Plaintiff Continuum Capital filed a lawsuit against NBA agent Charles Briscoe on Wednesday in the Superior Court in Delaware. Continuum alleges breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The plaintiff, a Bahamian company, demands a jury trial and requests no less than $2 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages and costs. This lawsuit arises out of the formation of Icon Legacy Group. Icon was formed in March 2021 by Continuum (the majority owner) and Briscoe (the minority owner), and was intended to be a sports agency focused primarily on serving athletes playing within the NBA. According to the complaint, at that time, Briscoe represented to Continuum that he was Dwight Howard’s agent and that he was finalizing a new contract for Howard that would generate fees to fund the new business, Icon. Continuum claims that, based on said representation by Briscoe, it gained confidence to invest significant capital into Icon. Specifically, based on Briscoe’s representations and his promise to contribute his existing business, Continuum says that it agreed to invest up to $1.4 million in Icon to enable Briscoe to grow and develop the business. In connection with Continuum’s investment, Briscoe entered into an employment agreement with Icon in April 2021, pursuant to which he agreed to serve as Icon’s CEO and “lead and develop all revenue generation of Icon.” Continuum claims that even after Icon was formed and funded, Briscoe continued to make misrepresentations that business was thriving. Briscoe allegedly told the plaintiff that (1) Icon had signed Chris Duarte, at that time a recent graduate of Oregon University who was likely to be a first-round pick in the NBA draft; (2) Dwight Howard signed a shoe deal that would net Icon $1 million; (3) Duarte later signed a contract with the Indiana Pacers that Icon would receive a significant fee from; and (4) Duarte signed a shoe deal with Nike that would pay Icon 20% of the contract’s value ($200,000 per year plus certain performance bonuses). Due to Briscoe’s representations, Continuum says it ultimately poured $900,000 of funding into Icon. However, plaintiff claims that it discovered in August 2021 that Briscoe lost Howard as a client and that Icon never received any of the proceeds that Briscoe claimed were forthcoming from the Howard and Duarte contracts. On Duarte, Continuum claims that it had good reason to believe that the former Oregon guard signed as an Icon client. On April 12, 2021, Chris Haynes, a Yahoo Sports reporter covering the NBA, announced on his Twitter account that Duarte had signed with Icon. Additionally, on that same day, Briscoe posted on Icon’s Instagram page (@icon_legacy_group) that Icon had signed Duarte (as of the filing of the Complaint, the post is still active). On Howard, Continuum claims that it also had good reason to believe that the center was an Icon client. Consistent with Briscoe's representations asserting such to be true, three posts were put up on the Icon Instagram page that related to Howard (which further supported Briscoe’s claim that Icon was representing him). However, in August of 2021, Continuum says it learned through the media that Howard had signed a contract with the Los Angeles Lakers with another agent. This announcement, released by ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski on August 2, 2021, stated that Howard’s agent was Qais Haider, not Icon (as Briscoe had represented both personally and via the Icon Instagram page). Icon never received payment for the Howard or Duarte shoe deals, nor any contract in connection with either player. Upon said discoveries, Continuum demanded that Briscoe buy the company out of Icon. According to the complaint, Briscoe did agree to do so and the parties entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement on September 29, 2021, to memorialize the terms of the buy-out. Pursuant to the agreement, Continuum says Briscoe agreed to make three scheduled payments to Continuum by November 29, 2021, for a total amount of $900,100 in exchange for all of Continuum’s interest in Icon. Despite multiple demands, Continuum claims it has yet to receive a single payment from Briscoe under the agreement, and thus filed this lawsuit. Accordingly, per the complaint, "Continuum seeks a judgment awarding it (1) compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000 resulting from Briscoe’s breach of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments thereunder; (2) compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,000,000 resulting from Briscoe’s fraudulent misrepresentations inducing Continuum to enter into the Term Sheet and fund Icon; (3) punitive damages; (4) Continuum’s costs in bringing this action; and (5) such further relief that the Court deems just and proper." Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

Apart from the San Diego lawsuit, there may be some controversy in St. Louis about their settlement with the NFL. Dan Wallach, co-host of “Conduct Detrimental,” made an interesting discovery regarding St. Louis’ city attorney. The city attorney is a former equity partner at the Dowd Bennett LLP law firm. The Dowd Bennett law firm was one of the two firms that represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the NFL. Less than two months before she became St. Louis’ city attorney, the firm still considered her a partner. In attorney fees, the Dowd Bennett firm received a figure that reached nine figures, approximately $125 million they received from their work and involvement as the plaintiffs’ co-attorneys. This is an interesting discovery because the public may wonder why the plaintiffs settled when the dollar amount could have reached billions, and this may be a link to it, or this could be a plain coincidence. Trial would have started January 10th, and now that the Rams are participating in Super Bowl LVI at SOFI Stadium, Kroenke’s gem, this litigation would have put the football world on notice to St. Louis rather than all attention to Inglewood, California. Mayor Jones said she did not agree to a settlement, but her statement could be taken out of context. The client has the ultimate say in their case, but the attorneys could have advised her to take the money now rather than litigate it against the NFL in a court of law where nothing was certain. I find it hard to believe she had influence over Mayor Jones’ and County Executive Page’s decision to settle the lawsuit. The money is guaranteed, and there is no pending litigation. They do not have to pay any more attorney fees, and they guaranteed St. Louis with over $500 million for public funding. The attorneys, on a thirty-five percent contingent fee, took in over $200 million for their respective firms. Over six long and grueling years of litigation are over for St. Louis. They can forget about the NFL, as most St. Louisans have after the Rams left on that grim day in 2016, January 12th to be exact. St. Louis does not need the NFL. They have the Cardinals and are considered a “baseball town.” They rally behind their sports teams, the