Over the past several years, cryptocurrency has taken the world by storm - from bitcoin, to dogecoin, and everything in between, cryptocurrency is becoming a part of personal finance and business transaction for millions around the world. To that end, cryptocurrency has become an intriguing element - or perhaps a complication - in the the sports business, finance, and law realms. Notably, many professional athletes across the major American sports leagues have requested, and some have successfully contracted, that their salary be paid in a particular cryptocurrency. For example, NFL tackle Russel Okung famously tweeted, “Pay me in Bitcoin” in 2019. It appears his wish has been granted by the Carolina Panthers recently. Well… Technically, Okung was not paid directly in bitcoin. Instead, he personally converted half of his salary (around $13 million) to the cryptocurrency through an outside company that owned an exchange system allowing conversion. The company announced a paycheck conversion program for athletes, allowing many to do the same. Interestingly, when Okung converted about half of his salary to bitcoin, the cryptocurrency was worth about $27,318. Bitcoin’s price has nearly doubled at times since then, and if you are to include these crypto gains in his salary, it would make him one of the highest paid offensive linemen in the sport. In November of 2021, NFL wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. announced that he would be receiving the entirety of his contract with the Los Angeles Rams in Bitcoin. Beckham teamed up with Square Inc.’s CashApp to make the arrangement happen, . He also announced at the same time that he was giving away $1 million in the cryptocurrency to his followers on Twitter. Polarizing NFL star Aaron Rodgers also partnered with Cash App in October of 2021, taking just a portion of his salary in Bitcoin. Rodgers also gave away $1 million in Bitcoin to his Twitter followers upon the announcement, a clear effort by Cash App and crypto companies to increase the access to crypto for sports fans and athletes alike. Even rookie quarterback Trevor Lawrence joined the crypto-craze. When Lawrence was drafted first overall in the NFL draft, the young talent joined forces with investment app Blockfolio, placing his signing bonus into a cryptocurrency investment account - reportedly ending up with a mixture of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Meanwhile, NBA guard Spencer Dinwiddie is the first basketball star to “tokenize” his contract through extensive planning by his legal team. In essence, Dinwiddie will tokenize his three-year, $34.36 million contract, theoretically collecting its value up front. To do this, Dinwiddie would sell 90 of these tokens for $150,000 each to investors, which will then become tradeable, as a digital security. This security would pay out interest on a monthly basis, and fully pay out in 2023 when it matures. Put another way, Dinwiddie is essentially claiming half of his three-year contract salary up front as a sort of loan, paid back to investors in the following years. This process of issuing blockchain-based tokenized security backed by his contract was a point of contention with the league, but after months of negotiations - including discussions over what the opt-out clause in his contract for a third year meant for the plan - it appears the league relented. It’s possible that Dinwiddie has opened the door for other athletes to structure and issue their own debt instruments in digital token form, the size of their contracts making it simpler to bootstrap liquidity and interest using these processes. Further, some professional teams have explicitly adopted cryptocurrency with open arms, such as the NBA’s Sacramento Kings. The team has accepted Bitcoin for merchandise and ticket purchases from fans since 2014, but in April of 2021, the Kings Chairman, CEO, and Governor - Vivek Ranadive - announced that all Kings players (in addition to coaches, stadium staff, and more) would have the option to be paid their salary, in part or in full, in Bitcoin. Seemingly, the Sacramento Kings have entered the crypto-investing sphere, holding their own shares of the cryptocurrency in their own portfolio - coming in and going out, tracking the market’s rise and fall. Similarly, in early 2018, Harunustaspor, a Turkish football club, became the world’s first football team to purchase a player using Bitcoin. The player involved in the transaction, 22-year-old Omar Faruk Kiroglu, also received 0.0524 Bitcoin (£385) as part of the deal with Harunustaspor. Some football clubs around the world are even using crypto-tokens to let fans influence their favorite club. Chiliz, a cryptocurrency and social platform, offers fan engagement tokens focused on sports. Ownership in the crypto-token gives fans the ability to vote on decisions such as whom the football club plays during “friendlies”. The voting power on the platform does not extend to institutional or corporate governance decisions which could have third-party-ownership implications that may be against international or domestic regulations, but the crypto-token nonetheless has inherent value to be bought and sold, drives fan engagement, and increases the relationship between sports club and cryptocurrency worldwide. Ultimately, it appears that there are three key avenues that a team and player may take when contracting that part (or the whole) of a player’s salary will be paid in bitcoin: a) a professional sports team owns their own shares of a cryptocurrency in reserve, paying out to players as the contractual obligations come (putting the risk, but also potential benefit on the team); b) a team purchases a particular cryptocurrency at the time a payment to a player is due and immediately transfers it to them; or c) a player is paid in normal currency, and their currency is then independently transferred and converted into a cryptocurrency of their choice. Each of these arrangements comes with their own set of risks, benefits, and complications. Naturally, there are some benefits and advantages to a professional athlete receiving part, or the entirety, of their contractual salary in cryptocurrency such as efficiency, financial liberation, flexible salary options, potential for growth, and more. First, on a very basic level, a salary paid in bitcoin may theoretically rise in the time after payment, allowing for incredible profits beyond what was promised in the contract with the team, with no loss to them. This rise also applies to a team if they were to have their own wallet of cryptocurrency in reserve - it is about allocation of risk. Take Bitcoin as an example: The value of a Bitcoin was about $900 by the end of 2016, but the value today is around $46,700. Bitcoin may be an outlier, but several different cryptocurrencies have seen substantial growth over the past few years. Next, cryptocurrency transactions are immediate. This leads to more efficient and cost-effective transfers, cutting out the bank and the administrative delays that may come with bank involvement. This is particularly helpful in international payments, as cryptocurrencies are borderless. Cutting out the bank, and an athlete being paid in cryptocurrency essentially being their own bank, allows the player to manage their own assets to their heart’s content - no restrictions, no entity waiting to freeze your account, and no waiting on checks to clear. Further, payment in cryptocurrency increases transparency and identity protection. For example, blockchain transfer generally creates an immutable, transparent record of the salary payments that have taken place - protecting both parties in the event of a dispute as long as these records are properly maintained and stored. While you may not be 100% anonymous or untraceable, worries typically associated with credit card use and identity theft are lessened dramatically. You can even go so far as to send payments while keeping your identity hidden, as long as you follow responsible security practices. Finally, as noted, if a player uses a contractual system of debt instruments in token forms like Dinwiddie, this may allow a player to collect a larger portion of their multi-year salary up front, with almost a sort of quasi-annuity for the length of the player’s contract being sold in crypto form. All that being said, there are significant negatives, and potential risks, associated with contracting a player’s salary to be paid in cryptocurrency. For starters, it is important to remember that cryptocurrencies can be incredibly volatile, and their value may rise and fall sharply from day to day. If a player, or team, has a significant holding of a cryptocurrency that depreciates, a significant portion of their net worth may be affected. Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are known to have drastic swings in price making them much more risky than regular transactional currency. So it may be a good idea to make sure you're only receiving a part of your salary in crypto or to consider selling some part of it immediately upon receiving it. On the other hand, you might choose to hold onto the currency if you know about crypto trading and are expecting your crypto assets to appreciate. Further, unfortunately, cryptocurrency crime is a danger. Things like hacking and scams aren’t uncommon, and if your account gets hacked or you fall victim to a scam or some other crypto-based crime, your money is gone for good — there is no FDIC insurance, nor is there a fraud protection number you can call, nor a bank or credit card company that can cancel a transaction. Finally, there certainly is a learning curve in the crypto-sphere when it comes to the market, the technology involved, and even the simple capability of owning crypto. Cryptocurrency isn’t regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it isn’t traded on the stock market, it can’t be bought or sold directly in ETFs, and isn’t traded on standard currency exchanges. In order to receive payment in cryptocurrency, you’ll have to open an account and a digital wallet on a special exchange. All of this may require special advising and legal help. Additionally, there are tax considerations that must be taken into account when advising a professional athlete client on contracting their salary in cryptocurrency.When it comes to taxation on crypto salary, the IRS states that you will need to determine the difference between the value of the crypto at time of receipt, and how much you sell it for; you should then report this number on your taxes when you sell the currency. Many people are unclear on how crypto taxes work and end up not declaring crypto income. However, the IRS is calling for stricter compliance with crypto reporting requirements. One of the challenges with filing these returns is that you may not always remember the fair market value of the crypto you received, so keeping diligent data tracking the market, and recording your gains and losses as they happen, is crucial. However, you’re not done there! If you think your tax returns are sorted once you declare the cryptocurrency income you received, think again. As far as the IRS is concerned, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fall into the category of “property.” This essentially means that when you sell cryptocurrencies, you have to pay capital gains on any profit that you make. If you have held the crypto for less than a year, you’ll have to pay short-term capital gains tax on the profits. This profit gets added to your total taxable income, and the amount you have to pay in taxes will depend on the tax bracket you belong to. If you hold crypto for more than a year, you’ll end up paying long-term capital gains tax, which can amount to as much as 20% of the profit. On the other hand, don’t forget that if you sell crypto at a loss, you can write off your losses to reduce your taxable income and therefore your tax burden. So don’t forget to keep an account of your losses and include them when you file your returns. Receiving a part of your income in cryptocurrency can feel extremely liberating, as well as efficient and cost-effective. However, there also comes with it a significant risk, and various tax considerations to take into account. Advising a professional athlete on whether they should request some (or the entirety) of their salary from their professional team to be paid in cryptocurrency is certainly a case-by-case question, considering the various factors as outlined above, and should not be taken lightly as crypto seems here to stay. Jason Re, The George Washington University Law School 3L Twitter: https://twitter.com/JasonReLaw Email: [email protected] LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-re/

I am diehard Washington Football team fan (who as of last week are eliminated from playoff contention).I’ll move most anything around on my schedule to watch them play. Not this Sunday. I couldn’t care less about their upcoming game Sunday. Who can wrap their head around many (if any) of their starters feeling a sincere desire to win. I can’t be the only fan with this mentality and this must have an effect on a number the NFL cares deeply about: ratings. While some players on playoff ineligible teams may be willing to put their bodies on the line to achieve individual season long contract incentives (i.e. total catches, yards, tds etc.), they are few and far between. Obviously each player is a professional and compensated handsomely per their respective contracts but there’s a human element here the NFL seems to be glossing over. It is clearly, for the majority of players, in their financial best interest to prolong their careers by avoiding injury. No Kirk Herbstreit-esque blame games here: the juice is not worth the squeeze for the majority of players to jeopardize their career length and risk injury by giving it their all in week 18. Their bank account will presumably read the same regardless if the box score shows W or L. Their cost benefit analysis definitively points to erring on the side of caution and more conservative play on their part. But what if they did have a financial incentive to play to the best of their abilities in these, once thought of as meaningless, games? There’s a possibility for a win-win-win scenario for the NFL, it’s players and the fans if the league offered a bonus to players who win games in these scenarios. What?! I know it sounds crazy to reward losers but humor me for a second. For example, who wouldn’t want to watch Taylor Heinecke strap it on one last week for a chance at $20K (or 0.289 bitcoin in Trevor Lawrence’s case). As I don’t have a finance degree, I’ll let the Joe Pompliano’s of twitter hash out the appropriate compensation numbers but that’s beside the point. Motivating these players to elevate (or at least maintain) their standard of play would assuredly boost ratings.In this scenario fans are happier, the players are presumably happier (if they win) and the NFL pads their regular season ratings. Your move, Goodell. By: Rob Williams Twitter: @The_RobWilliams Instagram: @The_RobWilliams Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/robertlouiswilliams/

By now you’ve all seen the clip that set the internet on fire. Tampa Bay Bucs Wide Receiver Antonio Brown performing his best drunken fan impression storming through the field shirtless as he exited MetLife Stadium. Parading through the endzone as he waved goodbye to fans was the latest in a long line of questionable decision-making by the former All-Pro. Brown has had his fair share of missteps. Over the last several years Brown has faced allegations of sexual assault, pleaded no contest to felony burglary with battery, and was suspended by the NFL for faking a vaccination card, just to mention a few. During that stretch Brown also caught a touchdown in the Super Bowl alongside Tom Brady, the quarterback who repeatedly vouched for Brown. The Antonio Brown story is another reminder of the harsh reality that talent trumps all. Certain players who perform at a high level are given second, third, and fourth chances despite repeated behavior demonstrating they don’t deserve it. The attention was focused on Brown’s temper tantrum, but initially there was a lot unknown surrounding the cause of the blowup. Many speculated it could have been as simple not receiving targets from Tom Brady during the game. Notably, even despite missing nine games due to injury and poor construction of a faux vaccine card, Brown was rapidly approaching contract incentives worth an amount of money so large it may cause someone to be unusually upset about not receiving the ball. However, as we all know there’s two sides to every story. Story number two paints Brown in a more sympathetic light; one where he was taken advantage of by his employer. Earlier this week, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported that Brown and the Bucs coaching staff got in an argument on the sidelines over Brown’s availability. Brown felt as if he was suffering from an ankle injury that prevented him from entering the game. According to Rapoport, the coaching staff told Brown, “If you’re not going into the game when we tell you to go into the game, then you can’t be here”.