An interesting side-note from Wednesday night, which is becoming widely accepted as one of the best nights of baseball ever.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
An interesting side-note from Wednesday night, which is becoming widely accepted as one of the best nights of baseball ever.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Could Major League Baseball take over the team? Here are my thoughts:
Wilpon and Katz also have to worry about Major League Baseball's interest in the matter. Commissioner Bud Selig has already taken over the Los Angeles Dodgers this season from Frank and Jamie McCourt because of the team's financial woes. The commissioner is armed with several legal weapons -- the best interests of the game clause, which provides Selig with wide discretion to regulate any aspect of the game, including ownership interests; the waiver of recourse clause found in ownership purchase agreements, which nominally prevents owners from suing Major League Baseball; and the historical exemption enjoyed by Major League Baseball under federal antitrust law -- that make it possible for him to wrestle control of privately-owned teams from their owners. Although Selig has a much better relationship with Wilpon than with the McCourts, he cannot ignore the potential fallout of the Mets mired in a $1 billion lawsuit.
Worth a read.
After some thought, I've added a new argument for schools to consider--it will save millions of dollars. Maybe this argument will be heard. You can check out this article on the Huffington Post here.
Monday, September 26, 2011
University of Maryland School of Law Symposium on Intersection of Sports and Business in Today’s Legal Arena
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
"The Intersection of Sports and Business in Today’s Legal Arena."
Journal of Business & Technology Law Fall Symposium, Co-Hosted by the Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Association
Monday, October 3, 2011, 9:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Ceremonial Moot Court Room, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, 500 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201
Distinguished speakers will take part in panel discussions on stadium development, the legality the Bowl Championship Series, and athlete images/media rights. A highlight of the event will include a speech by Ed Durso, Executive Vice President, Administration for ESPN, who is currently scheduled to give a luncheon keynote address. Additionally, Jay Bilas, ESPN commentator and analyst, will also speak and moderate a panel discussion. Other recognized speakers include Irwin Kishner, a Partner at Herrick, Feinstein and lead counsel for the new Yankee Stadium transaction, Alan Fishel, a Partner at Arent Fox and supporter of the Bowl Championship Series, and N. Jeremi Duru, Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law and author of the book, Advancing the Ball: Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL.
RVSP HERE or reply by email to email@example.com.
Schedule of Events
|9:30 – 9:35||Welcome from JBTL/EASL members|
|9:35 – 10:20||A discussion with N. Jeremi Duru, visiting Associate Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law, about equal opportunity in sports.|
|10:20 – 11:00||Opening Remarks from moderator Jay Bilas, ESPN commentator and analyst|
|11:00 – 12:30 p.m.||Complex Sports Transactions: Stadium Development Panel |
Stan Kasten, Former President of the Washington Nationals, Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Hawks
Irwin Kishner, Partner, Herrick, Feinstein
Irwin Raij, Partner, Foley & Lardner
Paul Tiburzi, Partner, DLA Piper
|12:30 – 1:00||Lunch and message from Dean Phoebe Haddon|
|1:00 – 2:00||Keynote speech by Edwin Durso, Executive Vice President, Administration for ESPN|
|2:15 – 2:30||Introduction to the afternoon panels from moderator Dionne Koller, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law|
|2:30 – 4:00||Bowl Championship Series Panel |
Alan Fishel, Partner, Arent Fox
Philip Hochberg, Law Offices of Philip R. Hochberg
Josephine (Jo) Potuto, Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law
Robert Wierenga, Principal, Miller Canfield
|4:15 – 5:15||Athlete Images/Media Rights Panel |
Ronald Katz, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Michael McCann, Director of the Sports Law Institute and Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Stuart Paynter, Partner, Paynter Law Firm. Lead plaintiff's counsel in Sam Keller v. Entertainment Arts
|5:15 – 5:30||Closing Remarks from Dionne Koller|
This event is sponsored by the Vermont Law School Sports Law Institute and is open to the public.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
"This change is the result of a recent ruling by the Honorable Judge Alvin Hellerstein. With the stroke of his pen, Judge Hellerstein very cleverly changed this lawsuit. The lawsuit was about wrongful death, gross negligence and a complete lack of appreciation for the value of human life. He instead made it a case about a federal regulation. He ignored 100 years of aviation law and relied on an environmental case to apply federal preemption. He essentially gutted the case so that the truth about what led to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, would never be told at trial."
