In the aftermath of skipping the Olympics to reschedule regular season games postponed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the NHL announced that the owners and players’ association conducted initial meetings centered on hosting another World Cup of Hockey in 2024, when COVID-19 will hopefully no longer have an impact on public sporting events. For those unfamiliar, the World Cup of Hockey was the NHL’s substitute for their players competing in the 2018 Olympics after a series of disputes between the owners, players, International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) over costs and advertising associated with NHLers participating in the Olympics.[1] On its surface, this move looks like a positive response to the public dissatisfaction from many NHL players over not being able to participate in this year’s Olympics. NHL Players clearly want to compete at the Olympics and have the chance to be part of moments that will transcend their playing careers and live on in the histories of their respective countries. Men’s Ice Hockey at the Olympics has hosted some of the most memorable games in the history of the sport, games like the 1980 “Miracle on Ice”, the Crosby (BOO!) Winner in overtime in the 2010 Gold Medal Game, and T.J. Oshie’s legendary shootout performance against Russia in 2014. Those opportunities don’t exist in the World Cup of Hockey, a tournament with no such historic lineage and, while being well organized, has always felt like a money grab by the NHL and its owners. The current CBA between the NHL and NHLPA includes a commitment to participate at the 2026 Olympics, but the current CBA also expires immediately after that Olympics and the 2026 season, where an unfortunate series of events could lead to an ugly rehashing of this dispute between the players and owners. The Owners’ motivations for wanting to restrict their players from competing in the Olympics are somewhat easily understood and perhaps reasonable from a business perspective. The Owners do not want to pay for the travel of their athletes to the Olympics, assume the risk of injury in the middle of the season (when most teams are gearing up for a playoff run, as happened in 2014 with Toronto Maple Leafs’ star John Tavares, at the time a member of the New York Islanders) and get nothing of monetary value in return (as they can’t use the media produced by the Olympics without the approval of the IOC, one of the points of contention in 2018). So, they initiated the World Cup of Hockey to monetize their players’ desire for international competition in the short term, and may attempt to rehash this issue in the next CBA negotiation if the following, or something similar, happens: The Beijing Olympics ratings come in lower than expected (The NHL Owners could argue this is because they didn’t participate, and attempt to leverage this into a new partnership with the IOC) The 2024 World Cup of Hockey is a surprising success, capitalizing on the vacuum of international hockey competition involving NHL players over the past 6 years The NHL Participates in the Milan Olympics and another major star gets hurt (Let’s say someone like an Auston Matthews, a US star playing for the Leafs, who are a Canadian Original 6 Franchise. This type of injury would have the greatest impact on NHL Owners across both countries) If all of that were to unfold, you can imagine the NHL Owners would be pretty upset with their current arrangement. Now, all those things happening exactly how I described them is unlikely, but if it happens, the Owners of the NHL may be determined to monopolize their players’ participation in international tournaments in the future. Attempting to do so may cause another lockout, as it’s clear from the players’ reaction to skipping these games they are committed to participating in the Olympics in the future. The more likely outcome is that the Owners use this as leverage to ask for other concessions in the CBA, and whether or not they get them will depend on how attached the players are to having the opportunity to become the next Mike Eruzione or Vladislav Tretiak. Michael DiLiello is an Army Officer transitioning to the Sports Law field and will enroll as a 1L in the Fall of 2022. His opinions are purely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the United States Army, the Department of Defense, or any other external agency. Michael can be found on Twitter @Mike_DiLiello and LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/michael-diliello-1057b439. [1] Campigotto, Jesse. 2017. The NHL's beef with the Olympics, explained. April 2. Accessed February 11, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-olympics-dispute-1.4054830.

Former NBA champion and current collegiate golfer J.R. Smith has signed with Excel Sports Management for NIL representation. Smith spent 16 years in the NBA and amassed nearly $90 million in salary. But after a long NBA career, Smith hung up his basketball shoes, picked up his golf bag, and went back to school. In 2004, when Smith entered the NBA, he jumped directly from high school to the pros. So walking around a college campus is uncharted waters. At age 35, Smith enrolled at North Carolina A&T and joined the school’s Division I golf team. He’s documented his Happy Gilmore/Billy Madison-esque journey through his twitter account. Somewhere, 1996 Adam Sandler is smiling. Despite not having top-level success or a legitimate shot of taking his golf game to the professional ranks, Smith immediately became the country’s most popular Division I golfer. Success on the course isn’t a prerequisite for success in the NIL free market. Are there better college golfers than Smith in the country? Sure. But Smith’s marketability transcends his scorecard. Smith’s agent Lance Young told ESPN, “There's significant NIL interest among golfing equipment and clothing manufacturers and video game companies”. The NIL opportunities for Smith as a collegiate golfer are fascinating. His following fills a void within the golf community. He can reach audiences that no other golfer can. Smith’s career as an NBA player turned him into a cult NBA fan favorite. He was famous for his on-court flare and shirtless championship celebrations while constantly battling rumors involving his love for New York City nightclubs.[1] The transformation from once throwing a bowl of soup at an assistant coach to now playing the ultimate gentleman’s game deserves its own documentary – brands must be salivating. So what type of deals NIL deals can J.R. Smith expect? If you believe the words from his agent, which I do, he will have plenty of suitors. The former NBA player brings a unique sense of style to the golf course that is unparalleled, and brands can look to take advantage. Throughout his NBA career, Smith routinely laced up Nikes on the court. His on-court shoe choices consisted of LeBron James’ Solider 10, Kyrie Irving’s Kyrie 4, and Paul George’s PG2; all athletes signed to Nike, and all shoes showcasing the signature swoosh.[2] Falling in line with his choices of the past, it’s a natural fit for J.R. Smith to become another face of Nike golf and join players such as Tiger Woods, Rory Mcllroy, and Brooks Koepka. A quick examination of North Carolina A&T’s uniforms shows the school has partnered with Nike: Another opportunity for Smith may arise in Nike’s subsidiary, Jordan. The brand synonymous with basketball has attempted to break onto the country club scene over recent years. Jordan currently sponsors one professional golfer, Harold Varner III, who recently just won his first PGA tour event. Reportedly, Jordan was particularly drawn to Varner because of his roots where he proudly represents his home state of North Carolina, the state where Michael Jordan went to college.