionally led to confessions in radio interviews about driving a Lamborghini at age 17. The National Basketball League (NBL) in Australia became an advocate for American players like Ball seeking to skip their “one and done” year in college and begin playing professionally immediately. The U.S. took notice of the opportunity these players were being presented internationally and decided to pounce. In 2017, Darius Bazley was a McDonalds All American and committed to play college basketball at Syracuse. But Bazley had a change of plans, decommitting from Syracuse and taking his talents to the board room. The popular Boston-based shoe company, New Balance, offered Bazley a one-year internship that paid him $1 million as he prepared for the following year’s NBA draft. Bazley worked with New Balance’s marketing teams as he trained and was eventually drafted #23 overall by the Oklahoma City Thunder in 2019.[2] The NBA also decided to throw their hat in the ring. Although their 19-year-old age requirement still exists, the league still found a way to profit on the youth movement. The NBA developmental league (referred to as the G-League) historically was a place for players who failed to make NBA rosters to showcase their skills. The NBA recently developed the “professional path program” designed for recent high school graduates to enter the G-League for one year before the NBA draft. Players still can’t enter the NBA directly out of high school, but they can opt to play in the G-League for one year before making the leap.[3] The 2020 #1 player in the country, Jalen Green, signed a deal for $500,000 to play for the G-League Ignite, a team created solely for the purpose of developing teenagers. Greene, alongside his Ignite teammate Johnathan Kuminga who was also directly out of high school, were drafted #2 and #7 respectively in the 2021 NBA draft. The popular social media brand Overtime obtains 1.6 billion views on their various social media platforms every month. The brand recently created Overtime Elite; a basketball league designed for high schoolers with NBA aspirations. The league is backed by investors such as Jeff Bezos and Alexis Ohanian, and NBA players Trae Young, Kevin Durant, and Carmelo Anthony. Overtime Elite allows players to sign 6-figure deals as they leave traditional high school, skip college, and work on their game full-time as they prepare for the NBA. This year Overtime Elite provided an opportunity for 16-year-old Jalen Lewis to become the youngest professional basketball player in U.S. history.[4] With the digital meteoric rise of social media, youth basketball has developed into global entertainment. Players are becoming online celebrities before they obtain a driver’s license. Mikey Williams is 17 years old and the #11 ranked player in the 2023 class. But what’s even more impressive about Williams is that he currently has 3.4 million instagram followers. To place that in perspective, Jaylen Brown is an all-star for the Boston Celtics and one of the best basketball players on the planet. Brown has 1.9 million followers. Williams has a bigger social media presence than most players in the NBA. Thanks to the recent NIL rules, Williams recently became the first high school athlete to sign an endorsement deal with Puma.[5] High school and AAU games routinely moonlight as quasi-Hollywood gatherings featuring A-Listers such as Drake, Kanye West, and Michael B. Jordan sitting courtside. While Drake has rapped about the prominent Los Angeles high school Sierra Canyon in his latest album, Kanye West took it a step further. The 21-time Grammy award winning rapper opened Donda Acadmey, a high school in Simi Valley outside of Los Angeles. Within the first year, Donda Academy was able to lure several high-profile players from surrounding schools to join team Donda.[6] The NCAA observed this momentum and could no longer bury their heads in the sand. This year the NCAA adopted NIL rules that allow athletes to profit off their image by signing endorsement deals with third parties. Finally, college athletes will be eligible to receive a form of payment. But is it too late? International basketball, the G-League, and Overtime Elite are all proving that teenagers can get paid for playing basketball without sacrificing their chances of making it to the NBA. It remains unclear how many 16-year-olds would prefer to wear a Duke uniform over playing professionally in a league cosigned by their NBA idols or favorite rappers. The next NBA collective bargaining negotiations are set to take place in either 2023 or 2024, and the 19-year-old age limit may be on the chopping block. But regardless of what transpires during these negotiations, one thing is for certain – youth basketball is no longer just for amateurs. Matt 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 and find him on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. [1] Haywood v. National Basketball Association, 401 U.S. 1204 (1971); William C. Rhoden, Early Entry? One and Done? Thank Spencer Haywood for the Privilege., New York Times (June 29, 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/sports/basketball/spencer-haywood-rule-nba-draft-underclassmen.html. [2] Nick Crain, OKC Thunder’s Darius Bazley Opens Up About New Balance Internship And Path To NBA In New Documentary, Forbes (last visited Dec. 2, 2021) https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholascrain/2020/11/16/okc-thunders-darius-bazley-opens-up-about-new-balance-internship-and-unprecedented-path-to-the-nba-in-upcoming-documentary/?sh=21ed749e2d65. [3] Jabari Young, A top high school basketball player could net up to $1 million by skipping college and playing for the NBA’s G League, CNBC (Apr. 17, 2020) https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/nba-developmental-program-changing-recruitment-landscape.html. [4] Bruce Schoenfeld, The Teenagers Getting Six Figures to Leave Their High Schools for Basketball, NY Times (Nov. 30, 2021) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/magazine/overtime-elite-basketball-nba.html. [5] Nick DePaula, Mikey Williams, 17, signs historic footwear and apparel deal with Puma, ESPN (Oct. 29, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32500553/mikey-williams-17-signs-historic-footwear-apparel-deal-puma. [6] Grant Rindner, Kanye West Welcomes Four Top Basketball Recruits to Donda Academy, GQ (Oct. 7, 2021) https://www.gq.com/story/kanye-west-donda-academy-top-basketball-recruits.

