This summer basketball fans flocked to ESPN to watch Paolo Banchero walk the stage as the #1 overall pick by the Orlando Magic in the 2022 NBA Draft. The NFL Draft, which routinely takes place every April, has become a three-day television spectacle drawing millions of viewers. And the 20-round MLB Draft appeals to baseball diehards hoping their team selects their favorite high school or college prospect. Each draft is unique with its own set of quirks. But make no mistake about it ­– the draft has become engrained in the American sports fabric. Professional sports are different than any other business. Emotion and fandom often blur the reality that professional leagues are made up of employer-employee relationships. The passion and intensity allow sports to act as an escape from the traditional business world. But when you begin to shine a light on traditional sports constructs, such as the draft, you might not like what you find. Just because the draft is an accepted piece of professional sports, doesn’t mean it passes muster under a strict interpretation of labor law. The draft is a giant antitrust violation that we’ve all grown to love. Antitrust laws are put in place to promote competition and protect consumers from large ever-growing monopolies. A major piece of federal antitrust legislation, the Sherman Antitrust Act, states that “every contract . . . in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” Simply put, if two interstate parties agree to something that unreasonably restrains trade because of the anti-competitive nature of the deal, this violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. An open and shut violation would be price fixing among competitors to ensure profits. Mcdonald's and Burger King can’t conspire to simultaneously raise the price of a hamburger to collectively stuff their pockets. The draft, as exciting a television product as it may be, restrains trade on players entering professional leagues. The draftees don’t have the option of selling their talents on the open market and seeking the highest bidder, and they also have very little say in the team that selects them and the contract they sign. Paolo Banchero will sign a multi-year deal worth over $12 million per year with the Orlando Magic. Banchero is a tough subject to gather sympathy for, but if he were to hit traditional free agency, he would likely sign for much more money in a location he desired. Unless he secretly loves Disney World, Banchero likely would be going somewhere other than Orlando. The draft suppresses his value and chooses his destination for him. [1] The draft is formalized in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between leagues and players’ associations. Courts encourage CBA negotiations over terms of labor to prevent antitrust litigation. From the court's perspective, let the parties figure it out during negotiations so they don’t flood the court systems. In developing the “non-statutory labor exemption”, courts refuse to allow antitrust claims over terms of employment when employers and employees have agreed to a CBA in good faith. This exemption allows parties to settle their differences at the bargaining table. If the result of the negotiations would normally be considered a restraint of trade, well shame on you, you shouldn’t have agreed to it during negotiations. The draft, along with free agency and other collectively bargained constructs play an important role in how professional sports operate. The goal of a draft is to ensure competitive balance, granting bad teams the “top prize” of selecting the best prospect to join their franchise. The draft also allows leagues to allot salaries of players entering the league, so veterans can seek more on the open market because draftees are making less. As a result, CBA negotiations start at the baseline level that the draft is accepted to support the sports ecosystem. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a players’ union to take a hard stance against the draft during future negotiations. So, while the draft is technically collectively bargained, it's unlikely to change during negotiations anytime soon. To qualify under the non-statutory labor exemption (which the draft currently does), leagues must prove 3 things: [2] the restraint of trade only affects parties to the collective bargaining agreement the restraint is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining the collective bargaining agreement is the product of arms-length bargaining At a quick glance, the draft passes all three tests. The draft falls within the CBA, which is negotiated fairly between players’ unions and leagues. However, a former Ohio State running back made a compelling case that point #1 was not met by the NFL when challenging the draft in court. After a groundbreaking freshman season and spending his entire sophomore season suspended, Maurice Clarett looked to enter the NFL Draft in 2004. However, the CBA and NFL Constitution prevented anyone who didn’t complete three football seasons after they graduated high school from enrolling in the draft and entering the NFL. Clarett sued the NFL, claiming that the draft was an antitrust violation. In his lawsuit, Clarett touched on many of the anti-competitive points raised above. The NFL countered by claiming the draft is free from antitrust scrutiny because it qualifies for the non-statutory labor exemption. The lawsuit was heard by the 2nd Circuit and hinged on one simple question: were prospective players like Clarett who were trying to enter the NFL parties to the collective bargaining agreement? At the time of the lawsuit, the controlling NFL CBA was enacted in 1993 – when Clarett was in 5th grade. Despite this, the 2nd Circuit found that individuals entering a union are subject to the negotiations of the union prior to their entry. Clarett was subject to the negotiations that took place as he was playing flag football. But that still doesn’t solve the main issue at hand. The NFL CBA prohibited Clarett from entering the NFL, joining the players’ union, and becoming subject to the CBA. Yet inexplicably, the court found that the draft still only affects parties subject to the CBA. Essentially, the draft restricting Clarett from becoming a party to the CBA, ensured that the CBA is affecting only parties subject to the agreement. [3] If your head hurts, you aren’t alone. The NFL convinced the court of this circular logic. The reasoning was complicated, but the result was simple: the draft was upheld and Clarett had to abide by the NFL rules and couldn’t enter the NFL draft for another year. To recap: the draft (almost certainly) is a restraint against trade. But because the draft is collectively bargained between players’ unions and leagues, it falls within the non-statutory labor exemption and thus is free from court action. However, to qualify for this exemption, the draft must only affect parties to the CBA. It’s been determined that a player like Paolo Banchero, whose pathway to joining the league is through the draft, is a party to the CBA. Courts have even taken that one step further by declaring that players that are ineligible from the draft because of CBA rules don’t destroy the non-statutory labor exemption. The four American major sports leagues benefit from the labor law framework in which the draft is viewed by courts. As long as it qualifies for the non-statutory labor exemption, the draft is free from legal scrutiny. And good news sports fans, it doesn’t seem like the draft is going anywhere anytime soon. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com [1] Trevor Brown, Is the NFL Draft Illegal, SLA Blog, (last visited Jul. 18, 2022) https://blog.sportslaw.org/posts/is-the-nfl-draft-illegal/. [2] Chelsea Janes, Senate committee appears to revisit MLB’s antitrust exemption, The Washington Post (June 28, 2022) https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/06/28/mlb-antitrust-exemption-congress-letter/. [3] Clarett v. Nat’l Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004).