[3] J.R. Smith’s college career is also unfolding in the Tar Heel state. Golf course style has gone through a transformation. Recently, professional golfers have started to break away from the suburban middle-aged dad look that often-featured plaid sweater vests and clunky golf shoes. Instead, many global superstars bring streetwear to the golf course, wearing several high-profile Jordan and Nike shoes during their rounds. When Brooks Koepka was asked about his choice to wear a Nike AirMax/Off White collaboration golf shoe during the Tour Championship he responded, plain and simply, “It’s fashion, bro”. Perhaps Smith can be another golfer to push the limits of on-course attire for Nike, exciting sneakerheads while causing confusion amongst the traditional golf crowd. But Smith’s NIL opportunities don’t start and stop with sneaker companies. Originally starting as a skateboard brand, Supreme has developed into a streetwear lifestyle empire that features creative designs that often rely heavily on hip hop and pop culture influences. The brand has partnered with companies such as Budweiser, Playboy, Louis Vuitton, and many others. This isn’t the brand you associate with golf. However, a few years ago Supreme released a collection in collaboration with Lacoste that started to resemble golf fashion[4]. J.R. Smith is no stranger to the brand. In fact, a quick scan of his tattoos will reveal he’s actually quite a big fan. If Supreme is looking to expand their influence into golf, why look any further than the high-profile golfer that has the brand inked on his body. Smith has modeled for Supreme off the court in the past and even attempted to bring that relationship onto the court by sporting a Supreme shooting sleeve during an NBA game. He was swiftly scolded by the NBA for this wardrobe decision and refrained from any similar acts moving forward. Smith made it clear he hasn’t been paid by Supreme, but feels a connection with the brand stating, “[Supreme] represents the streets, it represents that gritty, weird personality. And that’s what I represent as a person”.[5] It’s clear that J.R. Smith can fill a void in golf marketing that no other athlete can touch. Thanks to NIL, Smith as a college golfer can use his influence to grow the game. His effort could be part of a larger movement for the sport to modernize and diversify its audience. Unlike other college athletes, Smith may not need the financial incentives that come with NIL deals. But these deals can have a positive and lasting impact on the sport at large. Smith has expressed a desire to bring golf into the lives of underrepresented minority groups. NIL grants him an opportunity. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow in the Office of the General Counsel at 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] Jacob Emert, Cavaliers’ J.R. Smith sued for $2.5 million over alleged nightclub incident, The Washington Post (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/03/26/cavaliers-j-r-smith-sued-for-2-5-million-over-alleged-nightclub-incident/. [2] J.R. Smith, Baller Shoes DB (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://ballershoesdb.com/players/jr-smith/. [3] Tyler Lauletta, Michael Jordan texted Harold Varner III with an offer to be just the second Jordan Brand golfer and had a deal 2 days later, Insider (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.insider.com/michael-jordan-signs-harold-varner-iii-jordan-brand-2021-6. [4] Brittany Romano, This Lacoste X Supreme collection might be the closest thing to a Supreme golf line yet, Golf Digest (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.golfdigest.com/story/this-lacoste-x-supreme-collection-might-be-the-closest-thing-to-a-supreme-golf-line-yet. [5] Cam Smith, NBA Tells J.R. Smith to Cover Up His Supreme Tattoo Or Else, GQ (last visited Feb. 1, 2022) https://www.gq.com/story/jr-smith-supreme-tattoo-nba.

Since the birth of organizations such as DraftKings and FanDuel, the niche area of online sports gambling has grown throughout time. Though some recent developments have turned the tides considerably on this area and how the Supreme Court and other legal organizations have felt about this issue. So, let’s go on a small walk through the history of sports gambling and see how it’s been reflected on a national scale before we zoom in on my home state, Connecticut. During the 1900’s, scandals rocked sports and made way for legislation in the area of sports gambling. Most notably, the Chicago “Black Sox” scandal. To summarize it quickly, players on the Chicago White Sox intentionally lost the 1919 World Series in exchange for bribes from outsiders who would handsomely profit off their loss. This, along with many other gambling scandals, led Congress to eventually pass the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, in 1991.https://www.thelines.com/betting/paspa/. This law reflected the views of Congress regarding the fact that gambling was a “national problem.” Congress continued to clamp down on sports betting laws, ensuring that they would never develop into something big. This was, until May of 2018. In May of 2018, the Supreme Court voted against PASPA in a 6-to-3 decision in Murphy vs. NCAA. In short, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government may not force state governments to carry out its will, or that it violated the anti-commandeering principle. So now that we have gone through the history of sports betting, lets dissect the most recent Connecticut sports gambling law. My major issue with the Connecticut law that was passed in May of 2021 is that there is a lack of oversight. The American Gaming Association has made the argument that federal oversight of online sports gambling is not necessary, as it should be left to the states. The issue with this is the fact that the states don’t exactly have the resources to oversee this in comparison to the federal government. In Connecticut, the oversight of online sports betting is tasked to the Gaming Division of the Department of Consumer Protection. This is an issue because the state department is not funded to the same degree that the National Indian Gaming Commission is. Specifically, the NIGC had a $121 million budget in 2021, and is projected to have this same budget in 2022. This is compared to the $16 million budget for the Connecticut Consumer Protection department as a whole, never mind the budget for the Gaming Division itself. This has obvious risks, because less resources being dedicated to a certain effort will result in the department being able to do less to ensure that there is nothing nefarious going on. For example, as discussed in the Conduct Detrimental Podcast titled “Ben Simmons & The Sports Vaxx Standoffs,” the Netflix documentary “Bad Sport” has an episode that covers the Arizona State men’s basketball team and how they shaved points in order to ensure that the underdog would cover the spread for their bet, leading to the people that paid the athletes making a lot of money. It was only because there was a plethora of resources to help supervise the sportsbooks that the people behind this scandal got caught, and since the Connecticut department has less resources to catch these schemes, they could continue to go on if there is nothing done regarding the supervision of online gambling in Connecticut. So, after analyzing the history of sports gambling and the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, it should be easy for them to be able to maintain that the federal government has a way to supervise gambling. If they don’t, these cases of point shaving could make their way to your favorite sports teams, and then it’ll be the scandals and infamy of the “Black Sox” scandal all over again, just with some other sports franchise. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