Cardinals, the NHL’s Blues, and the MLS’ St. Louis City, who begin play in 2023. The NFL is a bygone for the city, and they are hoping they receive the Battlehawks again once Dwayne Johnson rejuvenates the Xtreme Football League (XFL). They despise Stan Kroenke and Kevin Demoff, akin to Mr. Burns and Waylon Smithers from The Simpsons, but it has been six years since the Rams left town. If it was not for Kroenke partnering with then Rams owner Georgia Frontierre, the Rams never would have left Los Angeles for St. Louis. Kroenke cares about the money, not the cities or people he “hurts” in the process. The NFL is a business, and it stands for “Not For Long” for markets to keep their teams if the owners do not get their way. I’m still rooting for whichever team plays the Rams, but it is not the players fault or Sean McVay’s fault they left St. Louis. It is Stan Kroenke’s pursuit for money that caused the Rams to leave St. Louis, and he played the league like a fiddle, with the alleged help from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Roger Goodell may have played a part, but the NFL wanted Los Angeles, and Kroenke was one of the few owners who had the pockets to get them there. I hope this is addressed in greater detail prior to Super Bowl LVI. St. Louis has not discussed what they plan to do with the settlement money, and who had the final say to accept the NFL’s settlement offer. Thank you to Dan Wallach for his deep dive into the settled St. Louis lawsuit. 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

Dan Rooney, the former Pittsburgh Steelers' owner, proposed a rule where NFL clubs must interview at least one minority for their head coaching job and other open positions. However, this process has become a laughingstock and an embarrassment in the NFL. The Rooney Rule was instituted with great intentions to include diversity among coaches and front office personnel in the National Football League (NFL) when it was introduced in 2002-2003 following the controversial firings of head coaches Tony Dungy and the late Dennis Green. Dungy was the Buccaneers head coach, and Green was the Minnesota Vikings head coach. It is supposed to institute affirmative action. However, only three head coaches are minorities. Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers is African-American, Robert Saleh of the New York Jets is Lebanese, and Ron Rivera of the newly named Washington Commanders is Latino. Minority coaches make up a whopping 0.09% rate of head coaches in the NFL. Clearly, the rule has good intentions, but it is not working Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment. Currently in the NFL, minority head coaches make up . Allegations are arising that former head coaches were asked to lose games, and if they did, they would be paid a salary bonus by the club’s owner. As reported by ESPN, the NFL Network, The Athletic, and other sources, former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores was “interviewed” by the New York Giants after the club made its decision to hire former Buffalo Bills offensive coordinator Brian Daboll. Technically, the Giants adhered to the Rooney Rule, but the story gets worse. Brian Flores was an assistant under Bill Belichick, the New England Patriots’ head coach. Coach Belichick sent Mr. Flores a congratulatory text about receiving the head coaching job with the Giants. Mr. Flores responded, saying he did not receive the job. Coach Belichick said something along the lines of “oops, my bad.” Now, Kevin Seifert of ESPN reports Brian Flores has filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL and its teams this week, accusing them of sham interviews, incentivizing losses and pressure to improperly recruit players. An example is Hue Jackson during his tenure with the Cleveland Browns. Browns’ owner Mr. Haslam allegedly told Coach Jackson for every game he lost, he would pay him an extra $100,000. Brian Flores was offered monetary awards by Dolphins owner Stephen Ross for the same action. Brian Flores was fired after two seasons at the helm, and he did not have a losing season. Another example is an African-American coach being interviewed by the Denver Broncos, and there are accusations that team president John Elway walked in, conducted a quick interview, and left. The Broncos conducted the interview to meet the Rooney Rule requirement. Late Thursday evening, the Jacksonville Jaguars announced they hired former Philadelphia Eagles head coach Doug Pederson. One can wonder if there were any “sham” interviews conducted by their owner Jeffrey Lurie. 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.

This week has been a whirlwind of reveals in the NFL. Brian Flores filed suit against the NFL for a plethora of claims including racial discrimination. Brian Flores also claimed that Miami Dolphins Owner, Stephen Ross, offered him $100,000 bonus for every loss in the 2019 season. That was a stunning revelation, yet it was hearsay (admissible hearsay), but hearsay nonetheless. Then a few days ago an article appeared on the nfl.com website with an accompanying tweet about a potential witness to corroborate the claim by Former Miami Dolphins Head Coach, Brian Flores that owner Stephen Ross offered him $100,000 for every loss during the 2019 season. The obvious thinking regarding losing on purpose commonly known as “tanking” is that you ensure that you get a very, very high pick preferably the number #1 overall pick to put yourself in position to acquire a franchise QB. The star QB of the 2020 NFL draft was in fact Cincinnati Bengals QB, Joe Burrow who was a prime target for a trade in the draft. The Miami Dolphins held several First Round Picks including the #5 overall in the 2020 draft but were unable to convince the Bengals to part with the rights to draft Joe Burrow (a very wise decision indeed). Flash forward to today and Joe Burrow aka “Joey Brrrr” is facing off against fellow SEC QB, Matthew Stafford in Super Bowl XLVI next Sunday at Sofi Stadium in Los Angeles while Dolphins starting QB, Tua Tagovailoa is probably off not learning his playbook somewhere. The article then disappeared. However, that begs the question, why would an article with a potential witness simply “disappear”? Well, that article could have been the smoking gun in a potential criminal case against Stephen Ross for Bribery in Athletic Contests. When prosecutors are deciding whether to file charges against a defendant, they always look to see what corroborating evidence they have because the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an incredibly high bar to achieve. The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office would need more than Brian Flores saying Stephen Ross offered me $100,000 per loss during the 2019 season. That is because a prosecutor is not going to want to go to trial on just those facts because Mr. Ross would be facing a dream team of lawyers in a potential criminal trial. It would be a 5-10 minute Not Guilty. However, a potential corroborating witness is a horse of a different color. In any criminal case, if