On July 15, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed all appeals filed by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) against Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations’ (UEFA) decisions to suspend all Russian teams and clubs from participating in FIFA and UEFA competitions. The dismissal confirms that Russian teams will not compete in upcoming competitions, including the 2022 World Cup. How We Got Here On February 28, both FIFA and UEFA announced a suspension of Russian clubs and national teams from competitions, including the suspension of the FUR from the 2022 World Cup. By early March, the FUR appealed FIFA and UEFA’s suspensions, which included requests for a stay of execution pending the outcome of the proceedings. By the time of the appeal, multiple teams, including Poland, had refused to play the FUR. In early April, the CAS released its order on the FUR’s requests for a stay of execution. The ruling focused on the balance of interests for each side, including the FUR’s interest in participating in competitions and FIFA’s interest in maintaining and ensuring smooth competitions and maintaining and ensuring the integrity of its competitions. In finding that the balance of interests weighed “decisively” in favor of FIFA, UEFA, and the other Respondents, the Division President determined that if the FUR were allowed to continue in competitions, opponents would forfeit, which damages the integrity of competitions. Additionally, if the FUR were allowed to play, then FIFA/UEFA removed the FUR, similar damage to the integrity of the competition would occur. Lastly, to promote additional safe competition, additional security measures would need to be taken. Thus, the Division President denied the FUR’s requests for a stay of execution. The Dismissal Based on the order, it appears that the arbitrator panel views FIFA and UEFA’s decisions in a similar light as the Division President. Specifically, the arbitrator panel noted: “The [arbitrator panel] finds it unfortunate that the current military operations in Ukraine, for which Russian football teams, clubs, and players have themselves no responsibility, had, by reason of the decisions of FIFA and UEFA, such an adverse effect on them and Russian football generally, but those effects were, in the [arbitrator panel’s] view, offset by the need for the secure and orderly conduct of football events for the rest of the world.” The FUR’s appeals were always likely to fail. FIFA’s decision aligns with previous suspensions, including the suspension of Yugoslavia from competition for its role in the Balkan Wars. Plus, Article 4 of the FIFA Statutes grants FIFA the right to suspend teams that discriminate against another country for any reason, including political opinion or any other opinion. Thus, with FIFA and UEFA having precedent and governing statutes on their side, the FUR’s appeals were an uphill battle from the beginning. Now, the 2022 World Cup will go on without the Football Union of Russia. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

In a year with the FIFA Men’s World Cup on the horizon, it’s normal for moments that spark widespread debate among supporters to appear in the buildup to the tournament. The typical chaos that precedes each World Cup appears when core players of competing nations place themselves at risk of missing the World Cup due to public disagreements with their managers. These disagreements are generally the result of the manager’s belief in the player’s lack of commitment and dedication demonstrated when playing for his country – traits paramount for members of a team hoping to represent their nation with pride in their World Cup games. However, for a World Cup of multiple firsts, it seems fitting that the most recent moment to spark debate amongst the media and supporters is certainly a first in its own right. On June 20, it was revealed that Polish left back Maciej Rybus would be omitted from Poland’s World Cup roster due to his recent decision to remain in the Russian first division for the forthcoming season. The statement released by the Polish Football Association indicates that, due to Rybus’ current club situation, manager Czesław Michniewicz would not take him into account when “determining the composition of the team” for the winter tournament in Qatar. The decision taken by the Polish FA stems from the nation’s staunch support of Ukraine amidst the ongoing invasion by Russian forces. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, the Polish national team has expressed their desire to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainians – a desire which ultimately led to their decision to not play their originally scheduled World Cup qualifier against Russia. Shortly following the decision of the Polish FA to refrain from competing against the Russians, FIFA issued a statement allowing foreign nationals playing for Russian clubs to “unilaterally suspend their employment contracts until the end of the season in Russia.” This initiative was established by FIFA for the purpose of affording foreign players who wished to leave Russia amidst the ongoing conflict the opportunity to work and receive a salary, and it provided an avenue on which the Polish FA could capitalize by encouraging their Russian-based players to find new employers. Nevertheless, Rybus, who has a Russian wife and has lived in the Russian capital for five years while playing for Lokomotiv Moscow, decided to forego the encouragement of the Polish FA in favor of staying in Russia to sign for Spartak Moscow. Unfortunately for Rybus, this decision means that he has now lost his opportunity to represent his country at this winter’s World Cup. And unfortunately for Poland, their decision to omit Rybus from the roster means that they are without one of their more experienced defenders as they attempt to advance out of a group that includes Saudi Arabia, Mexico & Argentina. Upon reflection, the situation surrounding Maciej Rybus is an unprecedented statement sent to a player by his nation’s governing federation. Never before has a player of Rybus’ status been withheld from their national team solely due to the country in which their club resides. Consequently, the severity of the situation certainly brings some interesting legal questions to light. For instance, could Rybus have standing to bring a lawsuit against the Polish FA on any grounds of employment-based discrimination? Furthermore, does the Polish FA offer its players a payment structure similar to that in the recently agreed CBA for US Soccer, in which players receive bonuses in exchange for World Cup appearances? If so, could Rybus argue that he is being withheld from payments that he, as a regular contributor to the Polish team in major tournaments, would otherwise receive simply because he is employed in Russia? These questions are difficult to answer, as are attempts to find pertinent information on the prospective payment structure of the Polish FA. Regardless, the fruit of these potential claims will likely not be of great significance to Rybus at the moment. As a result of his employer’s home country, Rybus has lost what could be his final opportunity to realize every soccer player’s biggest dream – representing his country at the World Cup. Bryce Goodwyn is an incoming 1L at Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, he will be a member of the Honors Program and will work as a Dean’s Fellow during his 1L year completing research and administrative work. He also formed part of the recently established National Sports Legal and Business Society as the Regent University Chair. He can be found on Twitter @BryceGoodwyn and on LinkedIn as Bryce Goodwyn.