[1] This exchange then led to the outburst we all saw. After the game Brown himself didn’t provide much clarity. He posted this cryptic message on Instagram: After a quick google search, it’s unclear if “super gremlin” means he was upset because he wasn’t getting the ball enough, upset because he was being forced to play despite an ankle injury, or something in between. But after several days of reflection, Brown’s attorney Sean Burstyn released a statement outlining a version of events which follows Rapoport’s reporting that Brown was injured and asked to return to the game by the coaching staff: We can dive a little deeper into these conflicting stories. On one hand, Brown has shown a repeated pattern of erratic behavior that is consistent with his actions on Sunday. If Brown was unhappy with how the game was going, this wouldn’t cause most NFL players to combust. But Brown has shown he doesn’t act like most NFL players. You could take a guess which storyline Bucs head coach Bruce Arians is feeding the media. Arians’ comments have been vague surrounding what transpired on the sideline and when asked in a press conference for details stated, “you all saw what happened”.[2] Arians also told reporters, “I don’t know that he was [injured]”. That particular detail is difficult to believe because Brown had been dealing with an ankle injury for months. Arians may not want to comment further on the matter for fear of letting this distraction continue to affect his football team. My cynical side believes that Arians has been coached by lawyers and his PR team to not provide any details that could show the Bucs organization was culpable. If Arians was coached, he’s a fast learner. When asked, “Can you share anything about the conversation you had with AB before he left” Arians responded, “No. You’ll have to ask him.” For a moment let’s follow Arian’s side. Brown lost his mind due to selfish reasons such as not getting the ball enough and when the Bucs begged Brown to reenter the game he refused. If Brown was upset because he felt a million dollars of contract incentives slipping through his hands, wouldn’t he be on the field despite an ankle injury? If money was all he cared about, he would have been on the field attempting to obtain his payday even if his ankle injury forced him into a wheelchair. Instead, Brown was on the sidelines arguing with his coaching staff. Something doesn’t add up. If the Bucs were forcing Brown to enter the game despite an ankle injury, he has the option of filing a grievance with the league. This is where lawyers get involved arguing about how much compensation Brown is owed upon his departure from the team. Brown’s attorneys will claim the Bucs were in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement “CBA” by attempting to force an injured player onto the football field, and when he refused, they cut him. Coaches shouldn’t be involved in conversations with players diagnosing and evaluating the severity of an injury. That role is designated to the training staff and team doctor under the CBA. The training staff then notifies the coach of a player’s status for the remainder of a game. Brown will make an argument the proper injury protocol wasn’t followed. On the flip side, the Bucs will likely keep their story consistent that Brown’s injury was not discussed. They will make a case that Brown’s outburst on the sideline was “conduct detrimental” to the team, so they have the right to cut bait and move on. Brown is already starting to bolster his defense. Rick Stroud of the Tampa Bay Times reported that Brown received an MRI from a surgeon outside of the Bucs organization that revealed a “lingering ankle injury”.[3] This is consistent with the statement released by Brown’s attorney. This ankle injury prevented Brown from practicing on Thursday and Friday and caused Brown to be listed as “questionable” for Sunday’s contest. The mystery remains unsolved for now. The tapes of the Bucs sideline at MetLife may have to be analyzed like the Zapruder film by the NFL to get to the bottom of this. Antonio Brown’s time as a Tampa Bay Buc is officially over, but the drama between the two sides is set to continue. 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/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] NFL, https://www.nfl.com/videos/ian-rapoport-explains-what-transpired-on-sideline-with-antonio-brown, (last visisted Jan. 5, 2021). [2] Jenna Laine, Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Bruce Arians has 'no regrets' about adding Antonio Brown, says he cares about WR, ESPN https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32986335/tampa-bay-buccaneers-coach-bruce-arians-no-regrets-adding-antonio-brown-says-cares-wr (last visited Jan. 5, 2021). [3] Alek Arend, New Details Emerge From Developing Antonio Brown Situation, The Spun https://thespun.com/nfl/nfc-south/tampa-bay-buccaneers/new-details-emerge-from-developing-antonio-brown-situation (last visited Jan. 5, 2021).

In the 2020–'21 season, Evander Kane played 56 games, scored 22 goals, and had 27 assists. These were impressive numbers for a shortened season due to Covid–19. Kane has not played a single NHL game in the 2021–'22 season. Following various allegation from his ex-wife Anna, Kane did not report to training camp or participate in the opening weeks of the season. In October the NHL announced that Kane would be suspended 21 games for violating the NHL COVID Protocols.[1] Days before he was to return to the Sharks, the team assigned him to the AHL. San Jose assistant general manager Joe Will said the team explored all options and decided "the best thing at this time is for him to continue to play hockey and the best option for that right now is the [AHL].”[2] Kane was sent to the San Jose Barracuda where he only played 5 games with the team. He has not played in an AHL game since December 22, 2021, after he entered AHL Covid Protocol. On January 8, 2022, the Sharks placed Kane on unconditional waivers with the intention of terminating his contract. Kane is considered an unrestricted free agent and can sign with any team. The Sharks stated that they informed Kane they were terminating his contract "for breach of his NHL standard player contract and for violation of the AHL COVID-19 protocols."[3] Since the allegation against Kane surfaced in August 2021, the Sharks have been trying to trade Kane and some of his teammates did not want him to return to the team. Kane is in the fourth season of a seven-year contract which he signed on May 24, 2018. In response to Kane being placed on unconditional waivers the NHLPA stated that they would file grievances. On Monday January 10, 2022, the NHLPA filed a grievance on behalf of Kane following the termination of his contract.[4] The contract that Kane signed in 2018 was worth $49 million and paid him $7 million annually. Kane will forfeit the remaining $22.8 million of the deal.[5] The CBA lays out procedures for grievances and what can and cannot be done. Section 17.2-17.5 Initiation, Filing, Grievance Committee, Arbitration states: Only the NHL or the NHLPA may file grievances, as they're the only two groups who actually signed the CBA. Grievances have to be filed as timely as possible and absolutely have to be filed within 60 days of the event which caused the grievance or within 60 days of facts coming to light which create the grievance.[6] Since the Kane grievence is within 60 days of the event, the process will now be sorted about by the NHL and the NHLPA. The biggest issue now is that while Kane is in the grievance process he can sign with any team and then he would be under contract with two NHL team which is not allowed. Kane and his agent have been silent on the recent developments of the veteran forward’s career. On Saturday Dan Milstein, Kane’s agent Tweeted: "The Sharks do not have sufficient grounds for taking this action."[7] Kane’s future with the NHL is shaky and the next few days will play a crucial role in the future of his hockey career. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Ellis, Steven. “Evander Kane given 21-Game Suspension for Violating NHL's Covid-19 Protocol.” The Hockey News on Sports Illustrated, 18 Oct. 2021, https://www.si.com/hockey/news/evander-kane-given-21-game-suspension-for-violating-nhls-covid-19-protocol. [2] Gulitti, Tom. “Kane Placed on Waivers by Sharks with Intent to Terminate Contract.” NHL.com, 9 Jan. 2022, https://www.nhl.com/news/san-jose-sharks-place-evander-kane-on-unconditional-waivers-with-intent-to-terminate-contract/c-329595132. [3] Id. [4] Kaplan, Emily. “NHLPA Files Grievance after San Jose Sharks Terminate Evander Kane's Contract.” ESPN, 10 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33034735/nhlpa-file-grievance-san-jose-sharks-terminate-evander-kane-contract. [5] Id. [6]Collective Bargaining Agreement, The PA | NHLPA.com, www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba. [7] Kaplan, Emily. “NHLPA Files Grievance after San Jose Sharks Terminate Evander Kane's Contract.” ESPN, 10 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33034735/nhlpa-file-grievance-san-jose-sharks-terminate-evander-kane-contract.

