As was the case last year, the North American Association of Sports Economists ("NAASE") has organized a number of sessions at the Southern Economic Association's annual conference next month in Washington, DC. The entire program can be found here. The NAASE-sponsored sessions are highlighted here. Several papers will be presented that overlap with sports law. Examples of such topics include doping, salary arbitration, sports betting, and the valuation of elite-level college football programs.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sports (Law and) Economics
As was the case last year, the North American Association of Sports Economists ("NAASE") has organized a number of sessions at the Southern Economic Association's annual conference next month in Washington, DC. The entire program can be found here. The NAASE-sponsored sessions are highlighted here. Several papers will be presented that overlap with sports law. Examples of such topics include doping, salary arbitration, sports betting, and the valuation of elite-level college football programs.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
One Is the Loneliest Number
The glorious baseball season is over. The Eagles are 2 and 4. I am not Canadian. So where is the NBA?Commissioner David Stern just announced the cancellation of all November games and the Player’s Union Chief, Billy Hunter, announced no new talks are scheduled. What’s the holdup? The league composed of millionaire owners is at 50 per cent of revenues and the millionaire players are demanding 52 per cent.
This circus of a dispute is at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and those who are working find their assets and homes have lost significant value, And at a time when the Occupy Wall Street protesters are being gassed in Oakland for asserting that the 99% of the population has been gouged by the top 1 per cent, whose members include both the owners and players in the National Basketball Association.
Now let’s think you 1 per centers: how can you resolve your differences and return to your jobs of providing entertainment in the form of guys running back and forth trying to put a little ball in a bucket. I am no genius nor a labor lawyer, just a litigator who has settled quite a few cases. Here’s a wild idea. Each of you take that 1 per cent that defines you, add or subtract it, and settle at 51 per cent.
And, by the way, while you’re at it, don’t raise the minimum eligibility age.
Mr. Zola goes to Washington
Warren Zola, a contributor to this blog and a sports law and sports business expert at Boston College's Carroll School of Management, will be speaking to Congress on Tuesday, November 1, at a roundtable discussion entitled "Hype or Hypocrisy? The Impacts of Back-Room Deals, Payoffs, and Scandals in American Collegiate Student Athletics." The discussion will take place between 1 and 3:30 p.m. in the Congressional Visitors Center and Auditorium. Jeremy Schaap of ESPN will moderate. Congressman Bobby Rush, who we've blogged about before, has put together this panel.
It sounds like an excellent event and best of luck to Warren.
It sounds like an excellent event and best of luck to Warren.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
B.A., Sports Performance, University of Florida*
Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post proposes a very different reform for college sports: Allow athletes to major in "Performance of Sport," building around participation on the team a (hopefully) rigorous curriculum looking at history, law, ethics, policy, and business of sports. Jenkins discusses her proposal on a Slate podcast. Sports, she argues, should be like drama or music or dance or art, all of which are accepted as intellectually and academically worthy enough to be integrated into the life of the school. All are pre-professional majors--athletes (at least stars in top-level football and men's basketball programs) are in college to prepare to be professional athletes, just as theatre majors are in college to prepare to be actors. The similarity extends further in that, like athletes, theatre or music students bring unique extra-academic talents to the mix and spend significant time outside the classroom practicing and honing those skills. A further similarity is that all come to a school less for the school than for the person at the school (a coach or a particular cello teacher) and may be tempted to change schools if that person leaves.
This is an interesting idea. Arguably, major basketball and football schools already do a poor-man's version of this with majors such as "Leisure Studies," although these do not go the full step of awarding academic credit for playing on the team. But is Jenkins right that this would eliminate much of the corruption in college sports? Under her model, "the worth of an athletic scholarship would suddenly be clearer. We could stop worrying about “exploiting” athletes and whether to pay them. Yale drama undergraduates don’t get a cut of the box office — their recompense is first-rate training for the stage. They aren’t exploited. They’re privileged." Jenkins makes a slightly different point that I also agree with: We actually treat student-athletes worse than regular students (including students in performance majors) by not allowing them to work, to perform professionally away from school, make money off their images, etc.
The devil is in the details, as Jenkins recognizes in the Slate conversation. First, I am not sure this takes away the pressure to share the money with athletes (at least football and men's basketball), which still make money and produce fame and recognition for the university. That we are forthright that the students are majoring in being athletes does not change the fact that they are making money for the school and may want a piece of it. And the analogy to theatre or music breaks down because those departments are not connected to billion-dollar television contracts. Are players going to be any happier that they are receiving scholarships but no salary to be football players than that they are receiving scholarships but no salary to be Leisure Studies majors?