The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed. I would be interested in seeing whether it came in higher than the average $2 million payment from the Victims Compensation Fund, and higher than the $5.5 million average from the other cases that went to court before settling.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Don't miss out on your chance to hear our panel of industry experts discuss the impact of the NFL and NBA lockouts on teams, owners, players, fans, and the media.
We are also pleased to announce the addition of Jimmy Golen, Sports Writer for the Associated Press, as panel moderator.
- Robyn Glaser - Senior Advisor to The Kraft Group, Club Counsel to the
New England Patriots
- Keith Glass - Sports Agent, NBA
- Michael McCann -Sports Illustrated & NBA TV Legal Analyst, Law Professor at Vermont Law School
- Gary Washburn -National NBA Writer, Boston Globe
Register Now for this Event!
WhenWednesday September 21, 2011 from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM EDT
6:30-7:30 Panel Discussion
7:30-8:30 Q&A/Networking Cocktail Hour
WhereNixon Peabody LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
WISE Boston members: This event if FREE for WISE Boston members. Simply register via the link above and select the "WISE Boston Member: No Charge" option*
Non-Members: The registration fee for this event is $15 by Credit Card/PayPal. (If you'd prefer to pay by cash or check on the evening of the event, the fee is $20. You still must RSVP via the link above but select the "Non-Members Paying Cash or Check at the Event" option)
*Not sure if you are a current Member? Please email firstname.lastname@example.org to inquire about your status or sign-up to become a WISE Boston member today.
Join WISE Boston by October 7th and we will apply your event registration fee towards your annual membership dues.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, who in 2002 was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District for the District of New Jersey, has just dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Rutgers player Ryan Hart against EA. The judge reasoned that the First Amendment and its protection of free speech (and significant transformative elements) empowered EA to create digital representations of the players.
The dismissal by no means signals that similar lawsuits, such as Ed O'Bannon's class action lawsuit against the NCAA, will also fail, especially since those lawsuits have been brought in other jurisdictions and since they raise other types of claims, including those based in antitrust law. Still, a defense based on the First Amendment to use college players' identities does appear bolstered by Wolfson's dismissal.
Here's IGN on the news:
Hart, a former Rutgers player, accused EA of using his name and likeness in the NCAA Football series without his knowledge or consent, suing the company in 2009. But U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson has ruled that the likeness is permissible under the first amendment, and has dismissed the case.
EA's lawyer Elizabeth McNamara said the decision "validates Electronic Arts' rights to create and publish its expressive works." Hart's lawyers have yet to comment publicly.
This case is one of many currently pending against the publisher in relation to likeness issues in NCAA titles, largely stemming from players' wishes to be compensated for their inclusion in the games. NCAA Football 12 released in July for PS3 and Xbox 360.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
What I find interesting is the way artists can and do try to personalize the anthem, changing the entire tune and musical style of the song (particularly in non-traditional styles), and the way our reactions to that have changed. What is widely regarded as the first attempt at restyling was Jose Felciano's acoustic slow Latin jazz rendition before Game 5 of the 1968 World Series in Detroit, which outraged fans (NBC stations were inundated with angry phone calls) and lead some radio stations to stop playing Feliciano's music for a time. On the other hand, the response was much more favorable to Marvin Gaye's rendition at the 1983 NBA All-Star Game. And in 2010, Feliciano was invited back to Detroit to perform his version of the anthem during a memorial ceremony for late Tigers announcer Ernie Harwell. Are there other recent examples of performers making stylistic changes to the song?
All of which is by way of saying that our reaction to Queen Latifah's gospel/soul rendition before today's match is a product of its time:, It probablt would have been a subject of controversy 40 years ago; it now becomes an instant classic. Enjoy.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Anyone out there know why the Open does it differently?
Friday, September 9, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Sports Law Symposium: Law and the Olympic MovementPlease join The University of Maine School of Law and Preti Flaherty on September 13, 2011 from 3:00 to 5:00 pm for a Sports Law Symposium featuring:
Law and the Olympic Movement
Join us in exploring the law as it affects the rights of athletes. Hear from sports professionals and attorneys who will discuss the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, the World Anti-Doping Code, and the athlete's right of publicity.