you have an independent witness who doesn’t have a dog in the fight, their testimony is exceptionally compelling to a jury. A jury listens to that witness with their full attention because what motive do they have to lie? A great prosecutor then digs deeper and finds out that this potential witness is one of several potential witnesses or even that physical evidence exists. I personally do not think Mr. Ross would be careless enough to make that offer via email or in writing. As seen above, this charge is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. However, the offense is a level one offense (Florida follows sentencing guidelines and as such any potential conviction would not result in prison). A conviction could absolutely lead to an adjudication or even jail time. However, how likely would that be? Without the corroborating witness, the likelihood of a conviction is close to zero. Under the statute, an individual need only to promise payment to somebody in a position to control the outcome of the game. A coach can absolutely control the outcome of the game. Additionally, Brian Flores allegedly rejected the offer and did nothing to intentionally lose games. However, with an independent corroborating witness, the potential for conviction jumps to roughly 60%+ because the prosecutor will explain why Stephen Ross wanted Brian Flores to tank; he wanted Joe Burrow. If Joe Burrow wins the Super Bowl, everybody in the country will know his name and those who watched the Super Bowl will understand EXACTLY why Stephen Ross allegedly offered Brian Flores what he did. If he lost, all 16 games, Flores would have collected $1.6 million. That is peanuts compared to money Ross would make on Joe Burrow jerseys, season tickets, marketing opportunities etc. Stephen Ross would make it back 1000x if Flores accepted. There was another report that Stephen Ross tried to facilitate an impromptu meeting between Flores and pending Free Agent Quarterback, Tom Brady when their yachts just happened to be near each other. The corroborating witness article got taken down because my educated guess is that attorneys for Stephen Ross’ made NFL.com take it down. If a prospective prosecutor saw that article, you better bet some prosecutor would have asked law enforcement to investigate. Motive is not required to be proven in a Florida criminal case. However, the jury can connect the dots that Mr. Ross wanted to acquire a true franchise Quarterback by any means necessary. Hopefully, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office opens an investigation; because after seeing what happened with Washington, we know the NFL doesn’t truly conduct independent investigations. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. 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 for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

As reported by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, New Orleans Saints star Alvin Kamara was arrested for Battery with Serious Bodily Injury after allegedly beating someone up in a nightclub on Saturday night. That charge is a Class B felony and as such punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. However, what did Mr. Kamara allegedly do to the victim to be arrested for such a crime? As reported by Metro Police, they were called to the hospital to interview the alleged victim in this case. Based on the victim interview, they appear to have concluded that they had enough evidence to arrest Mr. Kamara of the crime of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury. Battery is normally a misdemeanor; however, the serious bodily injury component makes it a Class B felony. The most likely scenario is that the alleged victim sustained either broken bone(s) or was forced to get stitches because of the alleged altercation with Mr. Kamara. Under the statute, either is enough to sustain the Class B felony charge. Additionally, since this is a Las Vegas nightclub there had to have been video surveillance of the entire club and very likely caught this whole incident on video. I await the inevitable video leak of this incident via TMZ. I reviewed the Clark County Court Website to get more facts about the alleged incident, but details were very scarce. This case will develop and I want to know the following: How did this alleged altercation begin? Did Mr. Kamara throw the first punch or did the victim, or someone associated with the victim do it? That matters because Mr. Kamara could argue self-defense and I do not think any jury is going to sympathize with a victim who starts the fight and cries foul when somebody else finishes it. Who are the potential witnesses? Is Mr. Kamara there with his crew or are other NFL players potential witnesses in this case? Independent witnesses are liquid gold in battery cases. If they exist, it allows a jury to better understand what led to the fight from somebody who has no motive to fabricate the truth. I hardly think that Mr. Kamara just walked up to a random person and punched him for no reason. There had to be some lead up to the altercation. Battery cases are very difficult to prove because usually the victim does not want to press charges. However, that is usually only the case in domestic violence battery cases (where the victim and defendant are in a romantic relationship). That is unlikely the case here because my feeling is that it was an altercation with somebody Mr. Kamara had just met on Saturday night. Victims who have no relationship with the Defendant almost always want to move forward with the charges. The reason is that the victim’s don’t have a voice in their head saying this was a one-time thing he/she will be better in the future. He/she just needs help. The alleged victim in Mr. Kamara’s case doesn’t have that voice. The victim in Mr. Kamara’s case is likely thinking, “|He needs to be punished for what he did and he needs to pay up.” I fully expect the victim to sue Mr. Kamara and the nightclub in civil court before this case is over but that is a discussion for another day. For now, this incident is the third incident of NFL players in Las Vegas in as many months (Henry Ruggs III and Damon Arnette being the others) and is challenging the mantra that what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. 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 for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

