Sports Law Blog |
All things legal relating to the sports world... |
|
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Harlem Ambasadors sue Harlem Wizards over LaMarvon Jackson Back in 2006, we blogged about the Harlem Ambassadors taking on the Harlem Globetrotters in an FTC complaint over the Globetrotters'"use of arenas" clauses that allegedly prevented the Ambassadors from playing in certain arenas. Six years later, the Ambassadors are back in sports legal news. This time they have filed a lawsuit against the Harlem Wizards over the Wizards allegedly trying to sign LaMarvon Jackson, who the Ambassadors say was under contract to play for them. The 6'6 Jackson didn't exactly have a big impact as a college basketball player -- he averaged just 1 point per game over two seasons at the University of Arkansas Little Rock from 2007 to 2009 -- but has apparently became a coveted professional comedy basketball player. Or at least one worthy of filing a lawsuit. Here is an excerpt from the Ambassadors' press release on the lawsuit:
An aside: for law students looking for paper/journal topics, exhibition/comedy basketball could have some fertile legal ground to explore.UPDATE: Dale Moss, President of the Harlem Ambassadors, emails me with a "photo of Jackson in Ambassadors uniform, which we will prove is the rightful uniform." Here it is: Monday, February 27, 2012
Harvard law School Sports Law Symposium on March 23 I'm looking forward to joining many others for what should be a fantastic symposium at Harvard Law School on Friday, March 23. Here are the details: Spring 2012 Sports Law Symposium - Friday, March 23, 2012Professional Sports in America: Labor Peace BUT... Harvard Law School Friday, March 23, 2012 9:30am-6:00pm OVERVIEW Harvard Law School’s Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law will host the 2012 Sports Law Symposium on Friday, March 23, 2012. CSEL’s 2012 Sports Law Symposium will focus on the legal and business issues surrounding the recent collective bargaining disputes in the three major leagues and the issues that must still be worked out. The overarching theme of the symposium will be:“Professional Sports in America: Labor Peace BUT...” The event is free and open to the public. SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE
PANEL AND PANELISTS OVERVIEW* *Panel Compositions subject to change KEYNOTE SPEAKER – TBA PANEL #1 - NBA COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PANEL This year saw the NBA season cut short by failure to reach agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBAPA and the League. While an agreement was reached, labor peace is by no means assured. With negotiations recently completed in the NFL and upcoming in the MLB, collective bargaining remains an important topic. With representatives from the NBAPA, the NBA, and third parties, this panel will explore the major bargaining difficulties each party faced, how agreement was finally reached, and what might lie ahead for labor relations in the three major leagues.
PANEL #2 - NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PANEL Over the course of this past summer, thirty-one NFL team owners and the NFL Players’ Association (NFLPA) agreed to a new 10 year Collective Bargaining Agreement. This panel endeavors to elucidate the issues regarding rookie and retiree benefits that the new agreement has not sufficiently addressed. In the case of the former, the new wage scale forecloses any possibility of a number 1 draft pick reaching a deal that remotely resembles what Sam Bradford (the number 1 draft pick for the 2010-2011 season) had been able to secure: a six-year, $78 million deal. In the case of the latter, the settlement of the Carl Eller suit filed by retired players following the adoption of the new agreement has led many retired players to believe that they have been left out in the cold. A number of retired players along with draft eligible prospects not covered by the previous CBA, led by former Hall of Famer Carl Eller, had filed a class action antitrust suit against the NFL (Eller v. NFL) on the following grounds: · The NFLPA intentionally bargained for terms that contravened the rights of retired players against the NFL; and · The NFLPA failed in their “fiduciary duty” to retired players by bargaining for current players’ rights at their expense. Given that the District Court consolidated the retirees’ class action lawsuit with Brady v NFL, the players’ class action antitrust lawsuit against the NFL following the decertification of the Players’ Association, and the suits were dismissed once the NFL and the NFLPA reached an accord, this issue remains unsettled at this time. Not only will this panel will discuss the aforementioned open items, this discussion will also look back at the issues that led to the newly adopted CBA.