Now that the Super Bowl is over and the Rams have their first championship in Los Angeles under their belt, the NFL offseason has officially begun. It was in mid-March of last year when the Houston Texans’ offseason took a serious turn as their star quarterback, Deshaun Watson, became the Defendant in 22 civil lawsuits as well as the subject of both Houston Police Department and NFL investigations. As a result, Watson did not see the field at all in the 2021-2022 season. Meanwhile, Texans head coach Lovie Smith is hoping to trade Watson ahead of the new league year starting on March 16. Smith recently spoke to Albert Breer of SI.com and indicated he wants a resolution to Watson’s status: “As soon as possible. I’m not running away from the question, but as soon as possible,” Smith said. “There are things that need to be taken care of before the football part comes into play. We’re patient, we’ve waited an entire year and I just feel like this offseason, it’ll come to an end and we’ll get it solved and it’ll be good for both parties, whatever that might be. There’s no other answer to give right now except for that one, and we’re going to try to get it resolved as soon as we possibly can. But we don’t play tomorrow. We have a little bit of time, and we’ll get it done.” It is apparent that where Watson’s football career is headed largely depends on the current legal proceedings in which Watson is accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. But contrary to Smith’s [and Watson’s] wishes, the legal process may not be over as soon as they would like. Unbeknownst to many, there are signs that the Watson case has taken a new turn as of late. On February 3, 2022, one plaintiff—a professional masseuse who lives in Houston—filed her Second Amended Complaint to include an additional allegation. Specifically, this plaintiff amended her complaint to include an allegation that goes beyond Watson just asking for an inappropriate massage. A copy of the complaint with the new allegations highlighted is below. Filing an amended complaint with new allegations is not something a Plaintiff would do if they were about to settle a case. An Answer has not yet been filed. Interestingly, this plaintiff was one of the few who was not highlighted in Watson’s Original Answer filed in April 2021. While Watson generally denied all of the allegations set forth in each of the separate lawsuits, Watson’s Answer also included a section titled “Problems with Plaintiffs’ Allegations” to support his belief that the plaintiffs’ claims were not true or accurate. This section directly named 16 of the 22 women in relation to the following assertions: A. After the massage therapy sessions with Mr. Watson, Plaintiffs bragged about, praised, and were excited to massage Mr. Watson. B. Plaintiffs willingly worked, or offered to work, with Mr. Watson after the alleged incidents. C. Plaintiffs lied about the number of sessions they actually had with Mr. Watson. D. Plaintiffs lied about their alleged trauma and resulting harm. E. Plaintiffs told others they wanted to get money out of Mr. Watson. F. Plaintiffs have scrubbed, or entirely deleted, their social media accounts and the relevant evidence they contained. This new development comes ahead of Deshaun Watson’s deposition, which is scheduled to take place on February 22, 2022. As a reminder, a deposition is used to gather information and facts by way of a witness’s sworn out-of-court testimony. While Watson’s attorneys may object to questions throughout the deposition, very few objections actually stop the question from going forward. Unless Watson "pleads the Fifth" (which would be quite suspicious), he will be forced to answer questions under oath, including any related to the new allegations detailed above. While the Texans would prefer to trade Watson sometime soon, I'd suggest all NFL teams hold off on those discussions for now. Stephanie Weissenburger is an Associate Attorney at Geragos & Geragos. Stephanie is the Website Manager for Conduct Detrimental and co-host of "Miss Conduct" (@sportslaw on TikTok). You can find her on Twitter @SWeissenburger_ and Instagram @Steph_ExplainsItAll

It has been almost one year since the NCAA was put in the spotlight for equity disparities in their men’s and women’s basketball championship tournament. Just about one year ago, Oregon standout, Sedona Prince, put the NCAA in the spotlight via TikTok videos, exposing the inequities of the female athlete’s weight room, their NCAA Tournament gear, and their meals. With the NCAA facing this inequity crisis, a common question came to mind: How can the NCAA avoid Title IX requirements? The answer is an often-forgotten 1999 Supreme Court ruling. NCAA v. Smith was brought to court by a female intercollegiate volleyball athlete. Smith played two seasons at St. Bonaventure University, and after graduation, she sought to complete her athletic eligibility at a school she could begin a postgraduate program. The Postbaccalaureate Bylaw allows postgraduate student-athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics only at the institution where they received their undergraduate degree. Smith petitioned the NCAA to waive these restrictions, as was often done. Smith was denied multiple times. Smith then sued the NCAA for violating Title IX, claiming the NCAA discriminated on the basis of sex by granting more waivers from eligibility restrictions to male athletes than female athletes. The question before the court became: Is the NCAA, a private organization that does not receive federal financial assistance, subject to Title IX? The answer, sadly, was no. Basically, the court said that even though the NCAA profits from federally funded colleges that are subject to Title IX regulations, the NCAA themselves are not subject to Title IX regulations. NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S. Ct. 924 (1999) Even though there is no Title IX protection over the NCAA’s actions, there has been social pushback for the NCAA to address its equity issues. As a result, last spring, the NCAA retained the law firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (“KHF”) to conduct a comprehensive review of gender equity issues in the NCAA. You can read KHF’s executive summary report here. Some of the headlines from the report include: “The NCAA’s organizational structure and culture prioritizes men’s basketball, contributing to gender inequity.” “The structure of the NCAA’s media agreements perpetuates gender inequity.” As we gear up for another year of March Madness, the questions will be: Did the NCAA learn from last year? Will they step up and provide the true NCAA Championship experience female athletes deserve? I am unhopeful, but to give credit where credit is due, the NCAA has already agreed to include the use of the “March Madness” slogan for the NCAA women’s basketball tournament. That’s right, 2022 will be the first year the NCAA women’s basketball tournament will be allowed to use the branding “March Madness,” a brand the NCAA has only been using for men’s basketball since 1939. I suppose the slow burn of change is better than no change. Rachel Emendorfer is a 1L at the University of Minnesota Law School. Prior to law school, she attended the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, where she captained the Pioneer women’s basketball team. She can be found on twitter (@_rachel_15) and on LinkedIn under her name.