It’s 2022, nearly 4 years since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA, yet there are many states still depriving their citizens of the opportunity to legally place bets on sports. Maybe most notable of these states is Florida, who’s recent relationship with sports betting has been as dramatic as you will find in state-level policy making. State legislators approved a bill in May 2021 and a mobile betting app was launched on November 1st. On November 22nd, a federal court vacated the agreement, and by December 4th the app was taken down. So what happened, and what’s next for Florida? The Bill that Passed In April, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which was eventually approved by the state legislature in May. The effect of the compact was to expand the Seminole Tribe’s current gaming rights to include sports betting. Most importantly was the compact granted rights for mobile sports betting exclusively to the Seminole Tribe. In November, the Seminole Tribe launched their mobile betting app in accordance with the compact. Why it was Struck Down The legality of the compact focuses on one question: where is your bet placed? The Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA), is a federal law passed in 1988 for the purpose of regulating gambling managed by tribes. The IGRA only allows for betting “on Indian lands.” The very nature of mobile sports betting is that it would be able to occur anywhere within the state, not just “on Indian lands.” The United States District Court for the District of Columbia did not accept the Seminole Tribe’s argument that a mobile bet was placed where the servers were located. Instead, the court agreed with challengers to the compact, stating that the IGRA specifically states that betting can only occur “on Indian lands,” and simply deeming that betting occurred on Indian lands when it occurred elsewhere does not make it so. For that reason, the court vacated the compact in its entirety, leaving Florida with no avenue for legal sports betting of any kind at this time, mobile or otherwise. What’s Next No one will ever mistake the litigation process as an expeditious one. Appeals have been filed by both the Seminole Tribe and the U.S. Department of the Interior (who is arguing that the IGRA gives the Department authority to authorize the Florida compact). The legal battles over this case are far from over, and will continue to be fought for at least the next several months, if not longer. Since the compact gave gambling rights exclusively to the Seminole Tribe, companies like FanDuel and DraftKings were left completely out to dry with no presence in the state. In the aftermath of the Federal court ruling and the Seminole Tribe pulling their app, these betting companies began pushing for a sports betting initiative to be added to the 2022 ballot. Needing 892,000 Floridian signatures to make this happen, DraftKings began offering free bets to customers if they were able to get the signatures necessary, and Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy released a video urging his followers to sign up. Despite these measures, the companies were unable to secure the necessary signatures, announcing on January 31st that they were giving up their effort (which was more “we didn’t lose, we quit” than anything). With the ballot initiative push failing, the citizens of Florida are left with no recourse for (legal) sports betting at the current time. Another ballot initiative wouldn’t be able to come until the 2024 ballot, and wouldn’t go into effect until 2025. The only hope for a resolution in the near future would be for the Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court’s decision. However, even if that happened, it would not be an immediate solution. If the District Court’s ruling is upheld, Florida lawmakers would have to start from scratch, working on a new legislation that would either comport with the IGRA, or that does not grant exclusive rights to the Seminole Tribe. In any scenario, the current outlook for legalized mobile sports betting in Florida is bleak, and likely not to happen within the calendar year. This will be a long process, and Floridians have no options but to sit, wait, and hope. Jarred Stindt is a litigation attorney in Kansas City, Missouri. He received his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law, and has an M.A. in Political Science from Kansas State University. Jarred can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @jarredstindt.

It’s no secret that the sports industry has a history of being a boy’s club. But as of recently this once male-dominated field has welcomed more women to its upper ranks. In 2020, Kim Ng was named the Miami Marlins' general manager. In 2020, Katie Sowers made headlines as the second female full-time coach in NFL history and the first female and first openly gay coach in a Super Bowl. And, the AHL has 10 female officials for the 2021-2022 season. It has taken a long time but slowly the industry is trying to move toward a more inclusive environment for women. I personally love to see women getting promoted to positions that were once male dominated. That’s why I was ecstatic when the Vancouver Canucks announced their choice for their new assistant general manager. Émilie Castonguay was hired by the Canucks as assistant general manager for the team, and she has made history on two fronts. Castonguay is the first women to be an assistant GM in the Canucks history and she is the second women in the history of the NHL to hold such title.[1] Angela Gorgone was the first woman to hold the title when she was promoted by the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (now known as the Ducks) in 1996.[2] Before joining the Canucks Castonguay worked for Momentum Hockey a player management group. She was the first woman to be certified by the NHL Players' Association as a player agent in 2016.[3] Her most prominent client was Alexis Lafreniere, who was selected first overall by the New York Rangers in the 2020 NHL Draft. Prior to becoming an agent, Castonguay was named one of the 25 most powerful women in hockey by Sportsnet in 2020 and played four years of NCAA Division I hockey as a forward at Niagara University.[4] At the press conference announcing the choice Castonguay said "It's a historic day, and it goes to show that women have a place in sports and in hockey, I've always had such a good reception from everybody in the sport, and it's important for women that want to be in the sport to know that. Sometimes you get intimidated, but you shouldn't. If you have the knowledge and you've done the work, there's a place for you here. If it needs to start with me, good, but for me, it's just always been my experience."[5] As a woman who loves hockey and hopes to one day work for the NHL or one of the 32 teams, the naming of a female assistant GM gives me hope. In the coming years, I hope for more diversity in executive positions in the sports field. I want to wish Émilie the best of luck in her new position knowing the future is bright for women in the NHL. Jessica Shaw is the Secretary of the New York Law School Sports Law Society. She can be reached on Twitter @JessicaShaw22. [1] Wyshynski, Greg. “Vancouver Canucks Hire Émilie Castonguay as Assistant GM, Making Her Second Woman in NHL History to Hold the Title.” ESPN, 24 Jan. 2022, https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/33139847/vancouver-canucks-hire-emilie-castonguay-assistant-gm-making-second-woman-nhl-history-hold-title. [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Woodley, Kevin. “Castonguay Hired by Canucks as Assistant GM.” NHL.com, NHL.com, 25 Jan. 2022, www.nhl.com/news/vancouver-hires-teams-first-female-assistant-gm/c-330132858. [5] Id.