PANEL # 3 - THE CONCUSSION CRISIS IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS The mission of the Sports Legacy Institute is to advance the study, treatment and prevention of the effects of brain trauma in athletes and other at-risk groups. SLI was founded on June 14, 2007 by Chris Nowinski and Dr. Robert Cantu in reaction to new medical research indicating brain trauma in sports had become a public health crisis. SLI has formalized groundbreaking neuropathological research by partnering with Boston University School of Medicine to form the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy. SLI Co-Founder and Medical Advisory Board chair Dr. Robert Cantu and other panelists will discuss SLI’s research and address the concussion crisis as it relates to the NHL. Professor Carfagna will also present Professor Emeritus Paul Weiler Scholarships and Professor Emeritus Paul Weiler Writing Prize at this time.
PANEL #4 - MLB COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PANEL While the NFL and NBA collective bargaining disputes led to litigation and cancelled games, on November 22, 2011 Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association announced that they had reached a new collective bargaining agreement without any missed games or practice time. The agreement allows play to continue without interruption through the 2016 season, and the end of the agreement will mark 21 years without a strike or lockout. This panel will explore the reasons MLB has been able to maintain labor peace for such an extended period of time and discuss issues that may threaten this peace in the future.
PANEL #5 - Performance Enhancing Drugs Performance Enhancing Drugs have been getting a lot of attention lately throughout professional sports. They caused arguably the biggest scandal in Major League Baseball history and the issue still rears its ugly head every time Hall of Fame ballots are cast. That problem will only grow in significance as the all-time homerun leader and several other top players of the '90s and 2000s approach eligibility. Baseball isn't the only sport that's been rocked by steroids recently, and in every sport dealing with them a similar set of legal and regulatory issues arises: how should the sport regulate their use ex ante? How should the sport's authorities punish those who break the rules? What is the appropriate role of the government, if any? What role should the courts take in hearing suits brought by aggrieved players claiming false accusations or faulty tests? Our panel will explore these issues from the perspectives of several different professional sports and several different positions within the sports world.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Ryan Braun and Proceduralism Emily Bazelon has an essay at Slate framing the decision overturning Ryan Braun's suspension in the context of the (somewhat unique) U.S. emphasis on procedural rights even in the face of substantive guilt. The media and public discussion of the Braun case in the next few days will illustrate how the public at large internalizes (or doesn't internalize) concerns for procedural justice. Thursday, February 23, 2012
I’m Begging You for Mercy As the hit song by Duffy goes: You got me beggin' you for mercy Why won't you release me You got me beggin' you for mercy Why won't you release me I said release me Deep in the middle of the 426 pages that comprise the 2011-12 NCAA Division I Manual is Bylaw 13.1.1.3 entitled “Contacts & Evaluations: Four –Year College Prospective Student-Athletes” which reads: “An athletics staff member…shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA collegiate institution…without first obtaining the written permission of the first institution’s athletics director to do so…regardless of who makes the initial contact.” The result is that while coaches are free to enjoy free agency and jump from school to school at will, a student-athlete needs permission from his or her school’s athletic department before a conversation with another school is allowed. If the request for contact under Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is granted, the student-athlete may transfer, accept a scholarship, and compete immediately. If the request is denied, the student-athlete is free to transfer to another institution but must do so without any contact with the athletic department or any form of athletic scholarship. After transferring, after one calendar year the student-athlete may accept a scholarship and compete. Additionally, further restrictions are placed on individuals in the sports of baseball, basketball, football, and men’s ice hockey in Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10 entitled “One-Time Transfer Exception.” Under this rule, even if a student-athlete is granted permission to transfer, they must sit one year before being able to compete in these sports unless granted an additional release from his or her initial institution. Permission is therefore required for an immediate scholarship and the right to compete—the problem is that this permission is often withheld and the process to challenge a denial flawed. These restrictions are intended to curtail the free movement of student-athletes. Typically, schools allow their student-athletes the ability to compete immediately if the transfer is based on personal hardship (returning home to care for a sick relative) or if the student-athlete has graduated and intends to pursue graduate work at a school that offers graduate coursework in a field that the initial school does not. The basic concept, rooted deep into the NCAA rules and codified in the National Letter of Intent (NLI) that every