Dollar

Strong dollar , weak dollar , strong dollar , weak dollar , dollar ... ad nauseum . Over the past few years given the dollar continued appearance of volatile if not , all the volatility in the investment markets replaces stability , because stability is less favorable to Wall Street . Volatility induces more trade that generates more costs , commissions , and opportunities for brokerage companies to remove the contribution of the investor to pay the salaries and expenses of Wall Street , rather than increasing the value of stocks , bonds , and commodities . So the dollar should also be made ​​to appear to be stable as well , to continue the charade force for a period of more than one year showed that the dollar continues to weaken , and has , with one exception , have been passed down for 100 years ; gross manipulation of dollars to destroy equity , during the Great Depression , being an exception , requiring the $ 98.00 to buy what $ 2.00 will buy in 1914 , including the strength of the dollar on a relentless march to zero . While it may be relatively strong dollar to other currencies , but the ever increasing burden of massive debt we deny any dollar strength .If the world economy is a heavy burden is lifted by crane representing many different currencies , the angle will be revoked by the U.S. Dollar , Euro , Yen , and Yuan . It is true that the currency and the crane started with strength given that decreases with age , money expands and iron uniforms , to continue the analogy , if the Euro crane began to weaken and buckle , the fact that another crane still holds the world economy top heavy , does not mean that they getting stronger , and the Euro currency devaluation by the road leading to inflation does not make Dollars , yen , Yuan or relatively strong economic ties except direct exchange for euros ; any other economic relationship has not changed except trade with the Euro countries , the import of other countries will decrease .But there are almost weekly cycle weak dollar compared to stocks , bonds , and commodities for a few days and then suddenly stronger dollar relative to these markets . The dollar is not strong one day and weak the next except for a purpose , and that purpose is extracting dollars from individual investment accounts and business market hunters , buying and selling on the back of the curve and lost a fortune in the process . It costs billions every year to pay salaries and benefits to operate Wall Street , a lot of money derived from a monthly contribution of 401Ks and IRAs and daily market hunters . When the entry of these contributions stop , or falls below the amount needed to fund Wall Street , everything will collapse suddenly and completely , and as happened in 1929 in the special information rich and elite will remove themselves from the market before collapse , self-preservation at the expense of controlled ignorance and naivete of the middle class , the 401K and IRA investments ( like all other federal and local taxes ) is spent and gone

The University of New Hampshire School of Law and Sports Illustrated proudly invite you to attend A Town Hall on O'Bannon v. NCAA on Tuesday, November 5th from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in Room 282, followed by a reception in the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property.

The Town Hall will examine how a class action lawsuit against the NCAA could radically change college sports as we know it.  Through legal arguments sounding in intellectual property and antitrust, Ed O'Bannon—a former basketball star at UCLA—contends that current and former Division I men's basketball and football players should be paid for their image and likeness on television broadcasts, video games, trading cards, apparel and other commercial ventures.  The Town Hall will also consider related cases, including Sam Keller v. NCAA and Ryan Hart v. Electronic Arts, as well as pending federal legislation in the NCAA Accountability Act.  Collectively, these legal developments could lead to the compensation of college student-athletes and impact their unionization and quasi-employment rights.

The Town Hall will feature some of the most influential and insightful people in college sports:

Moderator
B.J. Schecter	B.J. Schecter, Executive Editor of Sports Illustrated and SI.com. Schecter is a sports journalism professor at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Panelists
Charles Grantham	Charles Grantham, former Executive Director of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA). Grantham was an architect of the revenue-sharing business model while protecting the NBA’s greatest asset—its players. Currently, he is a sports business consultant and an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University’s Stillman School of Business and New York University where he teaches at the graduate level on collective bargaining and dispute resolution in professional sports.
Professor Michael McCann	Professor Michael McCann, Director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute and a tenured professor at UNH Law, teaching Pro Sports Law, Amateur Sports Law, andSales.  Legal Analyst and Writer at Sports Illustrated & SI.com.
Alan Milstein	Alan Milstein, Shareholder at Sherman Silverstein in New Jersey, Milstein is one of the nation's leading litigators in both sports and bioethics.  Milstein has litigated on behalf of Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Eddy Curry, Allen Houston, Maurice Clarett & other sports figures.
Professor Alexandra Roberts	Professor Alexandra Roberts, Executive Director of UNH Law's Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property and a professor of entertainment law and trademark law. Roberts is a former intellectual property litigator at Ropes & Gray LLP in Boston and New York.
Marty Scarano	Marty Scarano, University of New Hampshire Athletic Director in his 14th season, National Association of College Directors of Athletics "AD of the Year" in 2007.  During Scarano’s tenure, UNH teams have made 44 NCAA postseason appearances and captured 14 conference titles. Those teams have also achieved one of the best graduation rates among NCAA members.
Sonny Vaccaro	Sonny Vaccaro, Leading advocate for rights of college athletes and an unpaid adviser to Ed O'Bannon's legal team. Founding Chairman of The Roundball Classic and ABCD camp.  While a marketing executive at Nike, Vaccaro signed Michael Jordan to his first major endorsement package.