Please join us for a reception immediately following the panel discussion.Cost to attend is $35.00. This event has also been approved for 2 hours of general CLE credit for Maine.
| || Peter Carlisle: Peter Carlisle is the driving force behind the success of Octagon's Olympic & Action Sports division. An expert at the forefront of the booming action sports industry for more than a decade, he has emerged as a leader in the representation and marketing of Olympic and action sports athletes. He oversees a global business that provides career management for Olympics and action sports clients through contract negotiations, endorsements, licensing, merchandising opportunities and more. Before joining Octagon, he founded Carlisle Sports Management and served as an attorney for Preti Flaherty Believeau & Pachios. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Maine Law. |
| ||Paul Greene: Paul J. Greene focuses his sports law practice on protecting athletes' rights. He handles anti-doping and eligibility arbitrations, rights of publicity matters, cybersquatting cases and immigration issues for athletes. He has successfully represented, among others, the gold-medal winning U.S. Men's Olympic Bobsled Team and the Michael Phelps Foundation. Paul credits the University of Maine School of Law, where he took a course in sports law, for giving him his start as a sports lawyer. Paul is listed in Chambers USA 2011 as one of America's Leading Lawyers for Sports Law in the Nationwide category. Chambers USA writes, "He is making a considerable name for himself in sports law."|
| || Sonja Keating: Sonja Keating is the Senior Vice-President & General Counsel of the United States Equestrian Federation, the national governing body for equestrian sport. Before this appointment, Keating served as Associate General Counsel for the USEF. Prior to joining the Federation staff, Keating was associated with the Lexington office of the Cincinnati-based law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, where she practiced in the litigation department. Sonja lives and works in Lexington, Kentucky and attended the University of Kentucky College of Law.|
| || Matt Lane: Matt Lane is an attorney with Preti Flaherty where he practices Business, Litigation and Sports Law. Prior to launching his law career, Matt was a professional runner and competed against the world's best. Maine Law gave Matt the training and vision to explore new challenges in track and field. Today, his sports practice is focused on representing individuals and entities performing at the highest levels. His clients include the American Milers' Association, NJNY Track Club, and Andrew Wheating, a 2008 Olympian. Matt serves as a legal correspondent for Letsrun.com, the premier internet site for track and field news and results. |
| ||Nancy Hogshead-Makar: Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar is an Olympic champion and national leader in the fight for women's rights in sports. She is one of the nation's foremost exponents of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, particularly within the context of intercollegiate sports. She is a former President of Women's Sports Foundation (1992-94) and currently serves as its Senior Director of Advocacy. She has testified in Congress numerous times on the topic of gender equity in athletics, written numerous scholarly and lay articles, and has been a frequent guest on national news programs on the topic. Nancy capped eight years as a world class swimmer at the 1984 Olympics, where she won more medals than any other swimmer—three Gold medals and one Silver.|
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
* My column for SI on the Barry Bonds case ending not with a bang, but a whimper (thanks to T.S. Eliot for that line)
* Last week I spoke with Sports Illustrated Inside Report about Texas A&M trying to leave the Big 12 and join the SEC:
Monday, September 5, 2011
Current player, Michael Bradley, a 6'10" backup center, has decided to give up his scholarship so Drummond can join his team. Wait...what? Many across the country are applauding Bradley for exhibiting a selfless dedication to his school so they can bring in another star for Calhoun's program. Don't cry for Bradley, apparently he is going to apply for financial aid and, one can only assume, be taken care of by UConn.
This isn't unique to UConn as other schools have pulled similar stunts as well....both Calipari at Kentucky and Pitino at Louisville took similar courses of action. I'm uncomfortable with this...anyone else? Check out my story here at the Huffington Post.
The problem was that the baseball’s rule clearly limits the use of replay. The rule states: "Instant replay will apply only to home run calls -- whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed."
To make matters worse, after the game, Umpire West later gave a false statement as to what had given him “jurisdiction” to consult the replay, claiming Manuel had contested whether it should be ruled a Home Run. The replay shows no such thing; Manuel never approached West until after the reversal was made. The only reason West consulted the replay was to see if it was a double or an out.