student-athlete signs, is that the student commits to an institution not a coach. While coaches may make promises about building something together and partnership for the future with a recruited student-athlete, when recruiting a student-athletes these promises are, under the NCAA rules, unenforceable and irrelevant. Undoubtedly written by lawyers, there is a semblance of due process in both transfer bylaws which provides a student-athlete, denied the transfer request by his or her institution, the right to a hearing. The rules read, in part, that the student-athlete may be “provided a hearing conducted by an institutional entity or committee outside of the athletic department.” To summarize: the NCAA rules, written by schools claiming to protect the best interests of student-athletes, allow coaches to move about at will but student-athletes need permission to do so. Certainly schools may limit coaching movement by attempting to enforce employment contracts but there has been limited success in the court system in this regard. For three recent examples (The University of Maryland, Kansas University, and Saint Joseph's University) along with my recommendations, check out the full article at the Huffington Post. Why is it so hard for NCAA athletes to transfer? Warren Zola will have a column on this topic in the coming days, but in the meantime, the New York Times examines NCAA rules for colleges when players seek to be released from their scholarship and transfer schools. Adam Himmelsbach interviews several people for the story, including yours truly, and it comes in the wake of Danny O'Brien and Todd O'Brien's difficulties in leaving one school to play for another. Compare how student-athletes looking to transfer are treated with other students who seek transfer from one school to another for academic (or other) reasons. Tuesday, February 21, 2012
West Virginia and the Big East Break-Up on Valentine’s Day ![]() Valentine’s Day 2012 marked the end of the twenty-one year relationship between West Virginia University (WVU) and the Big East Conference, and while no love was lost, the parties did manage to reach a settlement agreement. The agreement settled both the lawsuit that WVU filed against the Big East at the end of October 2011 in West Virginia and the Big East’s subsequent countersuit filed against WVU less than a week later in Rhode Island. WVU sued the Big East claiming breach of fiduciary duty and the Conference brought an action claiming that WVU breached its contractual obligations to the Big East. The settlement agreement enumerates the terms of payments to be made and requirements to be fulfilled by both parties. When WVU announced it was leaving the Big East in October 2011, it initially paid the Big East $2.5 million, only half the amount of the buyout that was stipulated in the Big East bylaws at the time. However, this buyout amount was subsequently raised to $10 million, as the Big East sought to inoculate itself from further conference poaching. The agreement calls for WVU to pay the Big East a lump sum of $8.5 million, much of which will likely come from University donors by way of the WVU Foundation, a private fundraising organization that recently set up a “Big 12 Transition Fund.” The agreement also provides that a “Forecasted Amount” of $9 million will be forfeited by WVU, with the Big East paying WVU any amount that it is entitled to receive from 2011-2012 Conference revenues beyond that $9 million figure. The settlement also sets forth numerous other terms and conditions, including review and mutual agreement on the terms of a financial reconciliation report to be composed by the Big East at the end of the fiscal year. WVU will be required to pay any additional amounts owed to the Conference to effectuate its full release. WVU certainly encountered several obstacles on its path to the Big 12, but it will now officially become a member of the Conference as of July 1, 2012 (pending its compliance with the settlement agreement). While this particular suit has been resolved, its precedential effect bears monitoring. Following the settlement, the Big East released a statement that reads, in part, “West Virginia University has acknowledged and agreed that the Court in Monongalia County, West Virginia, will enter a judgment that the Big East Conference Bylaws are valid and enforceable, and will dismiss with prejudice all of West Virginia’s claims against the Conference.” However, the West Virginia Court only recognized the validity of the bylaws as part of the consent decree it issued as a result of the parties’ settlement. This recognition is not a binding declaration that every provision of the Big East bylaws is valid and enforceable against remaining members. This could leave the Big East vulnerable should another university follow in WVU’s footsteps and challenge the Conference in court. For a conference that has been particularly susceptible to departures during this recent phase of realignment, the financial settlement with West Virginia may prove illusory its ongoing pursuit of stability. Certainly, Syracuse University and the University of Pittsburgh are watching closely as institutions leaving the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), but as of now, both the Orange and the Panthers have pledged to wait the full twenty-seven months (pursuant to Big East bylaws) prior to joining the ACC, which would be the 2014-2015 season. While the Big 12 enjoys a greater individual member payout than the ACC (currently, approximately $15 million versus $13 million), the “lame duck” status and monetary gains in a move to the ACC (current Big East payout is approximately $3 million for football members*) may prove too great a temptation for the Mountaineers' former Big East brethren. *Note that these figures are through 2013, and Big East basketball/non-football schools receive an even smaller television payout, but that this amount will assuredly go up as the market dictates despite the departure of WVU, Syracuse and Pitt. Hat tip to law clerks Brian Konkel and Gabriela Schultz for their assistance on this piece. Monday, February 20, 2012