Come for the enthusiastic discussion and debate; stay for the hors d'œuvre, beverages, and networking opportunities. We hope to see you there!  Please RSVP to ip.center@law.unh.edu.

* UNH Law is about an hour drive from Boston and directions can be found here.

** Portions of the town hall will be aired on SI Now, Sports Illustrated's Daily Talk Show.  Other portions will be shown through video provided by UNH Law's Sports and Entertainment Law Institute.

Mike Pouncey Subpoena

A potentially major development in the Aaron Hernandez murder case occurred last night, when Dolphins center Mike Pouncey was served with a grand jury subpoena after the Dolphins played at the Patriots.  The grand jury is investigating a potential scheme involving the same of guns and it may be connected to Hernandez.  On SI.com last night, Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard broke the story and I have a legal analysis this morning.

Procompetitive Effects and the Ban on Paying College Athletes

USA Today's Steve Berkowitz wrote on Friday that Judge Wilken denied a motion to dismiss in the O'Bannon litigation.  Here is an excerpt from Berkowitz's article in which he addresses Judge Wilken's remarks concerning whether a ban on athlete pay serves a procompetitive purpose:

Meanwhile, the judge also raised questions about the applicability to this case of the 1984 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents, a case that was about control of college football TV rights but the opinion on which included the statement that "in order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA's) 'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class and the like."

The NCAA has relied upon this language in defending its amateurism system and has successfully used it [in] many prior legal cases.

However, Wilken wrote in Friday's ruling that the case "does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses.

"Although it is possible that the NCAA's ban on student-athlete pay serves some procompetitive purpose, such as increasing consumer demand for college sports, Plaintiffs' plausible allegations to the contrary must be accepted as true at the pleading stage."

Wilken also wrote that the Supreme Court "never even analyzed the NCAA's ban on student-athlete compensation under the rule of reason nor did it cite any fact findings indicating that this ban is the type of restraint is 'essential if the (NCAA's) product is to be available at all'. More importantly, the Court never examined whether or not the ban on student-athlete compensation actually had a procompetitive effect on the college sports market."

Berkowitz's piece raises a really interesting question.  In sports antitrust cases, the issue concerning procompetitive effects essentially revolves around competitive balance.  Why is there an assumption that a ban on athlete pay increases consumer demand for college sports and/or fosters competitive balance?  

First, while I do believe there are many consumers who do not want athletes to be paid, I have serious doubts whether there is any correlation between consumer demand and athlete pay (or lack thereof).  For starters, the consumer knows there are lots of athletes in big-time college sports who are paid under the table from boosters and various other third parties (unless of course one believes that the number of athletes getting paid is limited to only those who actually get caught).  But more importantly, if the rules were changed to permit athletes to be compensated for their names and images, I don't believe fans and alumni would take the position, "I'm not watching my team play this weekend because I read somewhere that somebody paid our defensive end $1,000 this week for signing some memorabilia."  

But who cares what I think and let's assume for sake of argument that some consumers would not be interested in the product if the athletes were paid more than they are currently.  How much relevance should it have for antitrust purposes?  Is a producer insulated from antitrust liability simply by calling its product "unpaid labor"?  If all of the law firms in the U.S. agreed to restrict the pay of their associates (in the first four years before making partner) to law school tuition reimbursement, would the agreement pass antitrust scrutiny if they marketed their product to the consumer as "cheap associate labor"?  Most would not dispute that a team salary cap violates antitrust law but is the answer different if a sports league calls its product "salary capped labor"?  If the NFL could show that it is losing consumers because they believe the athletes are grossly overpaid, would/should that have any relevance for antitrust purposes if the league put an individual cap on each player's salary?  

Second, on the issue of competitive balance, the irony is that college football arguably has much less competitive balance than professional football where the athletes are paid competitive wages.  Unlike professional football, college football has "dynasties" and "powerhouses".  For a college sport that supposedly has competitive balance, why are Alabama's football fans leaving so many empty seats in the stadium? 

Baseball rules, again

One year after benefiting from a bizarre and controversial (although I believe correct) Infield Fly call in the NL WIld Card, the St. Louis Cardinals won Game 3 of the World Series on an obstruction call on the Red Sox third baseman (video embedded). Although early reaction (at least outside the Red Sox clubhouse) seems to approve of the call, this one will remain a point of contention, both because it occurred in the World Series and because it allowed the game-winning run to score (officially, it was scored an error on the third baseman who obstructed).

Rule 2.00 of the Official Baseball Rules defines "Obstruction" as "act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner." A Comment to the rule provides that a fielder can occupy space when "in the act of fielding a ball," but once he has attempted to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the act. Thus, if a player dives at a ball and continues to lie on the ground after it is passed him and delays the runner's progress, "he very likely has obstructed the runner." The rule has no intent requirement; impeding the runner, even unintentionally, constitutes obstruction. Under R. 7.06(b), the umpire can "impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction;" typically, that is the base he would have been entitled to without the obstruction.