The big risk is that some universities would not take this major seriously, that it would be a series of gut courses that will allow student-athletes to slip by without having to do any real work. This somewhat ties into the fact that many athletes are less prepared for college than their classmates and that schools typically give more admissions leeway for athletes than for cello players. So how easy would it be for some schools to create a major to further protect (and keep eligible) its more academically marginal players. On the other hand, all departments have such courses that all students in all majors take advantage of (at Northwestern, there was a basic statistics course in the Math Department nicknamed "Math for Medill," for all the journalism majors using it to satisfy a requirement). And athletics is not the only area or reason for which such admissions benefits are provided.
Jenkins said she has received many responses from university professors who like the idea. It will be interesting to see if the idea catches on. Thoughts?
* I picked UF at random; not trying to pick on anyone.
This is an interesting idea. Arguably, major basketball and football schools already do a poor-man's version of this with majors such as "Leisure Studies," although these do not go the full step of awarding academic credit for playing on the team. But is Jenkins right that this would eliminate much of the corruption in college sports? Under her model, "the worth of an athletic scholarship would suddenly be clearer. We could stop worrying about “exploiting” athletes and whether to pay them. Yale drama undergraduates don’t get a cut of the box office — their recompense is first-rate training for the stage. They aren’t exploited. They’re privileged." Jenkins makes a slightly different point that I also agree with: We actually treat student-athletes worse than regular students (including students in performance majors) by not allowing them to work, to perform professionally away from school, make money off their images, etc.
The devil is in the details, as Jenkins recognizes in the Slate conversation. First, I am not sure this takes away the pressure to share the money with athletes (at least football and men's basketball), which still make money and produce fame and recognition for the university. That we are forthright that the students are majoring in being athletes does not change the fact that they are making money for the school and may want a piece of it. And the analogy to theatre or music breaks down because those departments are not connected to billion-dollar television contracts. Are players going to be any happier that they are receiving scholarships but no salary to be football players than that they are receiving scholarships but no salary to be Leisure Studies majors?The big risk is that some universities would not take this major seriously, that it would be a series of gut courses that will allow student-athletes to slip by without having to do any real work. This somewhat ties into the fact that many athletes are less prepared for college than their classmates and that schools typically give more admissions leeway for athletes than for cello players. So how easy would it be for some schools to create a major to further protect (and keep eligible) its more academically marginal players. On the other hand, all departments have such courses that all students in all majors take advantage of (at Northwestern, there was a basic statistics course in the Math Department nicknamed "Math for Medill," for all the journalism majors using it to satisfy a requirement). And athletics is not the only area or reason for which such admissions benefits are provided.
Jenkins said she has received many responses from university professors who like the idea. It will be interesting to see if the idea catches on. Thoughts?
* I picked UF at random; not trying to pick on anyone.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Activist athletes and modern sensibilities
Gerard Magliocca at CoOp argues that NCAA reform will come when one of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament finalists refuses to play unless the players receive a share of TV revenues. He continues:
First, there is precedent for a group of players achieving union goals by refusing to play a major televised game. NBA players achieved their first significant collective victory when they refused to play the 1964 All-Star Game, deciding to strike in the locker room right before game time, with ABC ready to broadcast. Bill Simmons has a nice discussion of this in his Book of Basketball and righly says there ought to be an HBO Sports Documentary on it.
Second, Gerard is right that such a move would require group solidarity among the entire time, including, probably most importantly, the stars of that team. It worked for the NBA players in 1964 because that game featured Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, and Elgin Baylor. Gerard says that the players would "be called all sorts of nasty names by fans and alumni," comparing them with Curt Flood, the man often (although not entirely accurately) credited with bringing about free agency in baseball by refusing a trade to a new team, and who was similarly criticized and shunned for his efforts.
But I am not sure that is true in modern times. Sports reporters and columnists in 1970 were incredibly conservative and old-school, very cozy with the owners and the league's establishment, and therefore very critical of anyone who dared to challenge the league's dominance and control. They took the owners' side in all of these disputes and the "spoiled players" meme was largely a media creation. Most of the criticism directed at Flood came from those reporters. Sports media today are far-more diverse, far-less pro-establishment, and seemingly more progressive. There are more voices being heard in more foca (hello, bloggers), and at least some of these voices will do more than give a knee-jerk rejection of the players' point of view. The same probably goes for fans. Fans dislike the NCAA and many polls show support for players receiving some form of compensation and some right to control the games they play. Fans are more diverse, more progressive, and (importantly) more well-informed about the business and economic side of the game (as a result of the greater number of media writing on these issues). My speculation is that a substantial percentage of fans would be behind the players--certainly more than were behind Flood in 1970.