The Emergence of the Super Golf League World Golf Hall of Fame member Greg Norman is spearheading the most aggressive effort yet to create a golf league to rival the PGA Tour. The Super Golf League (“SGL”) is a Saudi-funded effort that purports to bring together fields of 40-50 of the best golfers in the world for individual and team competitions approximately 18 times per year. Greg Norman, who failed in the 1990s to create a similar “World Golf Tour”, is set to become the Commissioner of the SGL. The compensation structure is the primary difference between the PGA Tour and the SGL. On the PGA Tour, golfers do not earn appearance fees for playing in an event. If they miss the cut, they do not earn money that week. Conversely, the SGL has reportedly offered golfers contracts and appearance fees north of $2 million just for showing up. In response, the PGA Tour has taken several steps. First, they announced a “strategic alliance” with the European Tour. Next, they created a Player Impact Program (“PIP”), which is a $40 million fund that is paid out to the 10 players who drive the most engagement among fans and sponsors. Finally, the Tour increased individual tournament prize pools and the total FedEx Cup prize pool from $50 million to $75 million. Despite these initiatives, Phil Mickelson has criticized the PGA Tour for what he believes is their failure to share digital assets with its members. Mickelson has stated that the PGA Tour only pays out 26% of its revenue to members and “would rather throw $25 million here and $40 million there than give back the roughly $20 billion in digital assets they control. . . .” Mickelson has also stated that the PGA Tour’s “obnoxious greed” in the control of his media rights has “opened the door for opportunities elsewhere”. Mickelson’s criticism of the Tour, which has enabled him to earn over $800 million in his career, is misguided. First, the Tour distributes 55% of its revenue to its members, not 26%. That is a higher percentage than any other major professional sport in the United States. Second, there is no sports league that allows their athletes to own and control their own media rights, including the NFL, MLB, and NBA. To do so would torpedo broadcasting deals, thus making the increased prize pools and PIP, which was ironically won by Mickelson this year, impractical. Finally, the profits generated from the revenues are used to pay Tour employees and provide the necessary infrastructure for tournaments. It is under this backdrop that Mickelson, along with another 20 of the top 50 players in the world, recently accepted millions in appearance fees to play in the 2022 Saudi International at Royal Greens Golf & Country Club. The event, however, appears to have been both a golf tournament and a full-on courtship. On the first day of the event, it was reported that Bryson DeChambeau – one of the biggest young stars in golf – was offered $135 million to become the “face” of the SGL. Although Bryson has denied these claims, earlier reports claim that Ian Poulter has been offered nearly $30 million, and Dustin Johnson has also suggested he has been offered more than nine figures. While most of these players have signed non-disclosure agreements, Mickelson has acknowledged that “everybody in the top 100 (in the Official World Golf Ranking) is being talked to” about joining the SGL. For players like Poulter and Lee Westwood, who are past their prime, the money grab makes more sense. However, for the SGL to succeed, they will need a young face like Bryson to lead the charge, and it sounds like they are sparing no expense in that recruitment effort. PGA Tour’s Response and Antitrust Considerations In response to the SGL, the PGA Tour has threatened to impose lifetime bans for any golfer that leaves for the rival league. This type of language naturally raises some antitrust questions regarding their power to do so and the legal challenges they might face. Notably, the stance taken by the PGA Tour is not new but is merely a reminder and warning to its members. Golfers on the PGA Tour are independent contractors, but they agree to honor and abide by regulations and codes including the Player Handbook and Code of Ethics. The players also acknowledge that the Tour’s commissioner has the authority to ban a player from playing in certain events if they violate its rules. Leaving the PGA to play for a controversial rival league, the PGA could argue, is a violation that warrants expulsion. However, just because the PGA can make that decision does not mean that it will be free from legal challenges, specifically in the area of antitrust. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act makes it illegal for a company to “monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire to monopolize”. The purpose of Section 2 is to guard against companies’ use of their monopoly to fix prices, gain a competitive advantage, block competition, or destroy competitors. In short, federal law does not necessarily prohibit a company from obtaining monopoly power, but it does prohibit the abuse of that power through anticompetitive practices. To successfully bring an action under Section 2, a party would need to show that the PGA Tour has a monopoly in the professional golf industry, and that their actions are an effort to maintain that monopoly through anticompetitive means. Under the first prong of the analysis, it seems clear that the PGA Tour does enjoy a monopoly in the professional golf industry. The Tour is synonymous with professional golf, and they are the preeminent force in both the domestic and international markets. The remaining question, therefore, is whether the PGA Tour’s threats to bar players is an anticompetitive practice that purports to maintain that monopoly. This question is not without precedent. In 1997, Harry Toscano, a former golfer who appeared on the PGA Tour for over a decade, sued the Tour alleging that their policy of restricting members from playing on rival tours prevented the emergence of competing senior professional golf tours. In essence, Toscano claimed that the PGA Tour monopolized the market for senior professional golf, and that their rules had a significant anticompetitive effect. Toscano’s claims ultimately failed on two fronts. First, the court pointed out that Toscano’s argument that other senior tours would have emerged if the PGA Tour did not threaten to ban anyone who joined them was speculative. This is one area where Toscano is not directly on point with the current SGL situation. The SGL is already in the works, meaning that no speculation will be necessary to see the effects of the PGA Tour’s policies on its development. Second, and more importantly, Toscano’s arguments failed under the “Rule of Reason” analysis that courts use to review claims of anticompetitive practices. Courts ask three questions when analyzing claims under the Rule of Reason. First, whether the defendant’s behavior produces significant anticompetitive effects. As mentioned, the court answered this question in favor of the Tour, reasoning that the claims under this prong were merely speculative. Second, courts ask whether there is a procompetitive explanation for the behavior. In Toscano, the Tour successfully argued that their policies and restraints were necessary to assure TV networks and sponsors a reliable supply of quality golfers for its events. These explanations are genuine, legitimate, and still exist today. Finally, courts ask whether less aggressive behavior could accomplish the same procompetitive goals. In Toscano, the court also answered this in favor of the Tour, and likely would do the same with in the face of an SGL challenge. Ultimately, the PGA Tour would likely prevail on a Section 2 challenge to their policy of banning golfers that leave for rival tours. It is notable that the Tour has successfully defended against federal antitrust investigations in the past. In the 1990s, the FTC initiated an investigation into the same Tour policies now in question, but the commissioners ultimately voted 4-0 in favor of ending that investigation. Armed with the precedent from Toscano and the defeated FTC investigation, the Tour would likely succeed again. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act The Tour could also face challenges under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which bars anticompetitive agreements. As mentioned, the PGA Tour and European Tour entered into a “strategic alliance” shortly after the emergence of the SGL. The European Tour then subsequently removed its co-sanctioning of the Saudi International Tournament. Although the explanation for the alliance was to “collaborate on global scheduling, prize money, and playing privileges for both tours’ memberships”, the timing of the announcement invites speculation. Additionally, golf’s four major tournaments and the Ryder Cup are not operated by the PGA Tour, but qualifying for them is tied to performance in Tour events. If, for instance, the Masters also banned players who compete in the SGL from playing at Augusta, it could invite questions about anticompetitive agreements. Additionally, the Masters, the Open Championship, and the PGA Championship extend lifetime invitations to past winners. A revocation of those invitations for past winners who join the SGL would be an even more overt action on their part. Relatedly, the top 50 or 60 golfers in the Official World Golf Ranking (“OWGR”) are usually given automatic invites to those tournaments. Given the OWGR’s close ties to the PGA Tour, it remains to be seen if they would recognize points earned from SGL events. Finally, the Tour has strong relationships with many sponsors whose revocation of endorsement deals for SGL participants would, whether right or wrong, give the appearance of a group boycott. Thankfully for us, Toscano also filed a claim under Section 1 of the Act on these very grounds, alleging that the Tour and its sponsors conspired to restrain trade in senior professional golf. The court, however, quickly disposed of these claims by calling them no more than a “conspiracy theory” and pointing out that any party, including “sidewalk vendors, limousine services, and local businesses seeking advertising”, would all be subject to antitrust liability for doing business with the PGA Tour under this argument. In the context of the SGL, a court would very likely dispose of such a claim in a similarly swift fashion. To begin with, major tournaments and sponsors have a multitude of reasons to take a hostile approach toward the SGL. For instance, many commentators have opined that the SGL is in line with similar efforts by Saudi Arabia in the sports of tennis, Formula One, and horse-racing to “sportswash” its human rights abuses. There is little incentive for sponsors to align themselves with a nation with that type of track record. Additionally, the primary market for most sponsors is golf fans in the United States. It would make little sense for DraftKings, for example, to continue to sponsor Bryson DeChambeau while he plays in a market they cannot tap into and in tournaments that take place in the middle of the night for most of its demographic. For these reasons, a Section 1 challenge would likely also be unsuccessful. Conclusion and Final Thoughts Despite the inevitable legal challenges that the PGA Tour would face if they chose to ban players if they join the SGL, they will likely prevail in both Section 2 and Section 1 antitrust challenges. Although Toscano is not directly on point, it will serve as strong precedent when combined with the FTC decision and the alternative explanations available to sponsors and tournaments for distancing themselves from the Saudi-backed SGL. Notwithstanding the threat of being banned by the PGA Tour, older golfers will likely consider offers from the SGL as it may be their last chance at a significant payday at the end of the career. However, young players should not defect given the prestige of the PGA Tour and its majors, the inevitable loss of endorsement opportunities, and a significantly harmful impact on their legacies. These reasons are why Tiger Woods, Jon Rahm, and Rory McIlroy have all spoken out in support of the Tour, and why many young golfers will likely follow suit. John Nucci is a 3L at Penn State Law and can be reached via Twitter @JNucci23 or by email at [email protected].

According to the BOARDROOM, attorneys for Giannis Antetokounmpo have filed a lawsuit against Leaf Trading Cards (“Leaf”) over the use of the NBA superstar’s “Greek Freak” nickname and likeness. Prior to the 2013 draft where he was selected 15th overall, Leaf and Antetokounmpo agreed on an intellectual property licensing agreement. The details included Antetokounmpo signing 1,000 autographs at $8 each with the option for more along with rights to include Antetokounmpo’s name, nickname, and photo in its trading cards. (Sprung, 2022). Antetokounmpo’s attorneys say it was only a one-year deal and was terminated May 2014. Therefore, the deal was never renewed. However, Leaf continued selling items with the Greek Freak mark and Antetokounmpo’s name, nickname, picture, and likeness after May 2014. “Antetokounmpo’s legal counsel wrote to Leaf, demanding that it cease its infringing activities and provide a full accounting of all merchandise sold that included Antetokounmpo’s registered trademarks and rights of publicity.” (Heitner, 2022). The 21-page suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York by law firm, Pardalis & Nohavicka, alleges trademark infringement, dilution, interference with prospective economic advantage, and as well as confusing and deceiving the public that Leaf and the NBA champion were still associated. Growing up most sports fans collected sports cards and could not wait to open a pack to find their favorite player. Surprisingly this has gone on since the 1800s. Sports cards were marketed with big businesses and were found inside packs of cigarettes, gum, and even taffy. (Huddleston, 2021). Multiple generations have passed down their old sports cards and, in some families, could even be a tradition to do so. Due to the pandemic people started to get their card filled shoe boxes out of the attic and started to uncover cards they probably have not seen in decades. This has created a surge of nostalgia and people wanting to get back to their roots as a child by collecting cards again. In February 2021, eBay reported that sports card sales in 2020 increased on the site by 142 percent over 2019, with more than 4 million cards sold. (Beer, 2021). When a product becomes popular it always turns into a huge business. Seven of the ten biggest sports cards sales in history have taken place over the past eight months and, during that span, the record for the “most expensive card ever sold” has been shattered twice. As of March 30, the current record holder is a 1952 Topps Micky Mantle card that was purchased for $5.2 million, according to Action Network. Topps who is one of the most popular sports card companies is valued at $1.3 