Here is video of the umpires' press conference, which can best be described as a judicial opinion issued from the bench, explaining a decision. A couple of themes emerge that, I think, support the call. First, intent does not matter, only the result. Even if (as here) it is almost unfair because the play happened too quickly for the fielder to do anything to get out of the way. Second, while the internet is talking about the Sox third baseman's legs going up in the air, the umpires insisted that it was not the legs, but the fielder's body that created the obstruction. Third, it did not matter that the runner was inside the foul line when he tripped over the fielder (one ump said he was right on the chalk, the video suggests he was inside the line), a point the Red Sox players kept repeating in interviews; a runner can "make his own baseline" by picking the most direct path to the next base.

As expected, some players (Sox starter Jake Peavy was one) complained about the game ending on the umpire's call and the umpire "deciding" the game, a reflection of what Mitch Berman has called "temporal variance" in enforcement of sports rules. That argument seems especially incoherent in this context. After all, the Cardinals could just as easily argue that the play was important precisely because the Cardinals had a chance to score the game-winning run and the Sox were preventing him from doing so.

Anyway, obstruction now will be the word of the rest of this Series.

Schooled: The Price of College Sports

Need something to do before you head out Trick-or-Treating on Halloween?  Swing by Harvard Law Schools as The Committee on Sports & Entertainment Law hosts a panel discussion about the business of college sports.