Third, it also is worth noting that, while Flood was certainly criticized for his stance, he was not blackballed or denied opportunities to play. As the recent HBO documentary showed, Flood came back in 1971 (paid $ 110,000), but only last 13 games, his skills having faded from his one-year layoff and, perhaps, from the pressure and stress of his stance and the criticism he endured. We also have another modern comparison--Maurice Clarett, who unsuccessfully challenged the NFL's draft eligibility rules by trying to leave college and enter the league following his freshman year at Ohio State. After losing his antitrust suit, Clarett was drafted in the third round and signed a four-year contract, although he was waived before the end of training camp because he was out of shape, rusty, hurt, and generally not able to play at that level by then.
These two historical points are important because, as Gerard correctly notes, such a boycott of the Finals only works if the entire team, including its best players, is on board. But that superstar player not only has to worry about losing a "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to play for the national championship;" he also has to worry about hurting his NBA prospects, either by not being seen on the big stage or by being seen as a troublemaker. The former is not a real problem; given private workouts and the other processes teams use in settling on draft choices, performing well in the Final Four is less essential to getting drafter. The latter also is not a real problem, given that the NBA will accept that "troublemaker" if he can play.
Update: Gerard is not the only person talking about this today. Deadspin reports on a petition by the National College Players Association signed by more than 300 football and basketball players, calling on the NCAA to institute a host of reforms, including increasing the total value of scholarships and putting TV money into a trust fund for athletes. The Deadspin story links to a piece by Yahoo!'s Dan Wetzel calling for a team to boycott a lower-tiered bowl game, which would not require the same level of sacrifice as boycotting a BCS bowl or Final Four game, but still will be high-profile enough to get people's attention.
Now this kind of strike would not be easy. Most of a team would have to agree and risk expulsion from school and the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to play for the national championship. They would be called all sorts of nasty names by fans and alumni. On the other hand, Curt Flood went through something like that to create free agency for professional athletes. Who will be the Curt Flood of college sports?It's a great point and I agree with Gerard it could work. A few broader thoughts.
First, there is precedent for a group of players achieving union goals by refusing to play a major televised game. NBA players achieved their first significant collective victory when they refused to play the 1964 All-Star Game, deciding to strike in the locker room right before game time, with ABC ready to broadcast. Bill Simmons has a nice discussion of this in his Book of Basketball and righly says there ought to be an HBO Sports Documentary on it.
Second, Gerard is right that such a move would require group solidarity among the entire time, including, probably most importantly, the stars of that team. It worked for the NBA players in 1964 because that game featured Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, and Elgin Baylor. Gerard says that the players would "be called all sorts of nasty names by fans and alumni," comparing them with Curt Flood, the man often (although not entirely accurately) credited with bringing about free agency in baseball by refusing a trade to a new team, and who was similarly criticized and shunned for his efforts.
But I am not sure that is true in modern times. Sports reporters and columnists in 1970 were incredibly conservative and old-school, very cozy with the owners and the league's establishment, and therefore very critical of anyone who dared to challenge the league's dominance and control. They took the owners' side in all of these disputes and the "spoiled players" meme was largely a media creation. Most of the criticism directed at Flood came from those reporters. Sports media today are far-more diverse, far-less pro-establishment, and seemingly more progressive. There are more voices being heard in more foca (hello, bloggers), and at least some of these voices will do more than give a knee-jerk rejection of the players' point of view. The same probably goes for fans. Fans dislike the NCAA and many polls show support for players receiving some form of compensation and some right to control the games they play. Fans are more diverse, more progressive, and (importantly) more well-informed about the business and economic side of the game (as a result of the greater number of media writing on these issues). My speculation is that a substantial percentage of fans would be behind the players--certainly more than were behind Flood in 1970.
Third, it also is worth noting that, while Flood was certainly criticized for his stance, he was not blackballed or denied opportunities to play. As the recent HBO documentary showed, Flood came back in 1971 (paid $ 110,000), but only last 13 games, his skills having faded from his one-year layoff and, perhaps, from the pressure and stress of his stance and the criticism he endured. We also have another modern comparison--Maurice Clarett, who unsuccessfully challenged the NFL's draft eligibility rules by trying to leave college and enter the league following his freshman year at Ohio State. After losing his antitrust suit, Clarett was drafted in the third round and signed a four-year contract, although he was waived before the end of training camp because he was out of shape, rusty, hurt, and generally not able to play at that level by then.
These two historical points are important because, as Gerard correctly notes, such a boycott of the Finals only works if the entire team, including its best players, is on board. But that superstar player not only has to worry about losing a "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to play for the national championship;" he also has to worry about hurting his NBA prospects, either by not being seen on the big stage or by being seen as a troublemaker. The former is not a real problem; given private workouts and the other processes teams use in settling on draft choices, performing well in the Final Four is less essential to getting drafter. The latter also is not a real problem, given that the NBA will accept that "troublemaker" if he can play.