Matt Harvey History Matt Harvey was once a superstar in the making, donning the famous nickname “Dark Knight” and leading the Mets as one of the best pitchers in baseball. However, the fan-favorite quickly became the target of fan hatred after rumors about his night life and his poor performance forced his relationship with fans to quickly sour. After his rollercoaster career with the New York Mets, he bounced around the league between the Cincinnati Reds, Los Angeles Angels, Kansas City Royals, and Baltimore Orioles. His testimony is mostly focused on his time with the Angels, although his testimony reveals much more about his own experiences with the Mets and the culture around Major League Baseball. Overview: As you might recall, former Los Angeles Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs tragically passed away by choking on his own vomit as a result of the fatal mixture of oxycodone, fentanyl, and alcohol that was found in his system. Eric Kay, the former communications director of the Los Angeles Angels, is accused of supplying Skaggs with the oxycodone pills that contributed to his death. On Tuesday, Matt Harvey and 3 other MLB players were called to testify, and they testified that they also received oxycodone from Eric Kay. However, although Matt Harvey’s testimony provides clarity to crucial facts in the case of Eric Kay, it also provided a clearer view about life behind baseball’s closed doors. Matt Harvey’s Testimony about Eric Kay/Tyler Skaggs T.J Quinn, a reporter for ESPN, kept the public informed with constant updates during Matt Harvey’s testimony on Tuesday. Quinn reports that Harvey and Skaggs discussed Oxycodone during Spring Training in 2019, and Harvey also admitted to first trying Oxycodone in the 2019 MLB season, after receiving them from Tyler Skaggs. He also admitted that he himself was a partier and used cocaine. Harvey also testifies that he himself gave Skaggs six or seven Percocet in the clubhouse when they were teammates on the Los Angeles Angels. Harvey states that Skaggs had a Santa Monica source for pills, and while Eric Kay was in rehab in 2019, Harvey got pills for Skaggs at his request from his “hockey player” source. Finally, Harvey does state that although Skaggs had another source, he did not get pills from his other source often. When asked how many pills he had actually seen Kay give Skaggs, he responded “Maybe once, if any”. This testimony, along with the testimony of the other players, will certainly have weight on the outcome of this trial. Matt Harvey’s Testimony About MLB Culture Matt Harvey also helped shed light on a huge issue facing Major League Baseball. Harvey testified that the use of Oxycodone and Tylenol was common. In addition, he explained that players in the MLB will do anything to stay on the field. He felt he was being a good teammate by providing Skaggs with what he needed to “get through what he needed to get through.” This testimony provides those who are following the case with a behind the scenes look at what goes on in an MLB clubhouse. With the frequency of injuries and surgeries in the MLB, there is potential for this to be a serious issue around the league. We would be naive to think that this is the only time this has occurred in the MLB, and it leaves one to wonder, what other players and teams are affected by this crippling issue? Keeping a roster spot in the MLB is hard enough, and it is clear through the testimony of Matt Harvey and the other major leaguers that players will do anything to stay on one. Hopefully, teams will use this tragic experience as a wake-up call to monitor what is going on in their respective clubhouses. SOURCES 1. SB Nation 2. LA Times 3. MLB 4. TJ Quinn, ESPN

The NFL should investigate Stan Kroenke’s ownership of the Los Angeles Rams from 2010 to 2015 while they were still in St. Louis. He used his right of first refusal to buy the Rams outright from the late owner’s, Georgia Frontierre, kids. The right of first refusal allows the minority stakeholder to purchase the part of the business they do not already own after another potential buyer submits a bid for the business. Here, Stan Kroenke waited to exercise this right to buy the remaining sixty percent after Shad Khan submitted a bid for the Rams in 2010. Khan got his wish later after he bought the Jacksonville Jaguars and became their owner. In the six years the Rams were in St. Louis under Stan Kroenke, their records were 7-9, 2-14, 7-8-1, 6-10, and 7-9 respectively. This leads to a 29-50-1 record in St. Louis. They failed to make the playoffs under Kroenke’s ownership. In Los Angeles, omitting the first season where the Rams fired Jeff Fisher and finished 4-12, the Rams have a 55-26 record in the regular season. In the postseason, the Rams have appeared in two Super Bowls, winning Super Bowl LVI and losing Super Bowl LIII, and have a 7-3 record in the postseason. This rapid turnaround has led to speculation, and the thought that the Rams lost on purpose from 2010-2015 has gained traction, according to Peter King of Pro Football Focus and Randy Karraker of 101ESPN. Stan Kroenke allowed for draft picks to be used for busts, such as left tackle Greg Robinson who dealt with injuries and legal issues, and injury-proned quarterback Sam Bradford. They signed washed-up free agents, such as Cadillac Williams, Danario Alexander, Jake Long, and among others. Meanwhile in Los Angeles, the Rams may not have draft picks, but they acquired free agents, such as Odell Beckham Jr., Von Miller, and they traded for Matthew Stafford, Jalen Ramsey, among other stars. They home grew wide receiver Cooper Kupp, and surrounded the players with a great and innovative offensive-minded coach in Sean McVay, the youngest Super Bowl winning coach at 36. In St. Louis, the major shakeup was hiring Jeff Fisher as their head coach in 2012. Fisher has appeared on several shows and told them he knew the Rams’ desire was to relocate to Los Angeles, and that was the main reason why he was hired. He helped relocate the Houston Oilers to Nashville, where they were rebranded as the Tennessee Titans. Ironically, Fisher’s Titans lost to recently inducted Hall of Fame coach Dick Vermeil’s St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV. Stan Kroenke and Kevin Demoff, Kroenke’s right-hand man and the Rams’ Chief Operating Officer, assured St. Louisans in interviews from 2010-2015 that Stan had every intention to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Kroenke went on record, saying he’s a Missourian and he realizes how important this team is to St. Louis. When news leaked in 2014 that Kroenke bought the land that became SOFI Stadium, Demoff went through interviews saying the land was not big enough for a football stadium. However, Kroenke did everything possible to make sure the Rams