As first reported by Evan Drellich of The Athletic, Harry Marino, Executive Director of Advocates for Minor Leaguers, sent an in-depth response to the United States Senate Judiciary’s letter dated June 28, 2022, requesting information regarding Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption and how it affects minor league baseball players. The letter notes that other leagues, including the National Football League, National Basketball Association, and National Hockey League, do not have a general antitrust exemption like Major League Baseball. Marino wrote, “[t]he American people, through Congress, have never expressed an affirmative desire to exemption Major League Baseball from [antitrust] laws.” “[B]aseball players and fans alike continue to lose out on the benefits of competition in increasingly distressing ways.” Marino specifically noted that Major League Baseball team owners collude on Minor League player pay and limit the number of Minor League teams. Regarding the uniform player contract, which is allowed because of the antitrust exemption and Minor League players are required to sign, Marino notes multiple issues, including: Players are required to work year-round, yet paid seasonally; Players are controlled for seven seasons by the team that drafts them; Players are forced to sign away their name, image, and likeness; and Major League Baseball owners colluding on a pay scale for athletes, which leads to an annual salary between $4,800 and $15,400. In summary, the uniform player contract limits a Minor League player’s right to negotiate for better living conditions and better wages, which is anticompetitive and would be illegal without the exemption. As for international athletes, Marino wrote that the issues for international Minor League players are issues of labor law. However, the uniform player contract exacerbates issues for international athletes due to language barriers and a lack of pay during spring training and extended spring training. In the end, Marino called for the end of Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption and to repeal the Save America’s Pastime Act, which exempts Major League Baseball from federal minimum wage and overtime laws. “Most Minor League players are living below the federal poverty level for one simple reason: baseball’s unique antitrust exemption prevents them from obtaining fair compensation,” Marino wrote. It is clear that Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption reverberates across Minor League Baseball. Under the current system, a Minor League Player’s ability to negotiate a fair wage via lengthy initial contracts, a low pay scale, and seasonal pay. The ball is now in the United States Senate’s court to help Minor League players by ending the exemption. Until then, the system will continue. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

“That’s Fucking ridiculous!” said Joshua Kusnick, former MLB player agent and guest on the most recent iteration of the Conduct Detrimental Podcast. I couldn’t have said it any better myself. In a story first reported by Doug Gottlieb, A Fox Sports radio host, Doug made a few wild allegations relating to the reasons star first baseman Freddie Freeman fired his agent, Casey Close. Doug’s “source” reportedly told him that the firing was related to the fact Casey and the agency he worked for failed to communicate the Braves' final offer to Freeman in the offseason prior to his move to Los Angeles In the same podcast that the beautifully succinct quote from above was pulled from, Joshua, Dan, as well as the other members of the podcast all examine and weigh in on the possibility of the allegation being true, and the implications both if it turned out to be true and also the more likely option that it was the manufactured story given to Gottlieb by someone pushing an agenda. As a Braves fan there was part of me reading the article for the first time that wanted to believe that the allegations were true and at the Braves weren't the ones that ultimately caused Freeman to go to Los Angeles for more money, but the more that I thought about it and looked at it the less likely that outcome actually is. The fact of the matter is that Casey, as well as the agency he works for, Excel Sports Group, are incredibly Braves friendly. They are the same agency that represented Chipper Jones and helped him to stay a Brave for his entire career, and they represent many other current Braves players and prospects. The idea that an agency with such close ties to the team they reportedly “screwed over” in dealings for one of their club favorites is absolutely ludicrous, and it appears to have no basis. I can't pretend to know exactly what went on behind closed doors with Freeman agents in the club, but after all my interactions with current and past MLB agents, the idea that a final offer reportedly worth approximately $160 million wasn't communicated to Freeman? That simply wouldn't have happened, and if it did Casey would likely be suspended indefinitely by the MLBPA. Both Casey’s and the agency's vehement denial of these facts and their “pursuit of all legal options” against Dough seems to indicate it is false. It's not all that uncommon for a player to switch agencies even once they have made it as big as Freddie has. After Freddie made the move to LA, it would make sense if he no longer wanted to be associated with an agency that has such close ties with the club that he just left. Also, it wouldn't make sense if these allegations were true to leave the agency now—Excel and Casey will both get paid regardless of current employment for the remainder of Freddie’s contract, as they're the ones negotiated in for him. With all this said, I'm left with one burning question I'm unable to answer. If these allegations are false (and they are very likely to be), who was it that would have had the motive to have this story published in the first