For his part, octogenarian McKeon was candid in his assessment of the events, saying, “I don’t know. I’m not the judge. But I would think, isn’t what we want from the umpires: To get it right? Did they get it right? Yes. Did they make a mistake in how they went about getting it right? Yes.”
It’s a classic law school ethics question: is the truth more important than the process? Can a lawyer, or judge or jury go around the rules to see justice is done?
In the end, the game will matter not a bit. The Phillies should easily go on to win their division with the best record in baseball, securing home field advantage along the way.
And as to those Phillies fans? The blogosphere has already rendered its verdict. They will have a tough time buying a cheesesteak when they get home.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
MLB allows replay in three situations: Fair/foul on a home run; home run or in play; and fan interference. The Phillies objection appears to be that fan interference can be reviewed only on a home-run play; in other words, replay can be used to determine whether a ball should have been a home run or should have been an out for fan interference--basically, the Jeffrey Maier play). But it was not clear whether the Phillies argues that this was a home run or seek review; it appeared that only the Marlins sought review for interference; it was either a double (the call on the field) or it was fan interference. Thus, the argument goes, it was not reviewable.
First, the adoption of limited replay demands vigorous policing of the boundaries of reviewability. The decision as to what is reviewable grows from a balance among the flow of the game and the need to keep reviewable plays to a minimum, administrative workability (related to flow, as well as to the means for handling overturned plays), and the desire for correctness and accuracy. MLB determined that home run calls should be the focus of replay--homers are inherently important plays on which we know with absolute certainty runs would score and because it is easy to administer, since a home run is such a final play (batter and all runners score, bases empty). But that means a play that is not claimed to be a home run should not be subject to the five-minute break in the action (ten if you count the subsequent argument) associated with review.
Second, I actually was surprised at the fan-interference ruling because it went against the visiting team. My assumption had been that fan interference could only go against the home team, that the rule is designed to prevent the home team's fans from helping their team. I was wrong on that; the rule is written to require that any batter be called out for any interference by any fan with any team. But that actually creates incentives for home fans to interfere on this precise play--rather than taking a chance that the home team's fielder will make a tough catch against the wall, the fan can interfere and assure an out. That can't be right. Of course, this being Miami, the stadium was probably 2/3 Phillies fans, so maybe the umps acted as if the Phillies were the home team. And the guy who interfered was wearing a Phillies hat and jersey, so perhaps the umps determined that the fan was, in fact, trying to aid the Phillies batter.
Third, my guess is that MLB will reject the protest. At least one game story states that both managers protested the call--Manuel wanted it called a home run and the Marlins manager wanted interference. Thus, both issues (home run/in play and home run/interference) were under review. The umpires were looking to see both if the ball went over the yellow line at the top of the fence and might have been a home run, thus bringing it within the scope of replay review. Moreover, to overturn the rule would create a real administrative (remedial, if you will) headache--does MLB order the game replayed at that point in the top of the sixth, nullifying eight more innings of play? As I argued in my post on the anniversary of the pine tar game (one of the rare times a protest was upheld), the difficulties that follow from accepting a protest may affect the decision whether to accept it in the first place.
By the way, this was not the only law-related stuff at this game. A kid was injured by a hard foul ball into the stands and a woman was injured when the barrel of a cracked bat struck her in the head--so you have the age-old issue of liability over fan injuries from things flying into the stands. And we sat in front of one of the more obnoxious fans I've met, so we got a very heavy dose of (mostly whining) cheering speech.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
This is the first I have heard about this issue. My initial, descriptive thought is that such a ban would be upheld on the strength of some unholy hybrid of Garcetti and Morse. Normatively, I find that a bit disheartening. I would hope for a more nuanced analysis, in which we might separate what a player does as an athlete playing for the team (and thus on behalf of the school) and as a student. After all, can it be that student-athletes have fewer First Amendment rights than student non-athletes? I remember watching a documentary a few years ago about John Wooden's UCLA dynasty, which described how Wooden permitted (and even somewhat encouraged) players such as Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton to get involved in campus activism and protests during the off-season (over Viet Nam and civil rights, primarily), with the caveat that they not do anything to embarrass the team (read: "Don't get arrested"). Forty years later and schools are afraid of having players tweet or post status updates?