FC Barcelona has enjoyed much success on the domestic and European levels in the 21st century. Since the turn of the century, they’ve won 10 La Liga titles, seven Copa Del Rey titles and are four-time UEFA Champions League winners. With players like Andres Iniesta, Ronaldinho, Xavi, Carles Puyol, and Lionel Messi who have donned the world-renowned Blaugrana colors, Barcelona has become one of the biggest teams in the world. Being one of the biggest and most successful teams in the world means that the expectations are high every season and in turn need to spend a lot on wages and transfers to bring in top players. A club like Barcelona has no problem attracting top-tier talent, but being able to pay that top talent has been a bit of an issue for the club since the pandemic. If we go back to last summer, Barcelona lost out on arguably the best player to ever play for the club, Lionel Messi, due to financial problems. Barcelona was unable to register Messi due to La Liga’s financial fair play system, which is similar to a salary cap in American sports. Even with a 50% pay cut, which is the most allowed by Spanish law, Barcelona would have been unable to keep Messi. After 21 years at the club, Messi was forced to leave Barcelona due to the poor financial management by the club. Of course, Barcelona had a hard time finding someone to fill the boots of Messi. They had trouble registering the few players they were able to bring in last summer like Sergio Aguero, Memphis Depay, and Eric Garcia. It is reported that the club is in debt of over €1 billion, with it being reported that their salary limit is €-144 million. What does it mean when it’s negative? Well, this means Barcelona cannot spend any more money on a player until they get that number to 0. To help get that number to 0, Barcelona recently leveraged their future for the present. They sold 10% of their TV rights to US investment firm Sixth Street Partners for €207.5 million for 25 years. This was done after Barcelona members voted to sell up to 25% of their La Liga rights along with voting to sell 49.9% of Barca Licensing and Merchandising (BLM). No deal has been struck for the BLM arm of the club, but I’m sure Barcelona is looking for deals to help their debt problem. Along with that, Barca recently signed a partnership deal with Spotify. This deal has been pegged by various sources at 4 years, €280 million for Spotify to be the main sponsor of the club, with Barcelona also handing over the naming rights to their stadium. The world-famous Camp Nou will now be Spotify Camp Nou. With these two deals alongside long-time Barcelona players like Gerard Pique, Jordi Alba, and Sergio Busquets taking pay cuts, it’s helped Barcelona try to get out of debt. With this newfound money, Barca has spent over €100 million this summer on Robert Lewandowski and Raphinha, while also being linked to Jules Kounde and Bernardo Silva. They are looking to offload their star midfielder, Frenkie De Jong, to try to offset the amount they’ve spent this summer. Fabrizio Romano has said that the deal between Barcelona and Manchester United is agreed upon at €75 million with €10 million in add-ons. The most intriguing part about this potential deal is that Frenkie De Jong is supposedly owed €17 million by Barca due to pay cuts he took during the pandemic to help the club’s dire financial situation. Barcelona still owe one of their best players €17 million but are able to sign two players for over €100 million in transfers? It looks like others in the footballing world are not understanding this either as Bayern Munich coach, Julian Nagelsmann, told Bild reporter Tobi Altschäffl, “Barcelona, the only club that has no money but then… buys every player they want.” This could stem from Nagelsmann being upset that their talisman striker, Lewandowski, was sold to Barcelona from Bayern Munich, but makes a fair comment in questioning how Barcelona is able to afford these players. Barcelona has been in financial trouble since the pandemic started, yet here they are spending a lot of money on two players so far, with others being linked to the club. Whether they will be able to register all of these players is key, as they haven’t been able to register their free signings this summer in Franck Kessie and Andreas Christensen. Of course, Barcelona is spending to try to get them back to competing for multiple trophies. If their money problems persist, they will have trouble keeping up with the state-owned clubs and clubs like Chelsea and Real Madrid. These are clubs that constantly spend to try to improve their squad and give the club squad depth with the multiple competitions they play in every season. If Barcelona is able to register all of their new signings, they will have a strong team filled with depth to compete on all fronts. It’ll be interesting to see if they go after more players this summer and if they’re able to continue to spend like this in the next few summers. Greg Termolle is a 3L at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. You can follow him on Twitter at @GregTerm.

The Chip Ganassi Racing (CGR) Alex Palou situation has taken another turn. The Indystar has reported that CGR has filed a suit against Alex Palou for breach of contract in Marion County Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, Chip Ganassi Racing reported that they had resigned the 2021 IndyCar Champion to a new contract. Within a couple of hours of this being reported by Chip Ganassi Racing via social media, Palou announced on Twitter, "I did not approve that press release, and I did not author or approve that quote. As I have recently informed CGR, for personal reasons, I do not intend to continue with the team after 2022." ( Palou) Palou later stated that he was leaving Chip Ganassi Racing for Arrows McLaren at the end of the season. Palou along with new team Arrows McLaren have maintained that they have not done anything wrong and that there has been no breach of contract. In the past two-week stretch, the animosity between the team and driver has been high. It has been previously reported by NBC sports that Palou no longer has access to crucial data at and away from the track. Even more worrisome, it was rumored that after seeing Palou's tweet, CGR may have contacted other drivers to take over for Palou at the Toronto Grand Prix just a few days after the dispute. Court records show that Palou and ALPA Racing (Palou's racing entity) are listed as defendants. Palou was served summons at his residences in Spain and Indianapolis. Ganassi's lawyers have filed to seal the official complaint and four exhibits in the case. Lawyers for Chip Ganassi Racing have also filed an emergency motion for expedited discovery. Palou has announced that he plans to move to Arrows McLaren for the Sept. 11th race at Laguna Seca. This is believed to be why Ganassi has filed a prompt hearing motion on the preliminary injunction requesting that it is heard prior to the end of August. Chip Ganassi Racing when reached for comment by Racer.com stated “Alex Palou is under contract with Chip Ganassi Racing through the end of the 2023 season. He is a valued member of our team, and we will continue to support him in chasing wins, podiums, and IndyCar championships. As the result of a competing racing team improperly attempting to contract with him notwithstanding the clear terms of our contract, we are proceeding to legal process pursuant to the contract.” It is clear that both sides are not close to ending this dispute any time soon, all eyes will be on Palou as he competes for Ganassi this weekend in Indianapolis. Jack Bradley is currently a Law school student at Duquesne Univesity School of Law and alum of Georgetown University (MPS) and Penn State University (BA). Jack is also the Co-founder and President of Poppy Packs a 501c3 charity and former Head of Marketing and Communications for Norm Benning Racing. Sources Palou, Alex (@AlexPalou) Twitter 12th July 2022 https://twitter.com/AlexPalou/status/1546996392912109568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1546996392912109568%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmotorsports.nbcsports.com%2F2022%2F07%2F12%2Falex-palou-mclaren-racing-chip-ganassi-f1-indycar-2023%2F Brown, N. (2022, July 27). Chip Ganassi racing sues Alex Palou in Marion County Superior Court amid contract dispute. The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2022/07/27/indycar-chip-ganassi-racing-sues-alex-palou-amid-contract-dispute/65383813007/ Ryan, N. (2022, July 13). Alex Palou says he'll leave Ganassi for McLaren in 2023 - NBC Sports. MotorSportsTalk | NBC Sports. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2022/07/12/alex-palou-mclaren-racing-chip-ganassi-f1-indycar-2023/ Pruett, M. (2022, July 27). Ganassi team sues Palou. RACER. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://racer.com/2022/07/27/ganassi-team-sues-palou/