lost to speed up the relocation to Los Angeles. The other argument is that St. Louis would not pay for the $700 million in upgrades the arbitrator found in Kroenke’s favor for the Dome at America’s Center, and he had the option to leave after finding the Dome was not in the top-tier of NFL stadiums due to the top-tier clause in their lease with the St. Louis Regional Stadium Authority. Kroenke made sure fans would not show up to the games by isolating himself, and making sure the Rams were “competitive” to hide the fact he packed his bags for Los Angeles. An example is the plaintiff’s argument in the recently settled lawsuit between the Regional Stadium Authority, St. Louis, and the Convention and Visitors Commission against the Rams and the NFL and its thirty-two clubs. In 2014, after realizing Sam Bradford tore his ACL in a preseason game, Kevin Demoff flew out to the Hollywood Park site in Inglewood, California to see the land Stan Kroenke purchased for his SOFI Stadium project. Kevin Demoff was impressed, and they were determined to leave St. Louis as soon as the year to year option on the lease became available. Another example is Kevin Demoff’s quote after the Rams went on a losing streak to remove themselves from the playoff hunt in 2015. Rams Fans United reported that when Kevin Demoff was asked about the relocation process and filing for it; he responded with this quote: “… thankfully or not thankfully we went on a four game losing streak in November . . . .” He is happy about a four game losing streak so they have more proof to show St. Louis is not a viable market for a football team, and to get a jump on how they are going to plan their meeting to the league’s Los Angeles Committee on why the Rams should be allowed to relocate to Los Angeles. The salt in the wound, as reported by Randy Karraker, was the Adios Mother F*s email to St. Louis fans, season ticket holders & business partners that was written in the fall of 2015. They “professed” sorrow about leaving, when in fact it was written with hate and disdain. The relocation application ripped St. Louis to the league/owners. Karraker reported that the franchise was trying to lose from 2010-2015. For 10 straight years, the Rams had been under .500, first in St. Louis and then in Los Angeles. Kroenke registered the Rams as a California company the same day he was approved as their owner in August of 2010. It was obvious what he was trying to do, but he did a great job of hiding it, there is speculation whether he paid Fisher to lose games, like the way Dolphins owner Stephen Ross paid Brian Flores $100,000 for every loss in 2019 to have a better draft selection in 2020. The only difference is Kroenke did not get caught due to the NFL wanting to soak up the revenue from Los Angeles, and Kroenke privately funded SOFI Stadium, which cost $5 billion. St. Louis, when they settled with the NFL, received $790 million in a settlement, and roughly $530 million after attorney fees. This rapid turnaround and the cherry on top, the Super Bowl title, leads to belief Stan Kroenke lost on purpose in St. Louis so the Rams could move to Los Angeles quicker. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

In July 2021, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that student athletes can profit off the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). While this means that college athletes may receive payments and benefits associated with their status as an athlete, they may not receive these benefits or payments because of any athletic activity or ability. Said otherwise, the student athlete can enjoy monetary payments, apparel, meals, cars, and other things that were provided by a business, but it cannot be a payment for any athletic activity, and instead for promoting that business. This is something that can be enjoyed by student athletes all across the nation. For example, one region that could benefit greatly, both from the perspective of business/the economy as well as the student athlete, is Pittsburgh, PA. In light of ACC powerhouse Pitt football and the attention that it is bringing to the area, more companies in the region should look to take advantage of entering into a partnership with athletes at nearby colleges and universities. Local athletes also would like to take advantage of these new opportunities, looking to help local restaurants grow in a new and “fun” way. While NIL legislation was made with Division I athletes in mind, athletes in the other NCAA divisions are also able to enter into deals without risking their eligibility. Accordingly, athletes at Division II and Division III can also enter into deals with businesses. A former field hockey player at Washington & Jefferson College, stated, “I would have loved to be able to represent a local company when I played Field Hockey at Washington & Jefferson College! It would’ve been a great opportunity to connect the college to the town surrounding us and be able to play for them, while also having the support of not only a business but the locals.” Local business owners share the sentiment and are hopeful to work with student athletes over the course of their careers, as one of the founders of local real estate company Black Oak LLC, noted, “it’s a work in progress right now, but once we figure out the perfect method of an effective deal, I would absolutely welcome the opportunity to work with athletes even at smaller schools.” As states across the country are enacting NIL laws, Pennsylvania joined the trend early on. Under Pennsylvania law, NIL compensation must be for equal market value. Additionally, student-athletes cannot receive payment for playing a sport, and any person who produces a college team jersey, a college video game, or college trading cards for profit must make a royalty payment to each athlete whose NIL is used. Under this law, student-athletes in the state can also obtain professional representation from agents, financial advisors, and/or legal representatives in relation to NIL matters. Also worth noting is that earning compensation from their NIL may not affect their scholarship eligibility, which was in line with the Alston ruling. The athletes cannot use trademarks, service marks, or logos from colleges while profiting from their NIL, and schools can prohibit a student-athlete’s compensation from activities that they deem to conflict with “existing institutional sponsorship arrangements” or “institutional values.” Under this law, college athletes attending institutions in Pennsylvania expressly cannot profit from their NIL through partnerships in industries such as adult entertainment, products, and services, alcohol products, casinos, and gambling (including sports betting, the lottery, and betting in connection with video games and online games, tobacco and electronic