Profile Club M.U

No Manchester United's scout in 1961 in Northern Ireland , Bob Bishop , telegram clubs ' legendary manager Matt Busby in a state of unusual excitement . " I think I 've found you a genius , " he tried to menjelaskan.Dia had indeed . But the good Bishop , Busby not anyone can imagine the impact of skin and bones , the discovery of fifteen -year -old will make Manchester United , football around the world and society as a whole . At the recommendation of Bishop 's " genius " , George Best , who packed into Manchester along with another prospect , Eric McMordie , for a two- week trial . Distracted by their journey into the unknown and immediately missed the kids scarpered back to Belfast before the first week is over . Busby 've seen enough to know that one of the children is worth pursuing and the United boss wrote a letter to George Best 's father urged him to send their children back to Manchester , convinced that George has what it takes to enjoy a bright future in the game . This is an early indication of a very strong ability outstanding best . Manchester United Football Club will not normally go running after a fifteen-year -old boy who bunked out on them . George Best did come back and , you could easily say , the rest is history . Young Irishman was naturally shy and somewhat uncomfortable , such as bolts previously have pointed to the house , but it did not take long to settle in Manchester happier on his arrival . Soon he has the ball at his feet George Best was a different person . Not only confident, he is arrogant . Supremely confident in his own abilities he demands center stage and enjoy the have it . Attitude was not caused resentment among his colleagues as they instantly recognize and reward outstanding natural deferred to them . In addition , off the field he was quiet and popular with everyone . Once it is received and dihormati.Seperti quickly filtered through to the first teamers at Old Trafford on exceptional children in the youth team they would sneak in to watch him train and left shaking their heads at his ability . Matt Busby anxious not surprised his blood for too fast but it is not possible to keep him from a long side . Having just turned seventeen George Best made ​​his first team debut at the beginning of the 1963-64 season and played a blinder against West Bromwich Albion . Probably worried about the introduction of fuss has been made ​​problems , Busby then leave him out of the team before considering him for supplies christmas at home to Burnley . Burnley are a top side at the time and had been hammered United at Turf Moor just two days earlier on Boxing Day . Best scored his first goal with the American defeat and the boy was returned here to stay . Remaining season saw George Best confirmed the extraordinary talents and by the end of the American runner -up in the league . The best effect was amazing. Massa everywhere admire skinny winger 's hard men whose tales could not knock off the ball , tackle or even foul on most occasions . A child who can perform at the international center of the middle and divide by two to head international goalkeeper outjump last goal and that could rip a shot into the back of the net in nearly defeated eyes blur . Appeal is not limited to the football field . Best is to find a young man who is very good as well and all the girls at the same time across the country began to take an interest in football , at least as far as having an image of Georgie Best plastered their bedroom walls . Within a few years this interest will turn into something approaching hysteria and George best , soccer players and people that will start to crack under the pressure . 's first full season best in United's first team is one thrilling as the club captured the first division championship and reached the FA Cup semi -final second and Exhibition , losing to Leeds United Ferencvaros and Hungary , both after a replay . nineteen He has not changed , but Best was probably the most talked about and well known figures in English football but it was the following season that his popularity really exploded and became its international cozy nights in Lisbon , George Best turned in one of the greatest performances ever as the United massacred Benfica 5-1 at their own ground , the first time they suffered a defeat at home in European competition . Best provided two early goals set America on their way , jumped in front of the keeper to head first before slicing through the defense to slide home the second . Arrested walk through the streets of Lisbon the next day in a large sombrero Best caption newspaper dubbed " El Beatle " and legend moved to cepat.Amerika missed out on the further glory years , losing in the semi-finals of both the FA and European Cup after Best was injured in the first leg of their European tie with Partizan Belgrade and spent the rest of the season . Americans once again next season won the league championship clubs earned another crack at the European Cup , the coveted trophy Matt Busby above all others . George best is undoubtedly the best during this season and even though other United pipped to the title by neighbors City , George topped the scoring charts with 28 first division , with Southampton Ron Davies , remarkable tally for a winger. Glory Europe does not come by way of America , however , with appropriate dramatic way . Paired with Spanish giants Real Madrid in the semi -finals it was the best goal gave United a crucial 1-0 lead to take to Spain for the second leg and ultimately proved decisive after a 3-3 draw in typically extravagant Bernebeu . In the final , again against Benfica , Best scored perhaps the most famous , skipped round the last defender and rounding the goalkeeper before tapping into an empty net . This goal put United 2-1 ahead early in extra time and Busby dream come true when his team marched to the famous 4-1 victory . This is 1968 and George Best , approaching his 22nd birthday , was named the best player of the year players and European Year . World football well and truly in the best foot and yet it would prove to be the pinacle of his career . Americans have never finished higher than 8 for the rest of the Best at Old Trafford and although they reached the semi-finals of the European Cup again in 1969 and the FA Cup semi-final a year later the club ' glory days came to a bitter end . Matt Busby had allowed his squad to the elderly and leave at the time of his fabled youth system producing non entity . Wilf McGuinness and Frank O'Farrell both found Busby shoes are too big to enter the United States and continues to get worse before Tommy Docherty arrived at Old Trafford determined to stamp personality and the authority of its own at the club . During the George Best has deteriorated as well . It was barely visible in his performance on the field , especially because of his genius now largely surrounded by mediocroty , and he remains United's top scorer for six consecutive seasons between 1967 and 1972 . Their social life has begun to spiral out of control , however , and on arrival Best Docherty at Old Trafford has been drinking heavily, sometimes it will skip the training and , in essence , the target sits as the new manager seems to hold the ax , all the time he should be untouchable. Therefore one of the greatest players to ever grace left Old Trafford in shambolic circumstances at age 27 . Docherty has taken a lot of criticism over the years for its treatment of George Best , especially from the fans , but it seems to be one of the most thoughtful thing ever he did . Though United were relegated at the end of the best season to make his final appearance for the club , a 0-3 defeat at QPR on new Year's Day , 1974, Docherty quickly gather a hungry young team returned directly to the first division and come back stronger . , Best in the other hand , fell into a series of satisfying , and particularly short-lived , wasting time on a set of clubs may now be a confirmed alcoholic . it is often suggested that George Best became disillusioned with life at Old Trafford as the great player he grew up with left and was replaced by the people are not fit to lace , or his boots . there is no doubt that this is the case but Best did not stop playing football on leaving Manchester United and the players in United's definitely better than in places that would eventually . course action only easier one , is always preferred by people with a drink problem . therefore when Best was supposed to play for Manchester United he represented the likes of Dunstable Town , Stockport County , Cork Celtic , Los Angeles Aztecs , Fulham , Fort Lauderdale Strikers , Detroit Express , Hibernians , San Jose Earthquakes , Bournemouth , Brisbane Lions and Tobermore United . this is a legitimate CV someone like Sammy Morgan , not the person who many people consider to be the greatest player who ever lived . Best is an unqualified success during his time in America but this not a claim to fame . In a league populated by a handful of aging superstars and journeymen best number is at the age when he should be at its peak . Early eighties into a circus rumored comebacks , looks horrible testimonials and stories about the best drink . George Best played his last game for Bournemouth Football League May 1983 in a 2-2 draw with Wigan Athletic and competitive final appearance was recorded for Tobermore United in the Irish Cup the following February . Usually small ground was packed to the best performance , but his team lost 7-0 to Ballymena . Given the damage is due to personal career himself and God - given talent was easy to judge George Best rugged and yet has to be remembered that during his time at the top he managed to influence generations of football supporters may be more profound than any other player in the history of the game . 's not just those who follow Manchester United for George best time in there that names him as the best player period . Throughout the UK , Europe and worldwide performances captivate millions and his legend alive today as the next generation to look back and see him flicking the ball past Gordon Banks ' head for the greatest disallowed goal ever scored , up Ron Harris ' crude attack on muddy Old Trafford pitch before rounding Peter Bonetti relaxed very easily , firing Pat Jennings from the six-yard box with international colleagues standing in a row and left Bobby Moore in his back before scoring a goal against West Ham . you can not make a deep and lasting impression like unless you both serious and there is no question that George Best in there with the ball ' all time greats . He was born with all the attributes players can look forward to . Neat ball control and dribbling ability was probably unparalleled . Best can also pass , shoot , head and overcome incredible natural and two legs . Above and beyond the Best endowed natural talent that can not be taught or trained . He's as fast as lightning , especially off the mark , has unlimited stamina and has incredible flexibility that allows him to ride the handle and avoid injury despite punishment , unimaginable today , that the defenders were allowed to inflict on him week in and week out . It is also must be remembered that although George best Manchester cut his United career in Prime he made ​​more than 460 appearances for the club in all competitions , healthy career for most people . Where is the best stand in the list of all time greats , as always , a matter of opinion . was not easy for best to make a mark in international football came from Northern Ireland and he never had a chance to perform in the big final . appearance in Europe for Manchester United is always scintilating , however , and there is no doubt that he is one of the biggest attractions in football England during the 1960s and early 70s . Interestingly though , although his contemporaries talk now about him that might be the biggest ever , comments concerning Best tend to mention when he's playing probably room for improvement in teamwork , something Best chose not to deal with completely . Indeed, it can be assumed that only the Best is pleased to have his talents more toward team then he will end his career with more than three winners medals and may also have led to the recognition of Northern Ireland internasional.Tentu only when the likes of Bobby Charlton passing opinion as they are talking about a young man in his mid-twenties who they assumed had over ten years in him . Best in the normal course of events would have to add this aspect to the game and make a stronger claim to be the biggest player of them all . Assessment One of my favorite George Best came from Jimmy Greaves who said that he did not know whether he is the best but added that " no one better . " seems a touch sentimental for Best put forward as the greatest footballer ever , certainly the award was never able to go to someone who plays for Stockport at the age of 29 , but it does not seem too extravagant to claim that he may have been the most naturally talented human being who ever kicked a ball .