Last week, stories emerged revealing that on July 14, Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association (CFBPA), met with Penn State football players. News of the meeting between the CFBPA and Penn State football players, which included a list of demands and information regarding unionizing, led to a call between Stahl and Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren. While the CFBPA is not a union, if the Big Ten does not entertain the CFBPA’s demands, the CFBPA may explore forming a union, which would allow the union to collectively bargain for reforms. About the CFBPA The CFBPA is an organization “founded to represent past, present and future college football players nationwide.” By organizing college football players, the CFBPA is a member-led organization pushing for changes in college football. The CFBPA currently has three demands to the Big Ten, including sharing media revenue and enhanced medical care. Notably, the demands come at a time when the Big Ten is in the midst of negotiating a new media rights deal, and Division I is being transformed after the NCAA adopted a new constitution in January. Previous Attempts to Unionize The CFBPA’s talk of unionizing should remind fans of Northwestern University (NU) football players’ attempt to unionize through the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) and supported by United Steelworkers. Beginning in 2014, NU football players formed CAPA and began pushing for reforms, including enhanced medical care. Initially, the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the football players were employees with a right to unionize. Specifically, Chicago regional director Peter Sung Ohr found that the athlete-university relationship resembles an employee-employer relationship. Northwestern University appealed the regional director’s decision. Instead of overturning the decision, the NLRB declined to rule on the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities. Thus, ending the football players’ union efforts. Changing Landscape As stated previously, Division I is currently transforming, including navigating allowing athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness, and the United States Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Alston that NCAA rules limited education-related compensation violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, recognizing that the NCAA is a profit-making enterprise. Most importantly, On September 15, 2021, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum taking the position that student-athletes are employees under the National Labor Relations Act and thus, afforded all statutory protections. While a memorandum is merely advisory, it does yield support for the CFBPA’s position. Other cases regarding college athletes’ status are ongoing, including Johnson v. NCAA, which is waiting on a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the following question: “Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, solely by virtue of their participation in interscholastic athletics.” Therefore, a lot has changed since Northwestern University football players attempted to unionize in 2014. With the changing landscape, any attempt to unionize may succeed. Path Forward On Tuesday, July 26, at Big Ten media day, Commissioner Warren made it clear that the Big Ten has formed a student-athlete advisory group that will discuss revenue sharing and the college athletic environment. Thus, the efforts of Penn State football players are already paying off. Will conversations between the conference and players lead to changes? Hopefully, it will. If not, the CFBPA may take a chance at forming a union. 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

As a fan of a sports team, a championship win is a pinnacle of happiness, guaranteeing a lifetime of memories, countless stories to pass along to friends and family, and a healthy amount of money spent at cash registers to commemorate the occasion. In June 2019, the St. Louis Blues defeated the Boston Bruins to win the 2019 Stanley Cup on Boston’s TD Garden home ice, while at the same time, Aaron Stock–a Wentzville native, Richmond Heights firefighter, and Blues fan–was celebrating at a watch party at the Blues’ Enterprise Center.[1] As easy as it is to imagine wanting to preserve memories of the greatest year your team has ever had, try to then imagine how you would feel if your favorite team was seemingly gaslighting you while selling you a bill of goods. This appears to be the origin story of a lawsuit that is now on the Conduct Detrimental radar. Stock appears to have initially filed suit in St. Louis County on October 14, 2021,[2] but the case was transferred to the City of St. Louis on July 8, 2022.[3] As of this writing, a jury trial is scheduled for January 30, 2023, but this assumes that there are no delays in deposing witnesses and that the parties do not otherwise settle the matter. Aaron Stock has purchased thousands of dollars of St. Louis Blues memorabilia. Now, he's suing the team saying some of it was mislabeled.[4] According to Katie Kull’s reporting on this lawsuit, Stock was the winner of a Blues-sponsored auction in October 2019, bidding almost $1700 for leg pads attributed to Stanley Cup-winning starting goaltender Jordan Binnington–and also attributed to the 2018-19 Cup-winning season.[5] Stock appears to have subsequently attempted to “photo match” his memorabilia, only to come to a disappointing conclusion that his Binnington pads were from the year after the Stanley Cup win (the 2019-20 season)--instead of the 2018-19 season as seemingly advertised. “Photo matching” refers to noticing unique identifying marks or characteristics on game-used artifacts, and locating that memorabilia with the exact markings in-game photographs. This disappointing Binnington discovery appears to have uncovered similar stories about memorabilia from other key Blues players, such as Cup-winning backup goaltender Jake Allen and star winger Vladimir Tarasenko: the items were apparently stated to have been worn in the 2018-19 Cup year, but no photos existed to corroborate the Blues’ statements about their use in that season. When the product description hinges upon game use in the championship year, a team’s alleged mistake should be a key fact for a jury to decide! As a collector of game-used memorabilia myself, I can confirm that mistakes can happen. Some teams offer a certificate of authenticity (COA) accompanying the memorabilia that they sell, some teams do not offer any COA but will still include an item description as to when and by whom the equipment was used, and some teams will only hold an occasional garage sale where everything is sold “as-is.” When a COA accompanies a piece of game-used memorabilia, collectors will conclude whether the COA is corroborated by photo matches, or whether there is more to the story than that. I have items in my collection that photo match to more games than the COA and/or the auction item descriptions offer, to fewer games, or sometimes to simply an incorrect game. Then, if the COA proves to have wrong information, the collector as buyer probably has to choose between living with an expensive “buyer beware” lesson or else seeking recourse in other ways. For the sake of some personal examples, I own a game-used helmet that I won from a Montreal Canadiens auction.[6] This white helmet was sold as “Ben Chiarot’s 2020 playoffs used helmet.” The helmet photo matches quite obviously to the 2020 playoffs, and it also photo matches just as obvious to many regular season games before the 2020 playoffs–at least one of them, I attended in person. Here, as a collector, I am happy because the photo matches are better than advertised, so I will never complain! Meanwhile, I also own a Corey Schueneman stick that is authenticated by the Habs as used in LGBTQIA+ Pride Night warmups on April 16, 2022, prior to the game against the Washington Capitals.[7] In this auction, there were no photos of the exact stick for bidding, but I knew Schueneman was pictured with a Pride-taped stick at this warmup on the Canadiens’ Instagram page, so I bid on it hoping it would photo match. Interestingly, it clearly does not photo match Pride warmups, but it does conclusively photo match to the previous night’s game instead, on April 15, 2022, against the New York Islanders. My best guess is that this stick was used on the 15th, retaped so it was ready for warmups on the 16th, and whether or not it was actually used in warmups on the 16th, it was given a COA and sold to me. This is a slightly odd fact pattern, but with a photo match to regular season game action, this is better than a warmup stick, so once again, I will not complain about this piece of memorabilia either! Back to the St. Louis litigant. Stock’s allegations appear to be more than just one accident at auction, because he offered his concerns and objections to the Blues to General Counselor Michael Lowenbaum in May 2020, and Lowenbaum admitted deficiencies in the authentication system at a July meeting.[8] Since then, instead of overhauling their authentication processes, refunding Stock, or even arranging for autograph sessions to keep Stock out of the courthouse, the Blues allegedly continued selling “fake goods” such as a Carl Gunnarsson “game used” helmet with no stickers or any other signs of use, and ultimately instructed Stock to stop bidding on Blues items.[9] Now, Aaron Stock has thousands of dollars worth of St. Louis Blues game-used memorabilia–some accompanied by incorrect or intentionally misleading COA’s, and a lawsuit against his favorite team. Whether his collection can still remind him of the 2019 Stanley Cup championship, or whether it is now his personal tort museum, will be shaped by the future fate of these legal proceedings. Mike Engle is an associate attorney for the United States federal government. During his time at Hofstra Law School in New York, his articles were published in the Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal and the DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems. He was also an invited guest on the now defunct vlog Law & Batting Order. Mike resides in Upstate New York with his wife, Gillian, and their daughter, Esther. Interact with him on Twitter @EngleLaw29, but only during off-duty hours and preferably not during Montreal Canadiens games! [1] Kull, Katie, Diehard Blues fan sues team, claims they sold thousands in mislabeled merchandise, LONGVIEW NEWS-JOURNAL (July 25, 2022), https://www.news-journal.com/diehard-blues-fan-sues-team-claims-they-sold-thousands-in-mislabeled-merchandise/article_36e01e8e-db37-5abd-9edd-f76bf8956ca7.html [2] Docket No. 21SL-CC04831 (accessed July 25, 2022), https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/header.do?inputVO.caseNumber=21SL-CC04831&inputVO.courtId=CT21 [3] Docket No. 2222-CC06810 (accessed July 25, 2022), https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/header.do?inputVO.caseNumber=2222-CC06810&inputVO.courtId=CT22 [4] Kull, supra note 1. [5] Kull, supra note 1. [6] Engle, Michael, Ben Chiarot 2020 Helmet, GAME USED AUTHORITY (accessed July 25, 2022), https://gameusedauthority.com/guauth.com/ci/p0zk. [7] Engle, Michael, Corey Schueneman 2022 Hockey Stick, GAME USED AUTHORITY (accessed July 25, 2022), https://gameusedauthority.com/guauth.com/ci/p0jh6g==. [8] Kull, supra note 1. [9] Id.