place? Well, the more that I thought about it only two possible answers exist. Option one is that it was perpetrated by whatever firm Freddie plans to go with to represent him in the future. However, that would have very bold move on their part even despite the competition normalized in the industry between rival agents and agencies. The only other possible option in my mind is that someone within the Braves organization wanted this article to be published so that the public perception would shift, making them look like they are the “good guys” for bringing in Matt Olson as his replacement. I don't like either of these options, especially as a Braves fan—but unfortunately, I think the most likely of these outcomes is that it was perpetrated by someone within the Braves organization. Even if this is the case, I still don't fully understand the logic behind the decision. What is the best way to show the public that you made the right decision? Publicize it every time Olson does something good either on the field or off the field instead of spending a wild narrative that could potentially ruin an agent's career with a story that is incredibly unlikely to have occurred given the state and regulation of agent’s behaviors as fiduciaries of the players they represent. Regardless of what actually happened, I hope that this debacle is the exception and not the rule for any organization (whether agency or team front office) going forward. Agents are bound to do what is best for their clients, which also happens to be what is best for them to make the most money. The idea that an agent would blatantly ignore their fiduciary duties, as well as a better payday for themselves, is completely ludicrous, and I'm sincerely surprised any “reputable” reporter would write such a story or issue such a tweet. On the more legal side of things, Casey, as well as Excel Sports could have a very strong defamation suit against Doug, but they face the hurdle of proving that it was published with actual malice. This could be difficult to prove if Doug actually trusted the source that gave it to him no matter how crazy it was for him to actually do so—this would mean they would have no case against him. However it ultimately ends, let this situation be an example for everyone to make sure the sources you're using are actually reputable because otherwise you become “the boy who cried wolf” and anything you write cannot be trusted. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently a JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @ZacharySBryson.

If you don’t like change, I wouldn’t recommend following college sports at the moment. In the past 365 days, there has been no shortage of developments that have shaken the college athletics world. First and foremost, college athletes (finally) have the ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness in addition to being able to transfer to another school without sitting out for a full season. This by itself would be significant but throw in the fact that Texas and Oklahoma have announced their move from the Big 12 to the SEC along with UCLA and USC announcing theirs from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten, it’s clear that things aren’t the way they used to be in college athletics. In order to keep up with all of this change, the NCAA has launched a Transformation Committee consisting of an executive group of university presidents and athletic administrators to reimagine the future of college sports. Among the issues being discussed are eliminating scholarship limits on sports that offer only partial scholarships, abolishing the limitation on the number of coaches per team, expanding direct payments from schools to athletes, reconfiguring the recruiting calendar, and implementing certain “transfer windows” for the transfer portal. All of those are important issues that need to be solved in the near future. I even wrote an article for Conduct Detrimental that emphasized the need for more structure for the transfer portal. With that being said, there is a bigger issue that needs to be explored at length. The problem is that in order to solve it, it means recognizing an undisputed reality of the current landscape in college athletics: college football is not a “college” sport anymore and needs to be treated differently from the 23 NCAA sports. When UCLA and USC joined the Big Ten, they didn’t do so with their championship-level Olympic sports programs in mind. The Big Ten didn’t bring in the two biggest brands in the Pac-12 to bolster its baseball reputation. Both sides made the decision to pursue each other for one reason and one reason only: to make more money from future media rights deals. While the latest round of conference realignment is a clear indication that college football is becoming professional football, it is by far not the only sign. Since 2021, two commissioner jobs have opened in the Power 5 conferences. Last summer, the Pac-12 hired George Kliavkoff as its newest commissioner, and the Big 12 recently tabbed Brett Yormark as its lead man moving forward. Both of them have something in common: neither one of them worked in college athletics before becoming commissioners of two of the five most powerful conferences in the country. Kliavkoff came from BetMGM in Las Vegas and Yormark had experience with the Brooklyn Nets as well as Roc Nation. Both hires were made with one goal in mind, and it wasn’t to further their conference's Olympic sports programs. It was to make the best media rights deal possible. While we aren’t there quite yet, the future of college football could definitely involve a world where the players are employees of their respective schools. Player unions, collective bargaining, transfer buyouts, and more are all possibilities in the next few decades. With that being said, why is college football being governed similarly to all of the other sports offered by athletic departments across the country? Now, it’s worth mentioning that the NCAA doesn’t have a financial stake in FBS television or championship revenue. Since the 1984 NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma Supreme Court case, the television revenue has shifted more towards the schools and their respective conferences. The postseason of FBS football is controlled not by the NCAA, but by the College Football Playoff board of directors. However, NCAA rules and limitations still govern the sport to a certain extent as they do in other sports. As college football is becoming more professionalized by the day, it’s becoming more evident that it needs to break away from the NCAA and the rest of college sports. Instead of having five power conferences spread relatively evenly across the country as we had in the past, we are moving towards a landscape that includes only two super conferences with