Suffolk Law School Panel on College Athletics

Suffolk Law School will be hosting a panel discussion on October 24th titled "Compensation, Commercialization, and Labor Issues in NCAA Division I Sports."  Panelists will discuss the fact that big time college sports = big business.  Experts will discuss a myriad of issues facing the NCAA including compensation for student-athletes, the O'Bannon lawsuit involving EA Sports, and the investigation investigation into Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel's alleged acceptance of money for autographed memorabilia.

Scheduled speakers include:

* Moderator: Brian McLaughlin, Vice President, Symmetry
* Jay W. Fee, Of Counsel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP; Adjunct Law Faculty, Suffolk University Law School
* Nancy H. Lyons, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Compliance/SWA, Boston University
* Lisa P. Masteralexis, Head of the Mark H. McCormack Department of Sport Management, Isenberg School of Management at University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
* Warren K. Zola, Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs; Adjunct Faculty, Carroll School of Management, Boston College

It's not to late to attend by registering here.

Profile Club CHELSEA

A football club with famous background dating back several decades , Chelsea Football Club is one of the most popular sports clubs in the world , thanks to the excellent performance of the team has gifted their fans over the years . Founded in the early 1900s , the football club is one of the mega best performing teams in the Premier League . Most often than not you will find the name of Chelsea FC firmly placed among the top four teams on the table , along with similar high- profile team of people like Arsenal , Manchester United and Liverpool . Chelsea even recognized as a major force on the global stage , take on the challenge of coming face to face with a worthy opponent such as aS Roma , FC Barcelona , real Madrid , AC Milan , Celtic , FC Bayern and Werder Bremen in various European tournaments . The club has won a staggering number of trophies and titles over the years to strengthen its position in the global football arena . Known as " The Blues " by millions of fans around the world , Chelsea FC have managed to sign a lot of players both local and foreign famous by spending millions of pounds . Under the leadership of its current owner , a rich Russian businessman , Roman Abramovich , Chelsea FC has been able to broaden their horizons in terms of their budget and sigh up players like Didier Drogba of Ivory Coast and Petr Cech of Czech Republic . however , it is not by chance that Chelsea FC made ​​a name for himself as a football club . Instead it with the help of some great personalities like Roy Bentley , Steve Clarke , Marcel De Sailly , Kerry Dixon , Ron Harris , Pat Nevin , Dennis Wise , Gianluca Vialli , Frank Lampard and John Terry to name a few . Visitors to Stamford Bridge , London will have the chance to take a stadium tour to learn about the greatest achievements of the club and its history .

Olympic speech at 45

Today (Wednesday, October 16) is the 45th anniversary of the Tommie Smith/John Carlos Black Power salute on the medal stand following the 200 meters at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. The third person on the stand is Australian Peter Norman, the silver medalist, who supported Smith and Carlos by giving them his gloves and standing at attention while wearing a badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights. And while Smith and Carlos are generally regarded as heroes who took a stand, 45 years ago they were vilified and expelled from the games.

Of course, gay rights have become an issue for the 2014 Winter Olymics in Sochi, Russia, given recent legislation prohibiting gay-rights "propaganda" and public displays of homosexuality or support for homosexuality. And the International Olympic Committee has repeatedly and publicly reminded athletes of IOC regulations requiring respect for the home country and its laws--in other words, athlete protests of these laws will not be tolerated.

In other words, the "Olympic Ideal" of free expression has not evolved much in 45 years.

Sports Law Contract Issues Raised by Bird Attack?

Deadspin has an amusing link to a New York Times article on San Antonio's successful retention of foreign talent.  Evidently, an intern was sent to Argentina to deliver Manu Ginobli's new contract (nice work, if you can get it!), and was attacked by a bird while resting at a public fountain.  In the aftermath of the bird's reckless misconduct, Ginobli's contract had gone missing.

Why must lawyers be obnoxious?

Is it just what happens when you get that once-in-a-lifetime case that is going to be covered in the media, especially the sports media, and make you famous?