Update: Gerard is not the only person talking about this today. Deadspin reports on a petition by the National College Players Association signed by more than 300 football and basketball players, calling on the NCAA to institute a host of reforms, including increasing the total value of scholarships and putting TV money into a trust fund for athletes. The Deadspin story links to a piece by Yahoo!'s Dan Wetzel calling for a team to boycott a lower-tiered bowl game, which would not require the same level of sacrifice as boycotting a BCS bowl or Final Four game, but still will be high-profile enough to get people's attention.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Is Tony LaRussa a better manager because of his legal education?
Could LaRussa's time at FSU Law and studying the bar have helped prepare him to become a big league manager? Does it help him now-a-days? In today's Wall Street Journal, I discuss with Joe Palazzo how LaRussa's legal training might have aided his managerial career:
What he learned in law school wasn't lost on his baseball career, say experts who follow sports and the law. "A good lawyer is someone who is receptive to hearing both sides of an argument and to thinking critically about different perspectives," says Michael McCann, director of Vermont Law School's Sports Law Institute. "He has a track-record of listening to coaches before making a decision, and his legal education may have led to that."Greg Skidmore and Geoff Rapp have previously looked at LaRussa and other coaches/team executives who are law school graduates (click here for Greg's post; click here for Geoff's post). Based their posts and accompanying reader comments, here is a list of other managers/coaches/team executives who are lawyers:
- Mike Leach, former Texas Tech football coach (Pepperdine University School of Law, J.D., 1982)
- Quin Synder, Lakers assistant coach/former Missouri men's basketball coach (Duke Law School, J.D., 1995)
- Craig Esherick, former Georgetown men's basketball coach (Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1982)
- Rick Neuheisel, UCLA football coach (University of Southern California School of Law, J.D., 1988)
- Bill Wright, Arizona men's tennis coach (Denver University Law School, J.D., 1963)
- Terry Bowden, North Alabama football coach/former Auburn football coach (Florida State University College of Law, J.D.)
- Theo Epstein, President of Baseball Operations of the Chicago Cubs (University of San Diego School of Law, J.D.)
- Larry Lucchino, President and CEO of the Boston Red Sox (Yale Law School, J.D.)
- Brian Burke, President and general Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs (Harvard Law School, J.D., 1981)
- Mike Zarren, Assistant General Manager of the Boston Celtics (Harvard Law School, J.D., 2005)
- George McPhee, General Manager of the Washington Capitals (Rutgers School of Law, J.D., 1992)
- Jason Levien, former Assistant General Manager and Senior VP of the Sacramento Kings (University of Michigan School of Law, J.D.)
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Catching up with Sports Law Links and Sports Law News
* I was interviewed on NBA TV to talk about the lockout and legal issues that could emerge. Also discussed this topic on Baltimore WNST.
* What could be the legal fallout of University of Missouri trying to leave the Big 12?
* Scott Judson, Co-Chair of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society at UC Davis School of Law, lets me know that on Wednesday, October 26, his organization will be hosting Woodie Dixon, General Counsel of the Pac-12 to speak about conference realignment and the newly-formed Pac-12 Nextwork. The event is open to the public, so if you're in the Sacramento/Bay Area, it sounds like a great event. For more info, click here.
* Alex Bard of American University Washington College of Law's Sports and Entertainment Law Society, lets me know of this upcoming event on Thursday, October 27:
What: AU WCL's Sports and Entertainment Law Society is hosting a panel discussion regarding athlete-agent relationship and NCAA regulation. The panel will look at the agent-athlete relationship, NCAA regulation of athletes, and the impact of legislation.
Kevin Blackistone from ESPN will moderate the event. Panelists include Howard Shatsky (certified NFLPA agent and WCL professor), Mark Levin (Director of Salary Cap and Agent Administration at the NFLPA), and Patrick Nero (GWU Athletic Director).
For more information please go to http://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/fall/2011/20111127.cfm.* Alex Bard also has a new Note in the Labor and Employment Law Forum titled, "Strength in Numbers: The Question of Decertification of Sports Unions in 2011 and the Benefit of Administrative Oversight". Check it out - it's very timely.
To register, please go to https://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/cle_form.cfm and select "10/27/2011: Out of Bounds: Tackling the Agent-Athlete Relationship From Amateur Athletics to the Pros."
Where: American University Washington College of Law
When: Thursday October 27, 4:00-5:30pm
* As always, Dan Fitzgerald has great stuff on Connecticut Sports Law and Darren Heitner and his crew have great stuff on Sports Agent Blog.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Florida Republicans move up primary. Will Democrats and the press say it doesn't count?