smoking products, prescription pharmaceuticals, and controlled dangerous substances.” NIL deals can run the range from cash payments to free merchandise for representing and promoting a business. Worth noting, there are a couple of reported NIL deals between local businesses and Pittsburgh area college athletes. A handful of Pittsburgh area companies that are in reported NIL deals include The Oaklander Hotel and accompanying restaurant, Spirits and Tales, Next Move, and Bowser Automotive, all with Kenny Pickett, and Tickets for Kids with Jordan Addison. By partnering with student athletes, especially those that play a popular sport or are in a big college sports town, the business can grow its audience reach, which in turn attracts more patrons but at a much lower cost than an all-out advertising campaign. Essentially, looking at it from the business perspective, these athletes *are* the marketing campaign. Looking at The Oaklander Hotel, for example, Kenny Pickett gets free weekly meals for him and his lineman every week, and all he must do is post about it and shout them out on his social media, aside from the cost of the food or lost profits, depending on whether one thinks advertising is worth it, this is not that steep a price. Businesses could make similar deals with athletes at smaller schools. Accordingly, a few other local area colleges and universities whose athletes could advertise for local businesses include: Washington & Jefferson College California University of Pennsylvania Edinboro University Carnegie Mellon University Seton Hill University Even if companies are worried about the size of the school, that may be relevant if the business was trying to garner national attention. On a statewide and local community scale, the size of the school does not carry as much importance. Additionally, when these schools have a great athletic performance, people will travel to watch the next season, and by having the athletes advertising these companies, even people who are not from the area may come and support the business while they are in town. Lastly, given the relatively low cost of these deals and the ease of entering into such a deal, for a business, the downside (spending money) is heavily outweighed by the potential of bringing in new customers and accordingly new revenue. Stephon Burton is a 3L at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 2019. He can be contacted via email at [email protected], on twitter @stephonburton3 and LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephon-burton-7abb06125/

The whole relocation lawsuit fiasco started with the Rams relocating to Los Angeles, and there being a problem with the fact that the Rams did not leave the city of St. Louis on good terms. There seemed to be a split ever since 2013, when Stan Kroenke, the owner of the Rams, purchased the Hollywood Park Racetrack, and the other 260 acres of space that came with it. Pair this fact with the news that the Rams refused to sign a long-term deal with St. Louis to stay in the city, and it is easy to see that there was a bad breakup incoming. Long story short, the Rams leave for Los Angeles, leaving St. Louis with nothing but the outstanding financial debt and the overall depression of losing another franchise to sunnier states out West. Then, in came the lawyers. Bob Blitz and a team of attorneys representing the city of St. Louis filed suit against the Rams for misrepresenting their intentions in terms of wanting to leave St. Louis. They claim that the Rams organization as well as the NFL knew that city officials were spending lots of time and money trying to make plans for a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis, and the Rams kept encouraging these efforts to be made despite having simultaneous plans to leave the city and move to Los Angeles. This lawsuit dragged on, with the conclusion being that the NFL, as well as the Rams organization, would pay a compensatory fee of $790 million. Not much in the grand scheme of things, considering Stan Kroenke’s net worth alone is in the range of $12 billion. So overall, it seemed to be a slap on the wrist. So, since this occurred, there have also been two other teams that have relocated. The Raiders relocated to Las Vegas, and the Chargers joined the Rams in Los Angeles. The trouble is, each relocation has led to a separate lawsuit on behalf of the city that was deserted against the NFL. This is a trend that may lead to teams being hesitant to move their teams to separate markets, in fear of the league or the organization being sued. On one hand, it can be easily understood that it is wrong to misrepresent your opinions and values if you are an organization. On the other hand, a city full of people may respond very poorly if you make an announcement as an organization that you are leaving the city and relocating come to the end of the season. There seems to be an argument for both sides. The issue is, if a team announces that they are leaving, they will, for obvious reasons, lose a percentage of ticket sales because people are upset that they are leaving. So there is a fine line that needs to be walked in terms of trying to uproot a team from its community. The fact that the lawsuit filed against the Chargers for relocating is the same at its core (the lawyers representing San Diego have stated on the record that “Chargers' statements suggesting the Chargers Football was looking for a way to stay in San Diego in and after 2006 were false”) just goes to show how difficult it is and how careful an organization must be if they plan to try to change markets. Other leagues have had teams relocate and have not had an issue with it. In 2008, the Seattle Supersonics moved from Seattle, Washington to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with no issue. There was no lawsuit filed, there was no financial penalty levied against any party, the only damage was seemingly the emotional toll that losing a franchise puts on a community. In 2005, the Montreal Expos relocated to Washington D.C., with no issue. The examples go on and on, with no legal arguments being made that anything was ever done wrong. The fact that this trend of legal troubles surrounding the relocation of franchises is completely unprecedented, and it does not seem to be stopping. As a result, we may see fewer relocations in the NFL, now that every single relocation or rebranding will be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. This is a problem because relocating to a major market is one way to increase revenue for a team, however, if a team finds itself underwater financially, relocating in this current climate may hurt a lot more than it could help. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached on LinkedIn under his name, or by email at [email protected].