teams from coast to coast. While many lament the loss of regionality in the sport, it’s clear this is the direction college football is headed. But this doesn’t have to be the case for the other sports. With the exception of men’s basketball, every other NCAA sport doesn’t generate significant TV ratings during the regular season. So, if media rights money is the sole reason why UCLA and Rutgers now find themselves in the same conference, why are we having volleyball players from those respective schools hop on nearly six-hour flights for a midweek game in October? It just doesn’t make sense and could negatively impact the academic experience that administrators often emphasize. As a solution, I believe that this is the time for the people in charge of college athletics to separate high-level football away from the other 23 sports. While USC and UCLA can compete in the Big Ten in football for money reasons, its non-revenue generating sports can stay on the West coast and play teams closer to home in non-football playing conferences. Cross-country travel is less of an issue in football because of the scarcity of games and structure of the sport. Unlike many of the other sports which play upwards of 20 or 30 games, football plays once a week on the weekend for 12 weeks of the year with no more than 6 or 7 road trips per season. Volleyball? Baseball? Soccer? Softball? Not so much. These sports should be separated from football and compete in regionalized leagues where travel time and costs are reduced to allow the athletes to get the best experience possible. So instead of putting all their efforts into looking at limits on the number of coaches and scholarships, I believe the NCAA Transformation Committee should recognize that college football is becoming a professional sport and should be structured differently than the other non-revenue generating sports. In a time where change is overwhelming college athletics, it’s time to drop preconceived notions that all a school’s sports need to be in the same conference. This won’t be an immediate fix, but it’s something that will improve not only the quality of the athletes' experiences on campus but also help athletic departments save on cross-country travel costs as well. Every time conference realignment shakes up the college athletics landscape, a phrase many people say is that “football drives the bus, and all the other sports are just along for the ride.” My question is: why do they have to be? Brendan can be found on Twitter @_bbell5

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the United States Department of Justice is investigating the PGA Tour regarding possible anticompetitive behavior on behalf of the PGA Tour in response to the launching of the LIV Golf Invitational Series. The Department of Justice probe comes on the heels of the DP World Tour (a PGA Tour partner) losing an arbitration in the United Kingdom against three players that participated in the LIV Golf Invitation Series event in London, which stayed the suspensions and fines levied by the DP World Tour against the players and will allow them to participate in DP World Tour events in the future. An alarming ruling for the DP World Tour and PGA Tour alike. According to The Wall Street Journal, the probe involves the PGA Tour’s bylaws governing players’ participation in other golf events and the PGA Tour’s actions relating to LIV Golf. Since the LIV Golf Invitational Series was first announced, the PGA Tour and LIV Golf have been at odds. In February, Jay Monahan, commissioner of the PGA Tour, hinted during a meeting with the players that there would be ramifications if players participated in the LIV Golf Invitational Series. In response, Greg Norman, CEO of LIV Golf, issued a memorandum rebuking the PGA Tour’s ability to ban players from participating in PGA Tour events due to players’ independent contractor status and the PGA Tour’s non-profit status. Despite Norman’s reassurance, the PGA Tour consistently made it clear to players that it will act against players leaving for the PGA Tour. Such conduct could be the focus of the Department of Justice’s probe. In early June, the PGA Tour announced suspensions for players participating in the LIV Golf Invitational Series. When Commissioner Monahan announced the suspensions, without a specific timeframe for the suspensions, Commissioner Monahan was clear that the suspensions were due to the players violating the PGA Tour’s tournament regulations, including failure to apply for releases to play in non-PGA Tour-sanctioned events. Therefore, due to Commissioner Monahan citing the PGA Tour regulations or bylaws as the reason for suspending LIV Golf players, it is no surprise that the Department of Justice is reviewing the PGA Tour’s rules regarding player participation. The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear in Lorain Journal Co. v. United States that outright bans/long-term suspensions violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. “It seems clear that if all the newspapers in a City, in order to monopolize the dissemination of news and advertising by eliminating a competing radio station, conspired to accept no advertisements from anyone who advertised over that station, they would violate §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.” Therefore, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has its sights set on the PGA Tour. The probe should reveal more information on the player suspensions, including the length of any suspensions. However, some LIV Golf players have made it clear that they have no interest in returning to the PGA Tour due to the shorter season and larger purses in the LIV Golf Invitational Series. One thing is clear: LIV Golf is already making an impact. Beginning next year, the PGA Tour will inject an additional $54 million into purses for eight events next season, which the PGA Tour hopes will keep players away from the significant purses available on the LIV Golf Invitational Series. Between the Department of Justice probe and keeping players from joining LIV Golf, the PGA Tour has its hands full. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