The Florida Republican party recently announced that over the objections of the Republican National Committee, they are going to move the date of its presidential primary up to January.
This decision and the difference between the reactions of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee recalls one of the most disgraceful, dishonest, corrupt episodes in the history of the Democratic party when, during the 2008 primaries the hierarchy of the Democratic National Committee headed by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille and others, conspired to do everything possible to tilt the playing field in favor of Barrack Obama. And did it by depriving 2.200,000 Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan their voting rights and their rightful voice in the process to select the Democratic nominee for president.
I use the word "conspire" because that is exactly what it was. What the Democratic National Committee did in Florida and Michigan was as sinister and corrupt as any act committed by Boss Tweed, the corrupt Democratic party official in New York City in the 1850's who literally threw away votes for candidates he did not support.
The decision to move the Florida and Michigan primaries up over the objections of the DNC were made by two party chairpersons in each state with the support of state party officials. Both Florida and Michigan did it because they were afraid their primaries would be irrelevant after Super Tuesday and they wanted to call attention to their unemployment and economic problems. The DNC said no, and the two states said they would defy the national party and move them up anyway.
What the DNC could have done as punishment for defying national party orders was sanction the party officials who made the decision. They could have stripped them of their credentials. They could have levied heavy fines on the respective state parties. They could have banned the party officials from the Democratic national convention.
Instead the DNC used it as an excuse to help Obama by disenfranchising 1,600,000 Democrats in Florida and another 600,000 Michigan - 2,200,000 voters who the DNC punished and whose crime was to show up and vote on the dates their state Democratic party and their state's attorney general told them to. The DNC decided they were the ones to be punished by announcing that their votes wouldn't count and the delegates elected to cast their votes for a presidential nominee wouldn't be seated.
To show just how corrupt the process was, Michael Moore, whose good works have been invaluable to the cause of common sense, threw 600,000 of his friends and neighbors in his beloved Michigan under the bus by supporting the DNC's decision to disenfranchise them because he, like most journalists and Obama supporters, had an agenda of seeing a president with black ancestry get elected
Never mind that this candidate had proved over 11 years that he was the most dishonest, duplicitous candidate since Richard Nixon. Never mind that over 11 years he had proved he was a do nothing politician who did nothing but talk a lot. Never mind that he had been caught in more lies in two months than most dishonest politicians in a career, whether it was seven consecutive days lying about Jeremiah Wright or his lies and duplicity that was exposed over NAFTA during the Ohio primaries. There was an agenda and that agenda was going to be seen through even if people like Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Gail Collins and just about everyone in the press along with the DNC had to shred every iota of their integrity to make it happen. And that meant disenfranchising 2,200,000 voters in Florida and Michigan.At the same time that American soldiers were dying in Iraq to secure free and fair elections there.
While Obama was making speeches in 2008 saying things like " voices must be heard, every vote must count" he was also deeply involved, conspiring with officials at the DNC to do everything possible to keep the votes from Florida and Michigan from counting because of what those voices were saying, voices that said in landslide numbers that they wanted Hillary Clinton, not Barrack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for president.
The press dutifully went along acting like errand boys and accomplices for DNC officials, refusing to count the Florida and Michigan votes and the delegate counts that went along with it. This went a long way in creating the expectation that Obama would be the nominee despite facts at the time to the contrary which was the whole point.
Jonathan Alter, in Obama's pocket from day one, actually wrote an article saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race because she had no chance of winning. This even though Clinton had landslided Obama in 13 of 15 of the biggest states in the country. " Do the math" Alter wrote. In the end the math said that Clinton had won the popular vote over Obama and neither candidate had the 2/3 delegate majority to seal the nomination after the primaries ( which is what led to the rigged roll call vote for Obama at the convention).
The Florida Republican party's decision to move their primary up over the objections of the national party but with no threat made by the RNC that their votes wouldn't count recalls the whole ugly mess in 2008, a mess caused by the of leadership the DNC and the political corruption of Democratic congressional leaders and the press that brought about Obama's nomination.
You would think that politicians would have learned a long time ago that nothing good will ever come from trying dishonest or corrupt means to achieve a desired result. Nixon learned it in Watergate. Politicians who went to jail like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham learned that. And now, after Obama sold out the Democratic agenda,after he has caved in and capitulated to Republicans on the most important aspects of the Democratic agenda, after his duplicitious and gutless first two years in office cost the Democrats the House and their biggest opportunity in 60 years to accomplish their goals, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic leadership know it too.
And unless they find another nominee for president in 2012, the price for their manipulation will get steeper.