Conversion of a Home Run Ball? A Quick Take

In last night's thrilling Game 2 of the American League Championship Series at Fenway Park, Tigers' Alex Avila hit a home run to right field that, as Deadspin's Timothy Burke details with video, a Red Sox fan threw back onto the field. But it didn't seem to be this fan's ball to throw back.  The video indicates he didn't catch it, but rather the woman standing next to him did--or at least she mostly caught it.  Then, based on the video, he wrestled it from her and threw it onto the field.  She didn't seem too happy about it, which would be understandable since the ball would make an awesome memento and is probably worth a pretty good chunk of change, especially to Tigers fans.

The exchange won't wind up in court and seems more like fodder for a law school exam question than a real world scenario, but as my friend Marc Isenberg wonders, did the guy break any laws?  A starting issue is determining who had rights to the baseball.  A simple issue, but one that has sparked debate over the years, including a legal fight over Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run.  Massachusetts law indicates that a person obtains a legal right of possession of an item, like a baseball, when there is physical control + intent to continue control.  The video is not conclusive, but gives the impression that she had control of the home run ball and her negative facial reaction to it be wrestled from her suggests she wanted to keep controlling it.

The guy would probably argue, however, that he had his hands on the baseball the whole time.  If so, then both likely had a right to it.  Also, since the two were seated next to each other, it's very plausible they knew each other and he might argue he had her implied consent.

Assuming it was her baseball, then by taking it from her and throwing it back, there's a good argument he converted the ball under tort law.  He would have dispossessed her of the ball and totally and permanently destroyed it's value by throwing it onto the field.   She could also argue the tort of battery if she could prove that the ball had become part of her personal autonomy, and of course there's everyone's favorite tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

There's even a slight chance he committed the crime of petty larceny (when you steal something worth $250 or less), especially since he seemed to take the baseball directly from her.  Then again, he probably lacked the intent to steal, especially if he had a hand on the baseball when she caught it.

Judge Whyte Issues a Ruling in the San Jose v. MLB Lawsuit

Less than four months after the lawsuit was filed, a decision has already been issued in San Jose's case against Major League Baseball.  In June, the city asserted federal and state antitrust law and tort claims against MLBrelating to the league's failure to approve the proposed relocation of the Oakland Athletics (for earlier Sports Law Blog coverage of the dispute, click here).  MLB then moved to dismiss the suit in August in light of its long-standing exemption from antitrust law.  Following a hearing last week, Judge Ronald M. Whyte quickly issued a decision in the case on Friday.  

Primarily focusing on the antitrust issue, Judge Whyte's opinion (available here) granted MLB's motion to dismiss in part, but also denied it in part.  Specifically, although Judge Whyte was quick to criticize baseball's unique antitrust immunity, he concluded that the exemption ultimately precluded San Jose's claims under the Sherman Act.  Following a thorough review of the applicable case law, Whyte adopted a broad view of the baseball exemption, concluding that it protected the business of baseball -- including franchise relocation issues -- from antitrust law.  In the process, he rejected San Jose's claim that the exemption only applied to labor disputes.  As a doctrinal matter, I believe Judge Whyte reached the correct decision. 

Judge Whyte then held that San Jose's state antitrust and unfair competition claims also should be dismissed because the Supreme Court effectively preempted the application of state antitrust law to professional baseball in its 1972 decision in Flood v. Kuhn.  However, Whyte did conclude that San Jose had sufficiently pled its tortious interference claim under state law, insofar as MLB's delay in resolving the proposed relocation had, in and of itself, arguably harmed the city aside from any antitrust concerns.  However, the opinion was clear to note that the ultimate decision of whether to allow the Athletics to move was still MLB's alone, and that San Jose could only pursue damages arising from MLB's delay in resolving the dispute, not the potential rejection of the relocation itself.  

Interestingly, despite deciding the merits of the substantive legal claims, Judge Whyte opted not to resolve the issue of whether San Jose lacked standing to pursue the case.  Although one would typically expect a court to determine whether standing exists before ruling on the merits of the underlying case, Whyte instead concluded that the city could potentially possess standing under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, but that he need not decide the issue now in light of his ruling on the antitrust exemption issue. 

Consequently, although San Jose can proceed with one of the tort claims in its suit, Judge Whyte's decision is nevertheless a big win for MLB.  The most serious claims in the case were dismissed pursuant to the sport's antitrust exemption, and the lone remaining claim can only result in a damages award, and not a court order mandating that the Athletics be allowed to move to San Jose.

Moving forward, it appears that San Jose will seek an immediate, interlocutory appeal of Judge Whyte's ruling to the Ninth Circuit.  I would expect the appellate court to affirm the district court's decision in light of the exemption, given that the Ninth Circuit has previously affirmed the dismissal of a suit raising similar franchise location issues under baseball's antitrust immunity.  Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Kuhn, 491 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1974).  Even so, San Jose could potentially pursue its appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.  If the Court were to grant cert in the case, then I believe that would be a strong indication that it intended to overturn MLB's long-standing antitrust immunity.  The threat of a Supreme Court appeal could give the city some leverage over MLB in any future settlement negotiations. 