Who is Richard Dalrymple? Richard Dalrymple is a former Public Relations Executive of the Dallas Cowboys. He worked with the Dallas Cowboys for over thirty years and was primarily valuable to the Cowboys through his ability to soften Jerry Jones’ words to media. Jerry Jones, one of the more popular and outspoken owners in the NFL, needed someone of Dalrymple’s skillset. Clearly, Dalrymple was a trusted friend of Jerry Jones, as he speaks of him highly and Dalrymple has stayed with the Dallas Cowboys since he came on in 1990. However, since Dalrymple retired two weeks ago, his name has come up regarding troubling allegations of voyeurism and connected settlement reports. Allegations The main allegation against Richard Dalrymple stems from an incident that occurred between him and Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders in 2015. The accusation details the incident in which Dalrymple had entered the cheerleader’s locker room and held his phone camera in their direction while they were getting changed. In addition, there are additional reports from ESPN that Dalrymple was caught taking an “upskirt” picture of Charlotte Jones Anderson during the 2015 NFL draft. For those who don’t know, Charlotte Jones Anderson is the Executive Vice President and Chief Branding Officer of the Dallas Cowboys. To add insult to injury, she also happens to be the daughter of team owner Jerry Jones. Dalrymple released a statement addressing both allegations: "People who know me, co-workers, the media and colleagues, know who I am and what I'm about," Dalrymple said in his statement. "I understand the very serious nature of these claims and do not take them lightly. The accusations are, however, false. One was accidental and the other simply did not happen. Everything that was alleged was thoroughly investigated years ago, and I cooperated fully." Settlement/Aftermath ESPN received documentation of the settlement reached between four cheerleaders involved in the incident and the Dallas Cowboys in 2016. Each cheerleader received just under $400,000, which included nondisclosure agreements activating prohibitions against the cheerleaders and their spouses from speaking publicly of the incident. Although an investigation was done internally by the Dallas Cowboys, no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered, and the only step taken was to issue a written formal warning to Dalrymple. Dalrymple has kept his position despite this incident since 2015. ESPN reports that Dalrymple’s retirement comes shortly after ESPN interviewed sources and investigated the allegations, although Dalrymple refutes reports that the timing of his retirement and these allegations are correlated in any way. These issues are becoming more prevalent in professional sports. As you might recall, the Washington Commanders are currently in the midst of investigation regarding the toxic behavior and culture led by Dan Snyder. In addition, we have seen the Pittsburgh Penguins become a topic of discussion after reports surfaced that they covered up sexual assault in the organization. We’ll see what steps professional leagues look to take not only in investigating and punishing this behavior, but preventing it. Sources: 1. ESPN 2. CBS Sports 3. New York Post 4. D Magazine 5. thesporto.com

The NFL Combine is scheduled to return after a one-year hiatus on March 1st, giving a chance for this year’s top prospects and late-round sleepers alike to showcase their skills in front of a national audience in what is the pinnacle of the pre-draft process. Or maybe not. As of Sunday evening, agents representing more than 150 prospects have said their clients will be boycotting the combine, citing concerns over the league’s “bubble” policy that would be in effect during the week-long showcase1. The NFL released a memo to the participants of the combine Sunday, outlining Covid-related protocols that, if broken, would result in them being “disqualified from further participation and sent home”2. To further complicate matters for the league, the NFLPA has officially voiced their support of the players participating in the boycott, saying that they “agree and support the decisions by those to not attend”3. The NFLPA’s support of these players should come as no surprise, as the union has a long history of opposing the combine4. For NFL prospects to take a stand against the league like this is certainly unprecedented, and with the backing of the NFLPA, this could bring about real change in the power dynamics of the players and the league. The combine has been a sort of “void-filler” for the NFL, taking place after the Super Bowl and before the draft and providing entertainment for fans at no real cost to the league5. In short, the combine serves as a job interview for prospects, with the NFL dictating the time, place, hotel accommodations, food provided, and player contacts. For a league built on its players and their ability to perform at the highest of levels, allowing more freedom to those who will become those same players is vital to promoting good relations with the NFLPA. As we have seen recently with MLB, player unions and leagues are very willing to go through long negotiation processes and even arbitration, which is something the NFL certainly wants to avoid if possible. The path to avoiding labor disputes such as the current MLB/MLBPA conflict is by working with the NFLPA when it voices concerns, especially in a new frontier such as the prospect boycott of the combine. I think the decision the NFL makes, whether to appease these grievances or to double-down on their current policy, will be indicative of a potentially shifting power dynamic between the players and the “shield”. Those who follow the NFL closely know it as a league with immense power in the hands of the league office, with player power relatively dwarfed by Roger Goodell & Co. The NBA, however, places a lot of power into the hands of the players, and it will be interesting to watch the NFL to see whether pressure from the NBA “player-centric” league potentially impacts future labor disputes. The two sides are in negotiations to reach a compromise on the issue6. *Update* The NFL announced Monday evening that it will be scrapping its “bubble” idea, signaling a win for the NFLPA and the players who threatened the boycott. Although the players are not yet part of the player’s union, ultimately, the power of the union reigned supreme in these negotiations. I would keep an eye on this as a potential jumping-off point for the NFLPA to work to repeal other Covid-related policies the NFL will potentially have in place for the upcoming season." 1 https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2022-nfl-mock-draft-jets-take-wr-at-no-10-after-four-pass-rushers-and-three-ots-go-in-first-nine-picks/ 2 https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1495112835264921605 3 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/20/nflpa-supports-players-who-choose-to-skip-scouting-combine/ 4 https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33341018/agents-threaten-boycott-nfl-scouting-combine-concerns-covid-19-bubble-sources-say 5 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/20/nflpa-supports-players-who-choose-to-skip-scouting-combine/ 6 https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33341018/agents-threaten-boycott-nfl-scouting-combine-concerns-covid-19-bubble-sources-say