Marc Rubin
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University Sports Law Symposium
Should be a great event - great work by student leaders Casey Johnson and Kellen Bradley putting it together:
2nd Annual Conference on Sports and Entertainment Law
The Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University will host the 2nd annual Conference on Sports and Entertainment Law. Speakers and Panelists from all over the country will present and discuss the most critical issues in the fields of Sports and Entertainment Law. Keynote speaker is President of the Arizona Cardinals Michael Bidwill.
- Date: Saturday, November 5th, 2011
- Time: 9am – 5pm, followed by a reception for all attendees and speakers
- Location: Armstrong Hall, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University Campus – Tempe, AZ
List of Speakers (click for more speaker biographies)
Registration Fees: (includes lunch)
- Attorneys - $160 for up to 5hrs CLE + 1 Ethics Credit
- General Public – $40
- Law Student or ASU Professor – $10
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Why don't more schools help their athletes go pro?
I had a story last week on schools that provide counseling for athletes who go pro, featuring Boston College's Warren Zola (some of you will recognize him from this very site). Zola is a dean at the BC business school, and this is a niche he has carved out for himself after recognizing that many athletes are ill-prepared for the transition. Players like former BC lineman Anthony Castonzo, a first-round pick by the Colts, (pictured) said they wouldn't have been able to navigate the transition without help.
The most interesting part, to me, is how few schools -- about 25 percent, by some estimates -- provide the service. I would think it would be a nice recruiting tool to say to a recruit, "We'd like you to meet Warren. When the time comes for you to go pro, he's here to help you with everything you need." This would play right into the dreams of high schoolers, who all think they are destined for NFL stardom (or NBA, or MLB, etc.). It seems like it would help the schools, too, because having someone who knows the terrain can help avoid recruiting violations.
But only few schools have advisers in house, and some more hire outside consultants to manage the process. Ironically, the issue might be that the NCAA requires the advisers to be independent from the athletic department. While this removes much of the conflict of interest that could arise in the decision whether to leave early, it also takes away the most obvious source of funding for the position.
Zola has written about reform in college athletics before, including this law review article where he spells out the issues in the Professional Sports Counseling Panels, as they're called in the NCAA bylaws.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
John Calipari and Derrick Rose settle ticket devaulation lawsuit
* * *
The three Memphis-area attorneys who pursued former University of Memphis coach John Calipari and guard Derrick Rose with threats of legal action probably haven't inspired a new trend, sports law experts say.
But Michael McCann, a professor at Vermont Law School and sports law columnist at SI.com, wouldn't rule out at least a few attempts. "Other fans are going to see this and say 'It sort of worked there,'" McCann said. "They were able to secure a settlement. I don't think it's going to give rise to courts sanctioning this, but I think it could give rise to others wanting to file a lawsuit."
That's how it paid off in May 2010 for local attorneys Martin Zummach, Frank L. Watson III and William Burns. They threatened a lawsuit against Calipari, Rose and U of M athletic director R.C. Johnson, claiming the NCAA's vacating of its 2007-08 Final Four season resulted in the devaluation of their tickets.
Calipari and Rose agreed to pay the attorneys $100,000. Calipari also agreed to donate $232,000, the approximate after-tax value of his bonuses connected with the season, to the Tiger Scholarship Fund. Rose agreed to consider making a donation sometime before 2015.* * *Mark Conrad, who teaches sports law classes at Fordham University, doesn't think the case will spawn a rash of copycats. "I certainly don't see it as a trend in pro sports ... and I certainly would be very surprised if you see this from universities," Conrad said.
Conrad noted that though the specifics of the Memphis case seemed unique, ticket-holder lawsuits aren't altogether uncommon. He said they're usually unsuccessful, too.* * *Both Conrad and McCann were stunned at the Memphis settlement.
"I was like, 'wow,'" McCann said. "The lawsuit, the claims did not seem very strong and I'm surprised that the defendants -- Calipari, Derrick Rose -- that they would agree to pay anything."
McCann said he anticipated that the case, if it had ever been filed, would have been dismissed.
But even with the perceived unlikelihood of its success, such a case would have its costs -- "at the very least, stress, cost, retaining a lawyer, time. Time for a coach, obviously, is really valuable."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
New York Law School Third Annual Sports Law Symposium
I look forward to joining many friends and colleagues at New York Law School's upcoming sports law symposium. It should be an awesome event. Great work by Elliot Solop, founder/EIC of The Sports Tomato, in putting it together.