Have you ever looked at your local professional sports stadium and wondered how it came to be? It’s easy to overlook just how monumental a task it is for such a building to come into existence - a confluence of perfect conditions, plus hundreds of hours of due diligence, hard-nosed negotiations, countless contracts, and more goes on behind the scenes before such a dream can become a reality. Three key areas that should be explored are the financing of the stadium, the land use for building the stadium, and the naming rights. This first article in a three-part series will dive into the basics of financing. Figuring out how a stadium project will be funded is the lifeblood of the operation - without the necessary capital, the project doesn’t even get off the ground. The money has to come from somewhere, but where? When a new sports stadium or arena is desired, teams might discuss and negotiate with states and local governments to determine how they will be funded. No two situations are the same, and a variety of factors must be considered before outlining a financing plan. Thus, one way that a stadium may be paid for, at least in part, is by public financing. This occurs, in effect, when those local and state governments agree to pay for a substantial portion of the stadium’s costs. As the money that the government will use is public funds, this cost is in practice delegated to the local taxpayers, who will see their money essentially being put towards a stadium development project. This use of public funds to build a stadium has been occurring for decades, but there is controversy among many who believe that your average citizen should not be paying for something that a team owner could likely pay for themselves. To that end, the willingness of the public to pay for such a project depend on many factors, such as level of interest in the team, threat to relocate, the promise of a stadium bringing jobs and economic growth to the area, and more. One concern is that these public funds could hypothetically be used more beneficially elsewhere, such as for infrastructure, or education. Nevertheless, these stadium subsidies can come in many forms, including but not limited to tax-free municipal bonds, cash payments, long-term tax exemptions, infrastructure improvements, and operating cost subsidies. Again, the idea is that these stadiums are a public good - theoretically providing jobs and promoting economic growth and interest in the area. If such an agreement is approved, citizens may see higher taxes for a period of time too, such as the Community Investment Tax, a sales tax increase that helped pay for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ stadium. Some notable stadiums that were entirely publicly funded include Angel Stadium of Anaheim (home to MLB’s Los Angeles Angels), Arrowhead Stadium (home to the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs), BB&T Center (home to the NHL’s Florida Panthers), Madison Square Garden (famously home to the NBA’s New York Knicks and the NHL’s New York Rangers), and Toyota Park (home to MLS’s Chicago Fire). Another key way that a stadium may be paid for is by private financing. This, in its most basic terms, is when a private entity - be it a singular person, corporation, or conglomerate - pays the costs of stadium development out of their own net worth. With the prices of stadiums skyrocketing in recent decades, and seemingly only going to continue rising, entirely private financing of stadiums is possibly going to become less common. However, there are still uber-rich owners who will cover the costs in their entirety. For example, Billionaire Rams owner Stan Kroenke footed the bill in its entirety for the Los Angeles Rams (and Chargers) new stadium in Inglewood, California - SoFi Stadium - which reportedly ended up costing the mogul over $10 billion. Perhaps more commonly, this is seen for international soccer stadiums around the world where a stadium (or its renovations) are often handled privately by the club. Take, for example, La Liga giants Real Madrid and FC Barcelona - both of whom paid hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their stadiums in the past decade, even taking on debt from banks or corporate lenders to ensure construction take place. Some other stadiums in the US that are completely privately funded include The Bell Centre (home of the NHL’s Montreal Canadiens), the Pepsi Center (home of the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche and NBA’s Denver Nuggets), and Allianz Field (home of MLS’s Minnesota United). Naming rights generally will be discussed in more detail later, but such naming rights deals can be crucial to securing funding at the inception of stadium development. As the name suggests, this typically occurs when a corporation enters into a contractual agreement with a sports team. In its most basic terms, this agreement would provide that the stadium be named after the corporation or however the corporation so directs upon completion. For example, if the Conduct Detrimental Sports Law Blog entered into such a contract with a new soccer stadium that was going to be built, Conduct Detrimental would pay a certain amount of money in exchange for the stadium being known as, perhaps, Conduct Detrimental Field. These corporate sponsorship contracts are tensely negotiated between team and company, with lawyers spending hours researching, communicating with the other party, trying to get the best deal possible, and eventually drafting the contract itself. These naming and sponsorship agreements can be very lucrative for teams building a stadium, but they must also be approached with caution - special attention should be given to licensing terms, exclusivity provisions, and how, for example, naming your new stadium Snapple Arena may violate a contract you already have with Arizona Iced Tea as the official iced tea of your team. Naming rights deals done at the inception of stadium funding can come in many shapes and sizes as well: about a third of the funding for the FedEx Forum (home to the NBA’s Memphis Grizzlies) came from a naming rights deal; but just under 2% of the funding for AT&T Stadium (home of the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys) came from naming rights. As noted, these agreements can contain various different types of provisions beyond mere funding and naming, but they can play a crucial role in the initial funding of a professional sports stadium. In the end, most stadiums are some combination of two or three of these sources - perhaps a 60% public, 30% private, 10% naming rights split, often adding up to over a billion dollars. However, one problem may arise in these combination-funding situations once renovations are approved, requested, or required years after the stadium opens. For example, Chase Field was completed in 1998, but nearly two decades later in 2017 the Arizona Diamondbacks were locked in a lawsuit with Maricopa County over who was responsible for paying for renovations. Legal action is a last resort, to be sure, but the stakes are very high when the threat of relocating a team is on the table. Ideally, these details would be contractually outlined at inception of the stadium’s development, but shortsighted parties eager to make a deal may not see issues coming down the pipeline. That is why stadium financing, no matter the distribution plan, requires careful drafting, hours of due diligence, exposure limitation, contingency plans, and prospective consideration. With the funding taken care of, the project may begin in earnest. Stay tuned for part two of this three-part series, where we’ll discuss the legal steps needed in order to actually build the stadium. Jason Re, George Washington University Law School 3L Twitter: https://twitter.com/JasonReLaw Email: [email protected] LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-re/