(Photo by Allen Eyestone/USA Today Network) By Daniel Wallach The name of Bruce Beal has surfaced in recent weeks as the potential new majority owner of the Miami Dolphins if the current majority owner Stephen Ross is forced to sell his interest in the team. The NFL is believed to be investigating allegations made by former head coach Brian Flores that Ross offered him a $100,000-per-loss inducement to tank the 2019 season--Flores' first with the team--to ensure that the Dolphins received the number one overall draft pick in the 2020 NFL Draft, and, with it, the right to select LSU Quarterback Joe Burrow. Beal, the current Vice-Chairman and Partner of the Dolphins, would presumably take over as the new owner should he choose to exercise a "right of first refusal" to buy out Ross's interest in the team. As reported by Jason La Canfora several years ago, that right of first refusal was granted to Beal in 2016 as part of an NFL-approved succession plan for Ross, who was 76 years old at the time. According to La Canfora's reporting, this succession plan gave Beal "the right of first option" to purchase the franchise if Ross dies or "decides to sell." This language--which is from La Canfora's article and not the legal document itself--suggests that Beal's right of first refusal would be triggered only by Ross's voluntary decision to sell his interest in the franchise. ROFR's are triggered by voluntary sales, not forced sales This is where Beal's path to potential majority ownership begins to fall apart. Under New York law--both Ross and Beal were full-time residents of New York in 2016--a right of first refusal "requires [an] owner, when and if he decides to sell, to offer the property first to the party holding the preemptive right so that he may meet a third-party offer or buy the property at some other price." Lin Broadcasting Corp. v. Metromedia Inc., 544 N.Y.S.2d 316, 317 (1989) (emphasis added). Rights of first refusal are construed narrowly under New York law; the owner's willingness to sell--as opposed to being compelled to do so by legal or judicial process--is an essential element that must be present for that right to be triggered. As the New York Court of Appeals has declared time and again, the triggering event for the proper exercise of a right of first refusal is a "voluntary decision to sell" by the owner of the property at issue. Id. at 319 ("[A] right of first refusal contemplates a willing seller who desires to part with the property.") (emphasis added). By contrast, forced sales, such as an involuntary foreclosure or judicially compelled sale, generally do not trigger a right of first refusal. See Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Cornelius, 914 N.Y.S.2d 327, 330-31 (App. Div. 3d Dep't) (holding that since foreclosure is an involuntary process, the right of first refusal could not be invoked during foreclosure). Forced sales under the NFL Constitution and Bylaws If the Flores allegations turn out to be true, Ross would not be selling his interest in the team on a "voluntary" basis. Rather, he would be forced to sell under a league-mandated process governed by the NFL Constitution and Bylaws. Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws, if an owner engages in "prohibited conduct"--which includes "offering , agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to influence the outcome of any game" (Section 9.1(C)(12))--and assuming that the maximum monetary fine of $500,000 would not be "adequate or sufficient, considering the gravity of the offense involved" (Section 8.13(B))--the Commissioner is empowered under Section 8.13(B)(2) to "refer the matter to the Executive Committee, with a recommendation" that the owner's interest in the team be "cancell[ed] or forfeit[ed]" and then "sold and disposed of" in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.8(B). (Note: the cancellation or forfeiture of an owner's interest for engaging in "prohibited conduct" or "conduct detrimental to the League or professional football" requires an affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths of the remaining owners). The cancellation or forfeiture of Ross' ownership interest under these circumstances would constitute an "involuntary termination" (that's precisely how it's characterized in Section 3.8(B)). Equally important, any sale or disposition of his cancelled or forfeited interest would be conducted pursuant to a league-supervised process (which would include mandatory arbitration to determine the sale or disposition price in the event that Ross's stock ownership interest is not sold within 120 days and the price cannot otherwise be fixed by mutual agreement between Ross and Commissioner Goodell). This is much more akin to an involuntary foreclosure sale than it resembles the actions of a “willing seller” who “desires to part with the property" of his or her own accord. As such, it may lack the requisite "voluntariness" sufficient to properly trigger a right of first refusal under either New York or Florida law. See, e.g., Huntington Nat'l Bank , supra; Pecora v. Berlin, 62 So.3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (surviving partner's spouse's right of first refusal did not apply to court-supervised sale of partnership asset). The ROFR is derivative of the owner's interest in the underlying asset Another way to look at this is to view Beal's right of first refusal as coextensive with Ross's interest in the team. See USA Cable v. World Wrestling Fed'n Ent., Inc., 766 A.2d 462, 467 (Del. 2000) ("Under New York law, the right of first refusal is coextensive with the subject matter of the original contract.") (citing cases). In other words, if Ross's interest in the Dolphins franchise is cancelled or forfeited pursuant to the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, then so too is Beal's right of first refusal to buy that interest. How could Beal have a right to purchase an interest that has been cancelled? It would seem that Beal's right of first refusal would be extinguished in that situation. Daniel Wallach is the co-founder of Conduct Detrimental. He is a nationally-recognized gaming and sports betting attorney. You can follow him on Twitter at @WALLACHLEGAL.