The New York Law School Institute for Information Law and Policy and the New York Law School Sports Law Society
Presents:
The Third Annual Sports Law Symposium
Date: Friday, November 4, 2011
Location: New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, NY
Rooms: 2nd Floor Events Center, W402, W420
Time: 12:30pm-8pm
Industry leaders will engage in panel discussions involving current legal issues in the sports industry including the legal infrastructure of developing and growing professional sports leagues, amateurism issues in collegiate sports, intellectual property management of sports and entertainments brands, and athlete agent regulation and enforcement. Panelists will also offer perspective on breaking into the legal side of the sports industry. A networking reception will follow the day’s events.
Panels:
-Panel 1: Overview of Current Legal Developments in the Sports Industry
-Breakout Session 1: Financial and Tax Considerations in Representing Professional Athletes
-Breakout Session 2: Intellectual Property Issues in Sports
-Breakout Session 3: Athlete Agent Regulation and Enforcement
-Panel 2: Legal Infrastructure of Developing and Growing Professional Sports Leagues
-Panel 3: Amateurism Issues in Collegiate Sports
-Panel 4: Breaking Into the Sports Industry
-Networking Reception
Panelists:
Jason Belzer - President, Global Athlete Management Enterprises, Inc.
Andrew Bondarowicz - President, Aregatta Group, Inc.
Allison Cantor - Assistant Counsel, ESPN
Mark Conrad ’81 - Associate Professor of Business Law, Fordham University, Adjunct Professor of Sports Law, New York Law School
George Daniel - Commissioner, National Lacrosse League
Marc Edelman - Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University’s Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law
Dimitrios Efstathiou - Senior Counsel, Major League Soccer
Andrew Fine - Director of Marketing and Broadcasting, RLR Associates
David Fish - NFLPA Certified Agent, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School
David Gross - Commissioner, Major League Lacrosse
Darren Heitner - Founder of Sports Agent Blog, President of Dynasty Sports LLC
David Mayer - Counsel, ESPN
Kevin Matz - Managing Member, Kevin Matz & Associates PLLC
Michael McCann - Sports Illustrated Legal Analyst, NBATV Legal Analyst, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Tim McIIwain ’95 - Partner, McKenna McIlwain, LLP
Robert Raiola - CPA, Sports & Entertainment Group Manager at Fazio, Mannuzza, Roche, Tankel, LaPIlusa, LLC
Katherine Salisbury - President, Friedman & Salisbury Sports Management LLC
David Soskin ’08 - Assistant Counsel, ESPN
Mike Zarren - Assistant General Manager and Associate Team Counsel, Boston Celtics
Warren Zola - Chair, Professional Sports Counseling Panel, Boston College
CLE credits will be offered.
For more information on the event, please contact Elliot Solop at essolop@gmail.com.
Republican congressman unconsciously compares Occupy Wall Street to American Revolution.
Peter King, a right wing New York Republican congressman joined the growing list of Republicans condemning the Occupy Wall Street protests that continues to spread far beyond Wall Street with smaller protests cropping up in cities from coast to coast, and spreading around the world, but King's condemnation was especially amusing since, without realizing it, he compared the protestors to the American colonists who revolted against British rule.
In an interview with right wing radio host Laura Ingrahm, King referred to the Occupy Wall Street protestors as "anarchists" and a "rag tag mob", precisely the same language the British used in referring to American colonists who revolted against King George. He's now the second king to refer to American protestors as "anarchists" and a "rag tag mob".
King was also concerned that the Occupy Wall Street protestors were getting too much attention from the media, something he has no problem with when the Tea Party organizes protests.
Referring to the protestors as a "mob", King said:
"We have to be careful not to allow this ( the protests) to get any legitimacy," he warned. "I'm taking this seriously in that I'm old enough to remember what happened in the 1960's when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy," he said. "We can't allow that to happen."
The policies that King referred to that were shaped by the protests of the 1960's that he objects to were civil rights, equal rights for African Americans, the Voting Rights Act that gave African Americans the right to vote, integration, equality for women, insistence that 18 year olds who were old enough to get drafted and be sent to war were old enough to vote for or against those who send them there, respect for the global environment with protests against polluting the air and water, sexual freedom, freedom of speech, an end to social double standards, and an end to an ongoing war that killed 50,000 American soldiers needlessly because of egregious miscalculations by two presidents and the super ego of one, Richard Nixon.
In two sentences about the Occupy Wall Street protests, King summed up everything that is at the root of all liberal vs. conservative animosity and conflict. Not only have conservatives still not gotten over losing the Civil War, they haven't gotten over the 60's either when so many of the conformist, unequal, unconstitutional and narrow minded values they cherished were exposed as frauds and demolished.