Meanwhile, in addition to the continued threat to baseball's antitrust exemption, San Jose's remaining tort law claim could also give the city some leverage over MLB as the case moves forward.  MLB would undoubtedly prefer not to proceed with discovery in the case in order to avoid publicly airing the details of its internal deliberation process.  Therefore, should Judge Whyte let discovery move forward for the remaining tortious interference claim while the interlocutory appeal on the antitrust issue is pending, the tort claim could further help encourage MLB to resolve the Athletics' situation.  

All in all, though, MLB certainly has to be happy with Judge Whyte's decision.  

Update: Howard Wasserman wisely notes in the comments that Judge Whyte failed to certify the antitrust issues for an immediate, interlocutory appeal in his decision.  Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), San Jose is currently unable to appeal the decision immediately to the Ninth Circuit, pending any further action by the district court.

Update #2: As Howard (an expert in all matters civil procedure) further explains in the comments, the mere fact that many believe that baseball's antitrust exemption should be overturned would not constitute a "substantial ground for difference of opinion," and therefore would not warrant an immediate, interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).  Even if Judge Whyte were to believe otherwise and certify the appeal, the Ninth Circuit would still have to agree to take the case in order for it to be appealed immediately under 1292(b).  So unless Judge Whyte were to decline to exercise his jurisdiction over the remaining tortious interference claim, and thus enter a final judgment in the case, San Jose may very well be unable to pursue an appeal on the antitrust exemption issue until the conclusion of a trial on the tort claim.  

Thus, San Jose appears to have a difficult decision to make in the case.  In order to pursue an immediate appeal on the antitrust issue, the city could presumably request that Judge Whyte dismiss the remaining tort law claim and issue a final judgment on the antitrust-related issues, but in the process temporarily forgo the opportunity to pursue discovery against MLB.  Alternatively, the city could press the tortious interference claim all the way to trial, but that claim would not result in an order forcing MLB to approve the Athletics' relocation, and would require San Jose to indefinitely postpone its appeal on the antitrust exemption issue.  In hindsight, San Jose may thus wish that it had requested a preliminary injunction in the case, because if it had, and Judge Whyte declined to issue such an order, then the city could have immediately appealed under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a).

2014 SRLA Conference

Details regarding SRLA's 27th Annual Conference in Orlando, FL can be found here.  In addition, the Call for Papers is now available online here.  The deadline to submit abstracts is October 15, 2013.   

This Day in Sports Law History: Blue Jays beat Celtics in Court over Danny Ainge

There are so many sports law stories from the past that I wish I had been around to cover.  Some are obvious - the Curt Flood case, for example -- others less so.

One of the latter is the early 1980s legal fight between the Boston Celtics and Toronto Blue Jays over which team had legal rights to employ Danny Ainge, a two-sport star who played for the Blue Jays but had been drafted by the Celtics.

The Blue Jays won a trial 32 years ago from today, but ended up working out a buy out with the Celtics enabling Ainge to join the green.  Ainge, of course, went on to an excellent NBA career and now runs the Celtics.  He's won NBA titles both as a player and general manager.  Looks like he made the right move switching to basketball, but as evidenced by there being a trial and lengthy settlement talks, it wasn't easy.

For a story on the trial, Anthony Cotton wrote this article for Sports Illustrated back in 1981.

Quid Pro KO?

A Quick Look at Whether a Legal Barrier to Managers Providing Boxers in Exchange for Compensation from Promoters Truly Exists in the U.S.

Ask any number of boxers who they would ideally have as their manager/ advisor in the sport today and most would probably say Al Haymon, and with good reason.  Haymon is the advisor and/or manager of a broad swath of professional boxing’s elite United States prospects and contenders and has a close working relationship with Golden Boy Promotions, who is widely regarded as the destination of choice for boxing’s free agents.  It is that well-documented connection to Golden Boy Promotions which reportedly helped lead Argentinian welterweight contender Marcos (El Chino) Maidana and his manager Sebastian Contursi to enter into an agreement with Haymon back in August.  Indeed, Contursi himself apparently indicated as much to ESPN’s Dan Rafael when a deal between Team Maidana and Haymon was “imminent.”  Sure enough, within a matter of weeks of the addition of Maidana to Haymon’s clientele, a bout between Maidana and Golden Boy-promoted and Haymon-managed Adrien (The Problem) Broner was made.  The ability to arrange bouts such as Broner-Maidana in short order is part of the allure of signing with Haymon and others who have exceptionally close working relationships with top promoters. But can such close relationships walk a fine line of legality? A quick look follows.

Under the Ali Act, “[i]t is unlawful for…a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial relationship in the management of a boxer” and for “a manager…to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or…to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.”   Notably, however, the Ali Act’s “[f]irewall between promoters and managers” “only applies to boxers participating in a boxing match of 10 rounds or more.”  Under certain state regulations, such as those in New York, “[n]o principal, director, officer, employee, shareholder or owner of a promoter shall, directly or indirectly, serve or act as the manager, assignee, or second of any boxer, or be employed by or be in any way commercially connected with the manager, assignee, or second of any boxer unless otherwise directed or authorized by the commission.” (emphasis added).  