Since the outbreak of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, FIFA has attempted to demonstrate solidarity by assisting foreign nationals inadvertently caught in the middle of war. On June 21, FIFA issued a ruling allowing foreign players and coaches at Ukrainian clubs the opportunity to unilaterally suspend their contracts until June 30, 2023, unless a mutual agreement could be found by June 30 of this year. For one of Ukraine’s most prestigious clubs, however, this ruling would hold ominous repercussions, and they have responded accordingly. Last week, Ukrainian club Shakhtar Donetsk filed papers in the European Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to appeal the most recent update of FIFA’s ruling, seeking €50million in damages from soccer’s governing body. In its filing to the CAS, Shakhtar has also requested FIFA be ordered to pay damages to the club and cover all costs related to future arbitration proceedings. Shakhtar Donetsk is one of Ukraine’s most successful clubs, having won the Ukrainian championship an impressive 13 times and represented Ukraine in the UEFA Champions League on a regular basis. Nevertheless, an inherent trait for which the club is known around the world is their propensity to employ foreign players within the team – especially those from Brazil. Currently, Shakhtar employ 14 foreign players at the club, so any ruling issued by FIFA that allows foreign players to leave Ukraine without their clubs recollecting a transfer fee would hold disastrous consequences for said clubs’ incoming revenue. Shakhtar’s revenue streams have already been devastated as a result of the Russian invasion. In order to raise funds necessary to maintain the financial stability of the club, Shakhtar were in active discussions to sell their foreign players to other clubs. Shakhtar were not oblivious to the notion that their foreign players would not desire to return to play in the middle of an active war zone. Nevertheless, the club still felt entitled to recover transfer fees for the sales of their players. Unfortunately for Shakhtar, however, FIFA’s June ruling meant that they had 9 days to close all pending deals before the players would be allowed to move to the buying clubs absent of a fee. For those unaware with the nature of transfer negotiations in global soccer, the process of sealing a transfer can be incredibly tedious. Clubs first must meet at a common valuation for the player in question. Once the valuation has been met, the deal is then subject to the personal terms of the contract, which the buying club must negotiate with the player’s agent or team of representatives. Needless to say, the closing of transfer deals for just a single player is a process that typically spans the length of an entire transfer window, so to mandate that a club be able to negotiate the sales of 14 players in 9 days is an unattainable proposition for any club. Additionally, the players’ agents and the buying clubs also knew that they could wait until June 30 to engage in any transfer discussions with Shakhtar in order to avoid paying the Ukrainian club a transfer fee. Consequently, Shakhtar lost out on millions of Euros worth of incoming revenue, forming the basis of their compensatory claims against FIFA in the CAS. For Shakhtar’s chief executive, Sergei Palkin, FIFA’s ruling is a gross indication of apathy displayed toward the financial difficulties Ukrainian clubs currently face. With FIFA’s decision, Shakhtar are now unable to collect funds they are rightfully owed for player sales and that they require to continue paying the instalments owed to other clubs for the previous transfers of their current players. Palkin has even stated that current FIFA president Gianni Infantino has failed to respond to multiple letters addressing the matter at hand, leaving one of most recognizable Ukrainian clubs to sit in financial anguish. According to Palkin, the club will have all papers filed to the CAS by August 15 and will take legal consultation to understand all their options in pursuing their claim against FIFA. It will certainly be interesting to observe the steps taken by both FIFA and the CAS in this matter. Since war began in Ukraine, FIFA has been quick to emphasize their support for Ukrainian fans and players, yet Ukraine’s clubs have simultaneously felt the financial sting of neglect. Now, Shakhtar’s legal claims against FIFA indicate that clubs are ready to fight back. Bryce Goodwyn is an incoming 1L at Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, he will be a member of the Honors Program and will work as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the Regent University Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

Despite missing the National Football League (“NFL”) playoffs this season, the Denver Broncos have been dominating news headlines recently because of an issue with an asserted right of first refusal, commonly called a “ROFR” in the legal and real estate communities, in a sale of the team. Team officials and ownership were apparently blindsided (pun definitely intended) when ROFR Holdings Ltd., a Canadian holding company, sent a letter through its attorney informing the organization that if it intended to sell the team, which the organization’s leadership had openly discussed during this NFL season, that ROFR Holdings Ltd. would assert its right of first refusal. But what exactly is a right of first refusal? Simply put, a right of first refusal is a bargained for, contractual right that allows a party – ROFR Holdings Ltd., in this case – to, in a transaction, step into the shoes of another interested party who has made an offer and either consummate the transaction on the terms proposed by that other interested party or refuse to consummate the transaction on those terms, which would allow that other interested party to consummate the transaction. For example, if you had a right of first refusal to buy my car, I would be well within my rights to offer to sell my car to Peyton Manning for $10,000, but before I could actually sell Peyton the car, you would be able to see that I had an offer of $10,000 to purchase my car and could decide if you wanted to buy my car for $10,000 (in which case the former Super Bowl MVP would have to find a used car elsewhere) or decide that the offer is not worth it (in which case Peyton Manning would be able to buy my car). Having a ROFR to buy my car versus having a ROFR to buy an NFL franchise is clearly a much more valuable contractual right, and something that the Denver Broncos organization was concerned about in anticipation of a possible sale of the franchise. The alleged ROFR itself dates back to the 1984 sale of the team by Edgar Kaiser to Pat Bowlen. As part of the sale, Kaiser retained a right of first refusal for the team. Kaiser has since passed, as has Bowlen, but before his passing, Kaiser assigned the ROFR to ROFR Holdings Ltd., which his estate owned in part. Or at least that is the factual scenario that ROFR Holdings Ltd. asserted.[1] To clear things up before any sale was announced, the Denver Broncos organization went on the offensive. The organization filed a lawsuit asserting that the right of first refusal was no longer enforceable by ROFR Holdings Ltd. because it was improperly transferred. The court agreed, with the judge stating that the ROFR “is no longer valid or enforceable in any respect.”[2] While the decision may not seem like much of a win for the Denver Broncos, after all, even with the ROFR, the organization would be able to complete a sale to some party at the end of the day, having the ROFR declared unenforceable is in reality a big win for the organization: the more parties involved in negotiations and discussions (and the ROFR adds at least one more party to all negotiations), the more money that goes to attorneys and other advisors instead of into the pockets of the owners. Plus, having a party with a ROFR can make it harder to pit potential buyers against each other in an effort to increase the ultimate value of the franchise. For a great discussion of the business terms of the imminent sale of the Denver Broncos franchise, which is now primed to be one of the most expensive sales of a sports franchise ever, check out Joseph Pompliano’s post on Huddle Up. [1] Court Ruling Sets the Stage for a Possible Denver Broncos Sale - WSJ. [2] Court Ruling Sets the Stage for a Possible Denver Broncos Sale - WSJ.