While many people claim that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” bribery is the more effective method for college athletic recruitment. For decades, colleges have found ways to slip money under the table, allowing them to lure top prospects. In order to secure the most talented athletes, many colleges utilized “boosters” (mostly proud alumni) to pay recruits to play for their alma mater. It's hardly surprising that a young athlete who’s eager to start making money would be influenced by such an offer. Although it’s technically illegal for schools to pay prospective and current athletes directly, recently passed NIL laws allow the athletes to be paid if it is done indirectly by alumni or through opportunities the school provides. This may make the recruitment of athletes through “bribery” more common, or it could actually reduce the number of athletes who choose schools purely based on the deals they are offered. Due to their ability to sign endorsements earlier in their career, high school NIL contracts may be able to prevent the influence of money on recruitment. How Do NIL Contracts Increase Recruitment with Money? The NCAA now gives student-athletes the opportunity to profit from their NIL (name, image, and likeness), allowing them to receive money during their college careers. While schools cannot pay their athletes directly, there are many ways that they can help them profit. Because schools can now promise their recruits NIL-related opportunities, athletes are less inclined to choose schools with the best programs for their sport or best environment for them. Instead, they may simply choose the schools that offer them the best deals. One of the most effective methods of recruitment will be through boosters, or “representatives of athletic interest”, as described by the NCAA. Even though NCAA policies now allow boosters to recruit players, they have clarified that these boosters and colleges can not engage in “pay-to-play” methods. However, there are loopholes in the rules that do not prevent boosters from forming organizations that provide profitable opportunities for athletes. For example, boosters for the University of Texas football team arranged the “Horns With Heart” organization. Although they struggled to fill this position in the past, their pledge to give $50,000 to offensive linemen who participated in local community service was very effective. This helped them acquire seven talented OLs, including five-star rated Devon Campbell. While some attributed it to coaching changes and others argued that he felt some loyalty to the team that had given him his first offer, Texas’ paying opportunity may have also contributed. How Do NIL Contracts Prevent Athletes From Choosing Schools Purely Based on Money? Recent NIL laws may cause athletes to choose schools based on the incentives they offer, but an argument can be made that in some cases it will have the opposite effect. Many highly recruited athletes will already have NIL contracts. If students have the ability to begin earning money in high school through these contracts, they may be less susceptible to financial incentives. In addition to this, many of their contracts will be longer-term (hence more lucrative) than the opportunities provided by boosters. Some of the very best recruits will be able to earn millions of dollars while in high school, which is already the case for Mikey Williams. Last year, Williams signed a multi-million dollar endorsement deal with Puma. Williams has mentioned that he would be interested in attending an HBCU (historically black college/university). Due to a lack of funding, HBCUs are unlikely to be able to compete financially with the strongest sports programs because they often have less funding and wealthy boosters that can help with recruitment. Despite this, Williams is still likely to go to an HBCU. Since Williams will already have made plenty of money by the time he graduates high school, he can attend a school that has the best environment for him, rather than a school where he will get paid the most. Will Bag Money Bag Top Recruits? Whether colleges will be able to “bag” top recruits with money will depend on the athlete. If the athlete has a NIL contract as a high school student or doesn’t care about earning money as quickly as possible, they are unlikely to be influenced. However, many may be tempted to attend the schools that show their interest with a little cash. This may create a variety of potential issues. Many coaches have already criticized the situation as being immoral or unfair because it rewards the teams that have the most money and boosters. Therefore, wealthier schools can take advantage of being able to pay their recruits, creating an uneven playing field. High school NIL contracts may be the solution. While the number of athletes who will be able to secure NIL contracts is slim, top athletes will often achieve some degree of financial security before finishing high school. If colleges are unable to sign the very best athletes by offering them money, they may stop attempting to use this method because it is ineffective. Danica Zelvin is a high school student with an interest in high school NIL contracts. She can be found on LinkedIn.

Name, image, and likeness (NIL) could soon be coming to Pennsylvania for high school athletes. The Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) Board of Directors on Wednesday approved on first reading a new policy to allow high school athletes to profit off their NIL. The PIAA, like many other high school state athletic associations, is considering the adoption of a NIL policy to ensure that local talent stays home and competes for in-state schools rather than attending out-of-state schools in states where NIL is permitted for high school athletes. Under the proposed policy, Pennsylvania high school athletes would be eligible to profit off their NIL from, among other options, commercial endorsements, promotional activities, and social media presence. The proposed policy, however, has some restrictions. Students cannot wear school uniforms or “school-identifying apparel” or make reference to the PIAA or their school or team name when engaging in NIL activities. Students also cannot endorse or promote any third-party entities, goods, or services during team or school activities. The proposed policy also outlined prohibitions on activities in certain vice industries, including: Adult entertainment; Alcohol; Controlled substances; Opioids; Casinos and gambling; and Weapons, firearms and ammunition. According to WGAL News 8 Local Pennsylvania, the PIAA plans to hire a company to provide educational services and resources to help athletes and their families, coaches, and school officials navigate NIL. The policy needs at least two more readings before it is adopted. If the PIAA’s proposal passes through two more readings, Pennsylvania will join a growing list of states that permit high school athletes to profit off their NIL. That list currently includes the following states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, and Utah. The PIAA Board of Directors meets again in September and October, which means the policy could be enacted before winter, but likely won’t happen until July 2023, according to WGAL News 8 Local Pennsylvania. The full text of the proposed NIL policy is available here. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for start-up and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.