Mayor Bloomberg might have a point when he says that the Occupy Wall Street protestors miss the point that it's the taxes these banks and Wall Street firms pay that help pay for the services in the city that benefits everyone. But Mayor Bloomberg misses a different point -- that it was the taxes paid by average working people that went to prop up these banks that were on the verge of collapse because of the sheer greed, ineptitude and incompetence of those who controlled them. Average working people saw their tax money spent on cleaning up the egregious and dishonest mistakes of bank presidents and investment houses and benefit the people with the multi-million dollar salaries, the people who caused all the problems in the first place but, thanks to government bail outs didn't lose their jobs ( a case can be made that many of them should have gone to jail much less lose their jobs), while not enough of their tax payer money went to saving their own jobs and the economies of their own communities.
The biggest point the protestors are missing is that the inequality and injustice they now feel is not the fault of the banks or Wall Street who are only doing what the law allows. That fault can be laid directly at the feet of Barrack Obama who, despite a huge congressional Democratic majority watered down Financial Reform and took out its most important provisions." Too big to fail" the concept that was at the heart of the tax payer bailout has not been fixed because Obama caved in to Wall Street and bank pressure, a pattern which followed his caving in to pressure from health insurance companies by dropping the public option.
It is not the banks or Wall Street that has to go. It's Obama. And the Republican majority in the House.
Marc Rubin
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Raiders owner Al Davis dies at 82
Al Davis, the owner of the Oakland-Los Angeles-Oakland Raiders, has died, ending one of the more remarkable careers in sports _ and sports law. He was a mixture of George Steinbrenner (who was also born on the Fourth of July), Mark Cuban, Charlie Finley and Vince Lombardi -- a coach, owner, businessman, general manager and fan with an insatiable desire for winning. But he was also a little bit Curt Flood (or at least Andy Messersmith) who was willing to take on his fellow owners in court, suing for the right to move his team from Oakland to L.A. and back, as told in this obituary by my AP colleague Josh Dubow, who covers the team.
Davis was also the AFL commissioner before the merger that helped shape the modern NFL. So I ask: Is there another figure who is responsible for as much sports jurisprudence?
Friday, October 7, 2011
The "Karen Murphy Case" - European Soccer, Television Broadcasts, Competition Law, and Decoder Cards
Below is a guest post by Tassos Kaburakis.On October 4, 2011, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered an important decision in a consolidated case dealing with broadcasting rights, competition, and European Union (EU)-wide intellectual property issues [Football Association Premier League and Others (C-403/08 and C-429/08)… a.k.a. the Karen Murphy case].
Several pub owners in the United Kingdom (UK) have been circumventing the exclusive license, which the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) has signed with BSkyB and ESPN (£1.78 billion for the rights to broadcast Premiership matches in the UK from 2010 to 2013). A Sky subscription that would allow public viewing of FAPL games would cost approximately £700*. The pub owners (including Karen Murphy) opted not to pay the high fees and instead purchased foreign satellite decoder cards and individual subscription cards from Greece, for a fraction (10%) of the Sky subscription cost.
Regardless of the fact UK pub owners utilized these foreign decoding devices in unauthorized fashion, breaching terms of use by submitting false residence addresses, the ECJ focused on European consumers’ preemption from freely engaging in the purchase of goods and services across state borders, thus declaring that restrictions on the territorial range within which one would have to use a certain subscription service were in violation of EU Law. Namely, any exclusive licenses, as well as national legislation protecting such licenses, are found in violation of the freedom to provide services and fair competition rules, if they create artificial trade barriers, fix prices by creating national borders EU Law abolishes, and prevent consumers from using a service beyond certain national borders. The EU Satellite Broadcasting Directive and the Television without Frontiers Directive in particular declare that broadcasts across state borders and a common market distribution are key avenues toward the realization of European integration.
Importantly, the ECJ found no justifications on grounds of public policy for such restrictive practices. On one hand, the Court found no intellectual property rights by means of EU-wide Copyright for football matches themselves (albeit still protectable under member state law), rather only found particular aspects of the broadcasts copyrightable, e.g. the FAPL anthem, highlights, and various graphics. For such protectable aspects of a broadcast, one still needs to seek permission from the rights’ owner prior to public viewing. On the other hand, such restrictive practices were not justified either on grounds of protecting sporting interests, such as attracting game attendance, as other means (i.e. “closed periods” during which contracting parties would not broadcast Premiership games to encourage attendance) may accomplish such goals in less restrictive fashion than complete preemption of cross-border services’ utilization.
The Court’s use of the “specificity of sport” Art. 165 of the Treaty establishing the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is significant. Practices in favor of sport organizations should not go beyond what is necessary to accomplish the goals pursued, and in any event the Court assumes a position where the balance generally should lean in favor of upholding fundamental EU Law principles.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Talking NBA Lockout
Tired of the NBA lockout? If so, you probably won't enjoy my interview with Chris Townsend of 95.7 FM San Francisco. But if not, please check it out.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