With the 2022 Winter Olympics Games set to begin in less than six weeks, the status of the men’s ice hockey tournament has as little clarity as any sport in the Games. It was only December 22, 2021 when the National Hockey League (NHL) announced that it would not be sending its players to Beijing due to the rising cases of COVID-19 in the NHL, an announcement that was particularly disappointing after it was announced approximately three months earlier that the NHLers would be returning to the tournament after being held out of the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. While traditional hockey powers scramble to piece together a roster, there is one team that knows—for the most part—who will be taking the ice and wearing their nation’s colors in February: China. As one can imagine, China is far from a hockey superpower (currently ranked 32nd in the world); however, they received its first berth to the Olympic ice hockey tournament because it is hosting the Games. Even though the Chinese team is much farther along in finalizing its roster, this is not to say that China has not had its issues in forming a competitive team since it was elected to host the Games in July 2015. In fact, it was only a few months ago that the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) considered removing China from the tournament due to "insufficient sporting standard.” The difficulty in fielding a competitive squad is mainly due to the historical lack of ice hockey talent in China. South Korea faced the same issue entering the 2018 tournament but were able to strengthen its roster by naturalizing a handful of foreign players from North America that were playing in Asia League Ice Hockey (ALIH) thanks to an amendment in the country’s “Nationality Act”, which permitted foreigners to naturalize in South Korea if they can contribute to the national interests of the nation, including those who had excellent ability in sport. In addition, anyone that naturalized was able to keep their original country’s passport. The South Korean team was not a powerhouse by any means, going winless and being outscored 19-3 in the 2018 Games, but was ranked 21st in the world heading into the tournament. China attempted to jumpstart its hockey program by using a similar strategy as the South Koreans with the creation of the Kunlun Red Star, a China-based professional team slated to compete in the highly competitive Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) starting in the 2016-17 season. Being the only high-level professional franchise in China after the dissolution of the ALIH’s China Dragon after the 2016-17 season, Kunlun became the proxy training ground for the future Chinese hockey squad. The idea of potentially playing in the Olympics drew many North American hockey players to Kunlun, many of whom have Chinese heritage, including former NHLers Brandon Yip and Spencer Foo. However, Kunlun has not faired well in the KHL, finishing with a losing record in its previous four seasons and are currently dead last in the KHL this season. In addition, the team has been forced to relocate to the suburbs of Moscow the past two seasons due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The current make-up of the Kunlun roster gives us a good idea of who will be suiting up for the Chinse squad on February 10 against the United States. It has been projected that more than half of the Chinese squad will comprise of players born outside of China. However, the roster has been in flux in the last few weeks, mainly in part to the IIHF’s eligibility standards and China’s naturalization laws. Pursuant to the IIHF’s rules, to participate in the Olympic ice hockey tournament players must, in short: (a) be under the jurisdiction of an IIHF member national association; (b) be a citizen of the country they represent; and (c) (i) prove that they have participated for at least two consecutive hockey seasons in their new country and have neither transferred to another country nor played within any other country, or (ii) if the player has previously participated in IIHF for another country, such player has participated for at least four consecutive years in the national competitions of their new country. This standard has been made even more difficult due to the strict naturalization laws in China, which has some of the most difficult immigration standards in the world. While China’s “Nationality Law” generally allows foreigners to become naturalized citizens if they have relatives who are Chinese citizens, have settled in China, or “have other legitimate reasons,” it is widely understood that if one does not have a relative who’s a Chinese citizen and lives in China their chances for naturalization are essentially zero. Further complicating this issue is the fact that China, unlike South Korea, does not recognize dual nationality, meaning any person that naturalizes to China must relinquish their previous country’s passport. According to Mark Dreyer of China Sports Insider, the idea of giving up a Canadian or U.S. passport and becoming a Chinese citizen has caused some of the prospective Olympic players on Kunlun’s roster to hesitate in joining Team China. During this same report, Dreyer noted that Canadian-born defenseman Victor Bartley (121 NHL games) left the Kunlun team to go back home at the end of November 2021. While it is unclear as to why Bartley left the program after being a staple on the Kunlun blueline for three seasons—the Chinese media and team communications staff has been tightlipped, as one can imagine—it is possible that Bartley left to concerns over his future citizenship. However, it is possible that Bartley would not have been eligible to play for Team China anyways because Bartley represented Canada in the U18 World Junior Championships and only played three seasons for Kunlun, or the fact that Bartley played in Poland during the 2020-21 season before returning to Kunlun for this third season. China’s goaltending situation also appears to be in flux. Of the five goalies to appear in net for Kunlun this season, only one was born in China (Pengfei Han, who has appeared in one game this season). Earlier this season, the bulk of the goaltending duties was handled by Russian-born Alexander Lazushin; however, his contract was (according to the Kunlun Twitter account) mutually terminated because “his naturalisation case was out of criteria because of breaks in playing for Chinese teams.” While Lazushin played the entire 2018-19 season for Kunlun, he spent the entire 2019-20 season playing for the KHL’s Lokomotiv Yaroslavl and appeared in only one game for Kunlun last season before returning to Kunlun full time this season. This leaves Canadian-born Paris O’Brien and American-born Jeremy Smith (2nd Round draftee in 2007 NHL Draft), along with Han, as China’s legitimate options between the pipes. O’Brien appears to be a lock for the Olympic roster having played for teams in China the last four seasons and being listed as having Chinese citizenship on the KHL website, while Smith’s situation seems to be more up in the air considering he represented the U.S. in the 2008 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships, is only in his third season with Kunlun, and is currently listed as having American citizenship on the KHL website. While the IIHF has refused to confirm which Kunlun players are eligible for China’s roster, it does appear that China’s roster is close to being set with Foo, Kunlun’s leading scorer, and Yip, Kunlun’s captain, leading the way. Foo, the former 2017 Hobey Baker finalist at Union College, is in his third consecutive season with Kunlun, while Yip, a 2009 national champion at Boston University, played three consecutive seasons for Kunlun from 2017-18 through 2019-20 before playing in Finland in 2020-21 and returning to China for the 2021-22 campaign. Both Canadian-born players also have Chinese heritage and are listed as Chinese citizens on the KHL website. Others expected to be on China’s roster include Parker Foo, a draft pick of the Chicago Blackhawks and Spencer’s younger brother, and American-born Jake Chelios, the son of NHL Hall of Famer Chris Chelios. Even though the NHL players will not be participating in this year’s Games, most experts still expect the Chinese team to get blown out by the Canadians, Americans and Germans in the preliminary round. However, the Chinese team has been playing together for a while now, which could give them some advantage in the tournament. *Daniel S. Greene is an attorney based in Syracuse, New York. He has been published by The Sports Lawyers Journal and New York State Bar Association’s Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, and has guest lectured on various sports law topics at Syracuse University's College of Law and School of Sport Management, as well as at Cazenovia College.