The legal battle continues over the failed Panthers’ headquarters project in Rock Hill, South Carolina. In response to York County, South Carolina’s lawsuit filed in June, GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“GTRE”) has filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the court with jurisdiction over GTRE’s bankruptcy action. York County’s Complaint Within days of GTRE filing for bankruptcy, which imposes an automatic stay against creditors taking action against GTRE/GTRE’s property, York County filed a lawsuit in South Carolina state court. To avoid the automatic stay, the complaint did not name GTRE as a defendant. Instead, the defendants are entities owned or controlled by David Tepper, including Appaloosa Management, LP, DT Sports Holding, LLC, and Tepper Sports Holding, Inc. As a part of the lawsuit, the County is seeking to recoup $21 million in Penny Tax Funds provided by the County for the Panthers’ headquarters project in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Specifically, the County’s complaint included causes of action for civil conspiracy, negligence and negligence per se, interference with contractual relations, and negligent misrepresentation. In the County’s complaint, the County alleges that the defendants’ conduct was performed by or on behalf of GTRE. Therefore, via its complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, GTRE is pushing back on the County, and GTRE is asking the Court to declare that the County’s complaint violates the automatic stay. GTRE’s Complaint There is no doubt that this is GTRE’s first attempt at avoiding litigating this issue in South Carolina, York County’s home turf, and into the federal bankruptcy court under an impartial judge familiar with the matter. GTRE’s complaint utilizes the County’s complaint to its advantage. None of the County’s allegations include particular injuries due to actions on behalf of the other entities. Instead, the County’s allegations that any creditor’s damages on the Panthers’ headquarters project are due to the City of Rock Hill’s failure to issue infrastructure bonds. Due to the City’s failure to issue infrastructure bonds, the project failed, which makes the County’s claims an action against GTRE/GTRE’s property in violation of the automatic stay granted under 11 U.S.C. § 362. Similarly, GTRE points to being “a necessary party to the State Court Action because its liability must be determined in order to give effective relief to the County.” Basically, if the South Carolina state court were to make determinations on issues in the case, could lead to another court preventing GTRE (via collateral estoppel) from taking alternate positions in other litigation, including bankruptcy litigation. Whether GTRE’s complaint will succeed remains to be seen. Either way, GTRE would rather move the litigation over tax funds out of South Carolina and into a more favorable venue. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

With Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game set to take place on July 19 and many festivities occurring throughout the week, Dodger Stadium concession workers—employed by Levy Restaurants—are set to strike if the stadium workers cannot reach a deal on a new contract. Representing union UNITE HERE Local 11 announced on Monday, July 11, that workers voted 99% to strike at any moment before the All-Star Game. The nearly 1,500 stadium workers employed by Chicago-based Levy Restaurants at Dodger Stadium include bartenders, cooks, servers, dishwashers, and suite attendants. The union’s last contract expired in 2019. Since then, disparities in housing and healthcare for concessions workers have continued to grow. Thus, beyond wages, the focus on the negotiations between the union and Compass Group, owner of Levy Restaurants, will be housing and healthcare. Stadium workers are becoming an afterthought despite heavily contributing to the game-day experience and Major League Baseball team values averaging $2.07 billion. In 2020, the average Dodger Stadium concession worker earned nearly $17.39 per hour, for a total of around $11,268.72 for an 81-game season. Considering average rental prices for one-bedroom apartments in Los Angeles are over $2,000 per month, it is clear why stadium workers are focused on housing. It is not the first time UNITE HERE has aided stadium workers in pursuing better wages, benefits, and working conditions. In 2021, UNITE HERE Local 2 represented concessions workers at Oracle Park, home of the San Francisco Giants, in their negotiations with Bon Appétit, the Giants’ food service contractor, over COVID safety, health care, and hazard pay. Concessions workers voted 96.7% to strike, but ultimately the parties reached an agreement before the union called a strike. In 2022, prior to the Super Bowl, UNITE HERE Local 11 represented concessions workers at SoFi Stadium, home of the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers, securing a union contract that boosted wages, benefits, and other protections. As a part of its Dodger Stadium announcement, UNITE HERE Local 11 noted the SoFi contract and stated, “Levy workers at Dodger Stadium are seeking to win the same rights.” On the same day of UNITE HERE Local 11’s announcement, July 11, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) released a statement announcing its support for Dodger Stadium workers. In March, recognizing the impact of the Major League Baseball lockout on stadium workers and the vital role stadium workers play during the season, the MLBPA launched a $1 million fund to help stadium workers affected by the lockout. With the All-Star Game on deck, UNITE HERE Local 11 is capitalizing on the increased attention on Dodger Stadium. Today, July 13, the union and Compass Group have resumed discussions. Hopefully, the union can reach a new deal that is a victory for stadium workers. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Anyone that follows F1, or has seen Drive to Survive will remember Red Bull's engine supplier struggles and drama over the past several seasons. With the official departure of Honda from F1 (again) at the end of last season, Red Bull decided to create their engine program so they wouldn't have to put up with any supplier issues like they did with Renault, or a supplier pulling out like Honda did ever again. Originally this decision meant that starting in 2022, all Red Bull engines would be branded a Red Bull Powertrain component despite the engine specification freeze in effect until 2026, with Red Bull designing their first powertrain for the new set of regulations. However, a wrinkle has been thrown into this plan by the Volkswagen Group, which is rumored to enter Formula One at the same time as the new engine regulations in 2026. Let's dissect red bull's original plan, these complications, and how likely Red Bull is going to be able to pull this one off. As I stated above, Red Bull's original intention was to take over the manufacturer and maintenance of the Honda design powertrains starting this year. This included a transfer of the intellectual property that Honda owns regarding the motor to Red Bull, so they would be able to build and maintain the engines without any direct involvement from Japan. This original plan would have allowed Red Bull to continue to use the Honda powertrain that helped it win the world title last season at a time when regulations are frozen, meaning that they would be at no disadvantage to any other engine supplier, particularly Mercedes or Ferrari. Since this original plan was hatched last year when Honda announced it would no longer be participating in Formula One past the conclusion of the season, it made perfect sense and was the logical step for Red Bull to take. However, since then developments in the world of Formula One have caused them to back off of that original plan in hopes of getting added benefits when the new regulations begin. This wrinkle in the original Red Bull plan was caused by speculation which now seems to have solidified into real news, which is that the Volkswagen Group plans to enter Formula One with both Audi and Porsche brands. Speculation suggests that the Volkswagen Group ideally would want to have an Audi works team, meaning that a team's primary sponsor (if not the outright owner) would be Audi, who would be responsible for the design of the car as well as the production of an engine. While it's unclear which team exactly might take on the Audi project, a strong case could be made for either Alpha Tauri, Williams, or Alfa Romeo. Porsche though has been linked closely linked with Red Bull and their new engine department for collaborating on a Porsche-branded power unit. This is a logical pairing, as Red Bull has already built the infrastructure and testing equipment necessary to design and maintain a Formula One engine in the UK, and would be a very easy “plug and play” for a new engine manufacturer to jump into the sport and hit the ground running. However, this speculation has caused Red Bull's original plan of maintaining, building, and receiving the intellectual property from Honda a little bit more complex. Within the regulation of Formula One by the FIA, there are special provisions in place for the new engine regulations four new engine manufacturers that will potentially enter the sport, regulations which the Volkswagen Group has been instrumental in arguing for due to their planned entries. These added benefits include a higher operating budget, more development time, and more time on the dyno to test the engines as well. This is all designed so that a new manufacturer that enters Formula One does not have to operate from a disadvantageous position at first until they “catch up” with the development of the established engine suppliers. Recently, the rumors of the Porsche Red Bull partnership have become more solidified as Red Bull has changed their approach for the remaining time of the engine freeze in hopes that they will be afforded the “new” engine supplier benefits when Porsche announces their official entry into Formula One. Because Porsche is likely planning to partner with Red Bull, they have put a halt on their original plans to acquire the intellectual property from Honda and build and maintain the engines for the duration of the engine freeze under the Red Bull powertrains moniker. Instead, Red Bull and Honda have come to an agreement where Honda will maintain the intellectual property, continue to build in service the engines, and provide all development and technical support to the team through the engine freeze. This essentially makes Honda the “unofficial” official engine supplier for Red Bull, with the hope being that the FIA will then as a result allow Red Bull and Porsche the extra dyno time and budget associated with being a new engine supplier, despite the existence of Red Bull powertrains for several years by that point. There are a couple of things about this decision that make it interesting from a legal and political standpoint. One is going to be the marketing of Honda on the Red Bull cars going forward. Currently, on the engine cover of the Red Bull car there is a small decal recognizing Honda's part in the production of the engine, but no widespread advertisement for them as there was last year because Red Bull powertrains are the “official” manufacturer. For Red Bull’s new plan to work, their cars going forward will have to have more Honda branding to highlight this increased involvement by Honda to convincingly show the FIA that Honda is the “actual” engine supplier, not Red Bull. this decision also raises eyebrows because of the surprising decision for Honda to leave Formula One after just handful of seasons of being back with Red Bull. It wasn't that the engineers at Honda didn't want to continue, it was that their profit-motivated board decided that they couldn't afford to spend the immense amount of resources required to maintain a Formula One engine program anymore. But here they are less than a year after making that decision, committing to essentially doing just what they said they “couldn't afford to do” again. Beyond these attempts by Red Bull to show they aren’t the engine supplier yet, there's still the issue of whether or not this plan will work and convince the FIA and the other Formula One teams to afford Red Bull Powertrains these benefits. Ultimately, it's not up to Red Bull whether they get these benefits—it's going to be up to the FIA, with the other engine suppliers having a say as well. That's going to be a hard sell to the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes, the other two major engine suppliers, and Formula One because they are witnessing exactly what we are, and just like us, they will see right through it and understand what Red Bull is trying to accomplish here. All this is to say that Red Bull Powertrains will certainly have an uphill battle in front of them to attain these benefits of being an engine supplier, and their trickery and optics surrounding Red Bull Powertrains will likely continue to evolve and play a major role in whether or not they can receive these benefits come the new engine regulations. Zachary Bryson is a graduate from Wake Forest University with B.A. in Economics and a Minor in Entrepreneurship. He is currently JD candidate at Elon University School of Law, Class of 2023. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or follow him on twitter at @ZacharySBryson.