billion. (Schwartz, 2021). A fun activity that was done as a child now has huge money and even more potential involved. Famous people and influencers such as Steve Aoki, Quavo, Snoop Dogg, and Gary Vaynerchuk are getting in on the action. Along with physical cards, NBA sports cards are now digital. Dapper Labs created digital collectables called NBA Top Shot. These digital cards capture an NBA player's best highlights within a blockchain-based NFT which are called moments. Each moment has a specific serial number to them so they cannot be duplicated or counterfeit unlike physical cards. People can now own and sell moments from their favorite player’s career instead of a plain card with a picture on it. On Feb. 26, 2021, more than 200,000 collectors waited in an online queue for the chance to buy one of just 10,600 new virtual packs of NBA Top Shot moments. Top Shot reportedly is valued at $2 billion, and more than $280 million has been spent on the NBA Top Shot platform since it launched online in October 2021, according to data tracker CryptoSlam. (Huddleston, 2021). Accordingly, due to the increase of potential in the sports card world whether that’s physical or digital there is huge money to be made and Leaf was not going to miss out on the opportunity. In the last few years, Antetokounmpo has taken the league by storm. At only 27 years old, he has already won an NBA championship, Finals MVP, 2x NBA MVP, 5x All-Star, NBA Defensive Player of the Year, and many more accolades. Antetokounmpo has propelled himself to being a top-three player every year and one of the most marketable players in the league, with his unique length and athleticism (hence the nickname “Greek Freak”). Antetokounmpo’s Top Shot 2014 layup sold for $137k and his rookie card sold for $1.8 million in 2020. (Huddleston, 2021). Truly, Antetokounmpo is a once-in-a-generation talent, and people are willing to pay a significant amount of money for any of his memorabilia. In order for this case to be settled, the specifics of the licenses will be vital. “Licenses means a contract exists allowing one company (the licensee) to use the property of another (the licensor). Most commonly for cards, the licensed content includes the player's image, the team name, uniform, professional league logo, etc.” (Baseball Card Legal Terms, 2011). If the case results in Antetokounmpo’s favor, then it is likely that the wording in the licenses is clear that it was just a one-year deal, and Leaf can no longer use his trademarked phrase “Greek Freak.” On the other hand, there could be a few reasons why this case would not result in Antetokounmpo’s favor. Typically, to protect something on the card, a patent number will be listed. Antetokounmpo did not receive registration of the “Greek Freak” trademark until February 2018. With no trademark in 2013, there could be a way for Leaf to create these cards up to that point. Therefore, with the trend of physical and digital sports cards increasing, Leaf wants to do everything in their power to be able to create as many cards as possible with Antetokounmpo’s name, image, and likeness. Citations Baseball Card Legal Terms. (2011, June 16). Retrieved from The Cardboard Connection: https://www.cardboardconnection.com/baseball-card-legal-terms Beer, T. (February, 11 2021). EBay Reports Increase Of 4 Million Trading Cards Sold In 2020. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/02/11/ebay-reports-increase-of-4-million-trading-cards-sold-in-2020/?sh=7ab00f801963 Heitner, D. (2022, January 20). Giannis Antetokounmpo Attacks Leaf Trading Cards For Using His Marks And Publicity. Retrieved from Above the Law: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/giannis-antetokounmpo-attacks-leaf-trading-cards-for-using-his-marks-and-publicity/ Huddleston, T. (2021, March 6). The Sports Trading Card Boom: Baseball Cards Selling for Millions and the Crypto Craze Hits NBA Top Shot. Retrieved from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/06/explaining-sports-trading-card-boom.html Schwartz, N. (May, 16 2021). Sports Card Collecting is Having a Historic Boom Right Now and Here’s Why. Retrieved from Deseret: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2021/5/16/22334507/sports-card-collecting-boom-explained-nft-future Sprung, S. (2022, January 17). Giannis Antetokounmpo Sues Trading Card Maker for “Greek Freak” Infringement. Retrieved from BOARDROOM: https://boardroom.tv/giannis-antetokounmpo-greek-freak-lawsuit/

News and allegations of domestic and sexual violence have plagued the sports world. From Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics to ex-NFL player Zac Stacy, no sport remains unscathed from the ramifications of violence. Fans of every sport are stuck between feelings of hope that victims are speaking out and fighting for justice, and the dread of condemning their favorite players or teams for how they handle any allegations. The latest allegations of player misconduct surround Manchester United’s forward, Mason Greenwood. The 20-year-old forward was arrested late last month after rape allegations were posted on Instagram, including images and an audio file purported to be a recording of the attack. In one fell swoop, Manchester United issued a statement condemning violence, suspended Greenwood "until further notice", and sent supporters an email offering those who have purchased a Greenwood jersey to exchange it for another player, free of cost. The email stated: "As a United Direct customer we are writing to you regarding your previous purchase of a Manchester United shirt personalised with Greenwood, given the current circumstances relating to Mason Greenwood.” While many commend Manchester United and Adidas for the exchange option, others question why other teams and leagues have not utilized this system before. Sponsors drop players, deals fall through, and athletes are benched. However, Greenwood is not the first athlete accused or charged with violent conduct, yet the option for fans to obtain a replacement jersey is unheard of. Manchester United’s stance encourages a multitude of questions surrounding the different player contracts amongst sports leagues and teams. An interesting comparison to Greenwood’s situation would be to that of the Houston Texans’ quarterback, Deshaun Watson, who is the subject of 22 civil lawsuits and 10 criminal charges, including allegations of sexual assault. However, Texans fans were never given the option to exchange their Watson jerseys when news of the allegations broke in March 2021. Watson was never even formally suspended from training and playing with the Texans, nor did the NFL ever put Watson on the Commissioner’s Exempt List. Instead, the NFL refrained from taking a true stance on Watson’s future with the league while news of a possible trade with the Carolina Panthers or Miami Dolphins circulated on social media. Differences in contracts are likely at play in both of these situations, but fans are questioning whether Manchester United’s actions may inspire other teams and leagues to react similarly if the situation arises. Exchanging jerseys of players in the midst of controversy likely will not have much of an effect on the royalties collected from jersey sales, and likely not more so than the drop (if any) in the sales of said player’s jersey when under investigation. However, in a society that has promoted the support of domestic and sexual violence survivors, many fans may be more comfortable supporting teams that have displayed actions in solidarity with survivors.