The legal relationship between MLS and its players is complex and something I will explore in a future article in my series of articles on MLS. The present article concerns legal issues in MLS as to non-players employed by the clubs,[1] including but not limited to coaches, trainers, executives, and sales staff. To understand the issue at hand, a primer of antitrust law is helpful. Section 1 of the Sherman Act (1890) prohibits “every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade.”[2] The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that only “unreasonable” restraints are illegal.[3] Most Section 1 cases are analyzed through the “rule of reason,” a three-step, burden-shifting framework: (1) the plaintiff must first show that the challenged restraint has a substantial anticompetitive effect; (2) if the plaintiff carries that burden, the defendant must show a procompetitive rationale for the restraint; and, (3) if the defendant satisfies its burden, the plaintiff must show that the procompetitive benefits can be achieved through less restrictive means.[4] Importantly, since antitrust law is concerned with economic competitiveness, the challenged restraint and its procompetitive and anticompetitive traits must be analyzed within a relevant market.[5] As is hopefully obvious, labor markets, i.e., the markets for employees, are subject to antitrust laws.[6] Finally, antitrust law remains a powerful remedy by virtue of the fact that the law calls for treble (triple) damages as well as attorney’s fees.[7] I turn now to three practices of concern within MLS.[8] First, on an annual basis, MLS collects data from each club about the club’s personnel, including, generally, the types of departments, the number of people in each department, the types and number of executives, and, most importantly, the compensation paid to employees.[9] Second, with the help of the data it collects, MLS assists clubs in negotiating with their employees as to compensation and position, e.g., by telling the club the range of and average salaries for particular positions or where a particular employee’s salary ranks as compared to his peers at other clubs. Third, MLS generally requests or requires that clubs interested in hiring an employee away from another club, contact that club and advise it of their interest in the employee. I believe these practices have the effect of restraining the non-player labor market in MLS, potentially in violation of antitrust law. It should be clear that MLS’ collection and dissemination of data about club personnel salaries suppresses the salaries of club personnel. Clubs should be competing for personnel, offering a better position or pay to entice an employee from one club to another. However, clubs are able to use the salary data from MLS both in making offers to new employees and in negotiating with their current employees. For example, if an athletic trainer requests a raise, the club may be able to learn from MLS that the athletic trainer is already the tenth highest paid athletic trainer and that the trainer’s salary is only $15,000 less than the highest paid athletic trainer in the league. With that information in hand, the club can comfortably throttle any raises offers made to the athletic trainer and be less concerned about responding to the athletic trainer’s demands since they know the boundaries of the market. Moreover, if another club wanted to hire that athletic trainer, the club will know how much the highest paid athletic trainer currently receives and cap its offer accordingly. This is the type of information sharing that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) warn against. Specifically, those agencies have explained that when it comes to the “the sharing of competitively sensitive information – such as recent, current, and future prices, cost data, or output levels,” the agencies are “concern[ed]” that doing so “may facilitate price or other competitive coordination among competitors” in violation of the antitrust laws.[10] Salaries are prices in the labor market. And the sharing among MLS clubs of salaries has the purpose and effect of facilitating price coordination among clubs which are competing for personnel, to the detriment of that personnel. Next, turning to MLS’ instructed practice of requiring clubs to speak with the other club before hiring away an employee, this too potentially runs afoul of DOJ and FTC guidance. As explained by those agencies, “[a]n individual likely is breaking the antitrust laws if he or she: agrees with individual(s) at another company about employee salary or other terms of compensation, either at a specific level or within a range (so-called wage-fixing agreements), or agrees with individual(s) at another company to refuse to solicit or hire that other company’s employees (so-called ‘no poaching’ agreements).”[11] Indeed, Duke University recently agreed to pay $19 million to settle allegations it had entered into a no-poach agreement with the University of North Carolina concerning faculty members. While MLS’ practice may not be an explicit “no poach” agreement, it substantially chills the labor market within MLS. Club personnel will be understandably reticent to seek out new employment with another MLS club if their current employer is going to find out – that is a surefire way for that employee to be viewed as disgruntled and/or expendable. MLS would likely dispute that it has its own labor market for purposes of antitrust law (as club employees often come from many other industries). But undoubtedly many MLS club employees move around within the league (or want to) after having learned certain MLS-specific skills or knowledge at a club. Antitrust cases are notoriously complex and difficult to prove, often requiring extensive and contested economic analysis. MLS would for sure have defenses to the issues I have raised, including but not limited to the relevant market, whether there is actually any restraint agreed upon by the clubs, whether the clubs’ conduct is merely “parallel,”[12] and that the clubs’ sharing of data is reasonably necessary for the operation of the MLS joint venture. Nevertheless, I think I have set forth above a prima facie case of concerning conduct which unnecessarily and unfairly restricts the pay and movement of non-player personnel within MLS. Christopher Deubert is Principal at Law Office of Christopher R. Deubert, Esq. You can see more at www.deubertlaw.com. [1] Some may be familiar with MLS’ status as a “single-entity” in which MLS employs the players, potentially providing an antitrust defense. However, non-player personnel are employed by clubs and thus the single-entity argument is not available. [2] 15 U.S.C. § 1. [3] Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 87 (1911). [4] See NCAA v. Alston, 141 S.Ct. 2141, 2160 (2021). [5] Id. at 2151-52. [6] Id. at 2154. [7] 15 U.S.C. § 15. [8] It is my understanding that other sports leagues engage in the same or similar practices but have chosen to focus on MLS as part of this series of articles. [9] See Section 15 of the the MLS Constitution, available as Exhibit B to Utah Soccer, LLC d/b/a Real Salt Lake’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings, Petke v. Utah Soccer, LLC, Case No. 190907265 (Utah Dist. Ct. Oct. 7, 2019). [10] Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Policy Statement on Sharing of Cybersecurity Information (Apr. 10, 2014), at 4-5 n.12, available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2014/04/department-justice-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-policy-statement. [11] Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (Oct. 2016), at 3, available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/903511/download. [12] See, e.g., Kelsey K. v. NFL Enters., LLC, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2017).