Cardozo Law Symposium: Amateur Athletics, Professional IP: Sponsorship, Surveillance, and the London 2012 Olympics On Thursday, March 8 the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law will host a symposium titled Amateur Athletics, Professional IP: Sponsorship, Surveillance, and the London 2012 Olympics. Anyone can attend this free symposium (and if you plan on attending, please be sure to RSVP to the Symposium Editor, Wells Crandall, at richard.crandall@law.cardozo.yu.edu by March 4). Attorneys will receive 1.5 hours of transitional/nontransitional professional practice CLE for each session they attend. I'm honored to be a panelist. Here is the schedule: 8:30 AM - 9:00 AM - Breakfast 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM - Panel on surveillance at the Olympics
10:45 AM - 12:15 PM - Panel on brand protection at the Olympics
12:15 PM - 1:15 PM - Lunch UC Davis School of Law to host Scott Boras UC Davis School of Law’s Entertainment and Sports Law Society presents “Negotiating the Largest Contracts in Sports History” with Professional Baseball Attorney Scott Boras on Monday, February 27 from 3:30pm – 4:30pm at the UC Davis ARC Ballroom. Named the “Most Influential Non-Player in the Last 25 Years” by Baseball America, Mr. Boras has negotiated many record-setting Major League Baseball contracts since 1982. Many of his former and current clients, including Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Barry Zito, Prince Fielder, Manny Ramirez, Greg Maddux, Mark Teixeira, Matt Holiday, Jason Werth, and Carlos Beltran are among the highest paid in the game. Do not miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to hear directly from one of the most powerful and innovative people in the world of professional sports. Admission is free and open to the public. A brief Q&A session will follow the event. To RSVP and for more information, please visit this link. Saturday, February 18, 2012
A higher-profile fan ejection Deadspin reports that former NBA and North Carolina State star Tom Gugliotta was ejected from his courtside seats during today's N.C. State loss to Florida State. The piece links to several of my past posts on cheering speech (Sports Law Blog gets results!). N.C. State is a public school, although I am not sure of the status of the off-campus RBC Center in which the Wolfpack plays (the piece describes it as a public corporation, although I'm not sure what that means). Since ejecting a former NBA star and one of the better players in State's history is going to get more attention than ejecting a snotty 20-year-old undergrad, it will be interesting to see if and how this plays out. The State of Sports Law - University of Virginia School of Law The University of Virginia School of Law is pleased to present a symposium on the current state of sports law, hosted by the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal and the Virginia Sports Law Society. The event takes place on March 16, 2012 from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. Complete details can be found here. An overview of the panels (and keynote speaker) is below:Panel 1: NCAA Conference RealignmentAs NCAA conferences realign in pursuit of the funding bonanza available from television contracts, the potential gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" continues to grow. This panel discusses the competitive impact that this discrepancy may have on those colleges and universities that are not invited to join the "super conferences." This panel explores the antitrust concerns that may arise and examines the role of Congress and the NCAA in regulating the conferences. Panelists: · Christian Dennie, Barlow Garsek & Simon · Michael McCann ('02), Professor and Director of the Sports Law Institute, Vermont Law School · Bernadette McGlade, Atlantic 10 Conference Commissioner · Moderated by J. Gordon Hylton ('77), Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School Panel 2: Legal Implications of Financial Distress in Professional SportsAs professional sports teams encounter financial hardship, conflicts in control arise. This panel explores the level of oversight that bankruptcy courts have over professional teams in the midst of financial distress and how that oversight may conflict with the power of commissioners to regulate the sport. Financial distress may lead the team to seek relocation. This panel examines the use of antitrust laws to secure the ability to relocate a franchise over league objection and the potential for expansion in the major sports leagues. Panelists: · Mark Levinstein, Williams & Connolly · Michael McCann ('02), Professor and Director of the Sports Law Institute, Vermont Law School · Tom Ostertag ('81), Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Major League Baseball · Moderated by J. Gordon Hylton ('77), Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School Keynote Address: DeMaurice SmithDeMaurice Smith ('89), Executive Director of the National Football League Players Association, will offer his insider's view of the NFL's 2011 lockout. He will focus on the labor and legal issues surrounding the negotiation of the new ten-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with the League. |