Originally Published on offthecourtdocket.com. The National College Players Association (NCPA) has filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board accusing the NCAA, Pac-12, UCLA, and USC of unlawfully violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, the NCPA has accused the parties of misclassifying college football and basketball players as non-employees when the players should be classified as employees. The NCPA is a nonprofit advocacy association that includes current and former college athletes. The NCPA has advocated successfully on behalf of student-athletes since 2001. The organization’s advocacy efforts have led to changes to NCAA rules, including allowing for athletes to compensate off their Name, Image, and Likeness and new transfer rules. The charges filed with the NLRB could pave the way for athletes to unionize. On September 15, 2021, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum taking the position that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and thus afforded all statutory protections. Abruzzo’s memorandum was supported by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston, which found that the NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation violated the Sherman Act. The NCAA is currently battling a similar issue in Johnson v. NCAA. Judge Padova has recently elevated employer-employee issue in Johnson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court must decide the following: “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.” Any ruling is likely to make its way to the United States Supreme Court. In light of the majority opinion in Alston and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, it is likely that the Supreme Court will find that student-athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2021, student-athletes gained a significant victory when the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in Alston. Now, with the NCPA filing charges with the NLRB and Johnson heading to the appellate level, student-athletes could see further gains in the near future. 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.

For over 10 years, Gary Grandison was the head women's golf coach at Alabama State University. There, he made an immense impact on the program, turning the Hornets into a Southwestern Athletic Conference powerhouse. Grandison's teams won 7 SWAC Championships and he was named the SWAC women's golf coach of the year 5 times. In 2019, the University decided not to renew his contract, forcing Grandison to move on. In July of 2020, he was hired as the head men's and women's golf coach at Texas Southern University, staying in the conference. While Texas Southern presented an exciting, new opportunity, Grandison believes that there was foul play involved in his Alabama State exit and overall treatment. He sued Alabama State under Title IX, alleging that ASU decided not to renew his contract "on the basis of sex." Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Grandison also claimed that he was wrongfully paid less than coaches of men's sports teams at ASU. He had signed a one-year contract extension with ASU in 2018. His salary was $55,000, and the contract specified that $21,489 would be paid from the women's golf budget and $33,511 would be paid from the men's golf budget (which he was also the head coach of). Grandison also had performance-tied bonuses included in his contract. Specifically, $3,500 for winning the SWAC championship; $5,000 for being crowned Black College national champions; and $3,000 for exceeding the team's multi-year academic progress rate (APR) of 950. Plaintiff testifies that he won the SWAC championship in 2018 but that he did not receive a $3,500 bonus. Grandison also incorporated perceived inequities between the women's golf team and other men's sports teams at ASU into his Title IX claims. He alleges his operating budget for the women's golf program dwindled in two years from $36,000 annually to $13,000 annually. He says he had to spend $7,000 of his own money to cover approved expenses for travel and competitions for the women's golf program. Finally, among other University wrongs, Grandison said, "to this day I still have not received the . . . 2018-2019 championship rings as a women's golf coach." In response, the University argued that allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff, not his sex, largely motivated its decision to not renew his contract. According to the decision, "[p]rior to the expiration of the 2018 Contract, the athletic director recommended to ASU President Quinton Ross that [Grandison] be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct reported by female student athletes and their parents. In one instance, it was reported that Plaintiff had made inappropriate comments to a player on the women's golf team about her lifestyle and that he had refused that player's request to wear pants instead of a skort during competitions. Another reported incident concerned Plaintiff's allegedly inappropriate comments concerning a female golf player's sexual relationship with her boyfriend. There also were complaints—'more than a few'—from parents against Plaintiff." Grandison argued that the complaints were overblown and false. In his deposition, Deputy Athletic Director Jones articulated ASU's reasons for nonrenewing Plaintiff's contract as "(1) his contract was expiring on its own terms; (2) an investigation revealed "some merit" as to the players' and parents' complaints of misconduct by Plaintiff; and (3) Plaintiff disobeyed a directive not to return to practice after he was accused of having an altercation with a student athlete on the golf course." The court found these reasons to be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Grandison's claims of disparate pay were not given merit by the court because the former ASU head coach failed to draw a comparison between his duties and the duties of assistant coaches or between his duties and the duties of the head coaches for football, men's basketball, and baseball. "Making assumptions about similarities of job duties is improper." With that, the Alabama Middle District Court held that Grandison failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination or show that ASU's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decisions were pretext for discrimination. Therefore, ASU's motion for summary judgment was granted, throwing out Grandison's claims. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.