When read together, the above-quoted federal law and state regulation suggest that not only is there no prohibition on a manager being employed or receiving compensation from a promoter if his boxer competes in bouts between one and nine rounds in length, but that, in some instances, there may be no prohibition on managers being directly or indirectly compensated by promoters in exchange for certain services at all, so long as the relationship is formally approved by a given athletic commission.  In sum, it would appear that if a given manager/advisor and a promoter operate under a certain quid pro quo whereby the manager provides a steady stream of talent to a promoter and the promoter then compensates him in financial and/or other ways, it may walk the line with regard to a manager’s fiduciary responsibilities to a given boxer (if, for example, the boxer actually had better opportunities available from another promoter), but it cannot be said with universal certainty that it would walk a line of legality.

               

 Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is a New York-based health and sports law attorney.  He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Paul can be e-mailed at haberman@8countnews.com. He can also be followed on Twitter at @Standing8Court.

MLB removes A-Rod suit to Federal Court

When I first read about A-Rod's lawsuit against MLB, I immediately started thinking about removal to federal court on diversity grounds (looking for a good problem for Civ Pro next semester). It was clear that, as an unincorporated association, MLB is almost certainly a citizen of New York (among other states), thus not diverse from Rodriguez and unable to remove to federal court in New York on diversity grounds under the Forum-Defendant Rule.

But I did not think it all the way through. Today, MLB and Selig removed the case to the Southern District of New York based on federal question jurisdiction. MLB argues that the claims are preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act; that statute is said to have "unusually powerful preemptive force," such that any state-law claims are converted into federal claims arising under the act and are deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.

From federal court, of course, MLB will argue that the claims are preempted by the CBA and should be sent to arbitration.

Cert. denied in Duke lacrosse

SCOTUS this morning denied cert. in Evans v. Durham, the § 1983 action by the three indicted-but-exonerated members of the 2005 Duke men's lacrosse team. The Fourth Circuit rejected (which I discussed here) claims against the city and the investigating police officers involved; the plainitffs tried to get to SCOTUS on the issue of whether the prosecutor's conduct (which enjoys prosecutorial immunity) breaks the causal chain and cleanses the officers' misconduct when they conspired together. Interestingly, they did not seek cert on the "stigma-plus" theory of liability for other officer misconduct (on which the causal chain was not broken).

The plaintiffs still have state-law malicious prosecution claims pending. The next question may be whether the district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over those claims or decides to keep them, seeing as how this litigation is now 6+ years old.

Still The Greatest

This weekend HBO premiered “Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight,” a superb docudrama about the 1971 decision by the United States Supreme Court (Cassius Marsellus Clay, Jr. v. United States, 403 U.S. 698, 1971) overturning the Champ’s conviction for evading the draft. The movie tells the behind the scenes story first revealed in the Woodward and Armstrong book “The Brethren.”

It is also fittingly the greatest sports law story of all time.

While a first rate cast of actors play the Justices and their clerks, the film wisely lets Ali play himself through the use of always welcome clips from his fights and interviews. As the film reveals, the initial conference vote was 5 to 3 against Ali with Justice Marshall recusing himself because of his role in the Solicitor’s office when Ali was first convicted. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, whose grandfather was the only dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, perhaps the Court’s most disgraceful decision, initially sided with Chief Justice Berger and was assigned the Opinion to affirm the conviction. His youngest law clerk, however, convinced the ailing Justice to change his decision. After another conference, the vote was 8 to 0 in Ali’s favor resulting in a startling Per Curiam Opinion and two Concurrences that quoted heavily from the Quran and from Ali, always an entertaining wordsmith.

Needless to say, the Opinion that set Ali free to regain his heavyweight title came as a shock to the nation. Liberals and conservatives alike never thought the Berger Court would rule in favor of the most famous member of the Nation of Islam and an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War. If you think the country is polarized now, go back and look at the videos of a nation literally at war with itself: not Democrats against Republicans but young against old and black against white.

So why is this the greatest sports law story? After all, nowhere in the Opinions do you find the words “athlete” or “sports” or “boxing”; and there is no mention that Ali had been a Champion or that his title had been stripped from him.

The clue comes in the scene when the Court votes to grant Certiorari. Responding to the obvious dismay of Justice Harlan, Justice Brennan says “Yes, that’s right we are hearing the case because the Petitioner is Muhammad Ali.” Ali is not just the most famous sports figure of all time; in those years, he was the most famous person on the planet. The Supreme Court heard the case, then reversed a conviction of a famous athlete who held a sincere objection to participating in an unjust war, precisely because he was a famous athlete who was a hero to so many.

What makes sports law so interesting is that cases involving athletes that have nothing to do with how they play the games have a heightened focus and interest not just by the Judges and lawyers but also by the general public. So Antitrust, one of the most complex areas of the law, becomes a topic of everyday conversation and an Ed O’Bannon, who started all of 34 games in the NBA, becomes a household name. The branch of government most citizens know least about is the Judicial System and yet it may have the most influence on everyday lives. It is a good thing to shine a light on the law.

And to see The Greatest in his prime.