Friday, 15 April 2011

New Jersey State Bar Association Symposium: Who You Calling an Amateur? Legal Perspectives on the NCAA’s Amateurism Rules

This looks like an excellent event:

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 – 6 p.m.
Seton Hall Law School – One Newark Center, Room 373, Newark, NJ
Who You Calling an Amateur? Legal Perspectives on the NCAA’s Amateurism Rules

Hosted by the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association
co-sponsored by the Sports Lawyers Association

This program will discuss the NCAA’s current amateurism rules, proposed changes to those rules, and the recent litigation relating to the use of a student athlete’s name and likeness.

This program has been approved for the following CLE credits: 1.8 NJ, 1.0 PA, 1.5 NY

$32 per person for EASL Section members, includes program, CLE credits and dinner.
For those wishing to attend only the program and dinner without receiving CLE credits, the cost is $17 per person.

Individuals interested in attending can register online at the NJSBA website.

Speakers include:

Rich Ensor, Esq. (MAAC Commissioner)
Chris Monasch, Esq. (St. John's Athletic Director)
Kim Keenan-Kirkpatrick, Esq. (Seton Hall Associate Athletic Director for Compliance)
Bruce Rosen, Esq. (McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli)
Daniel Brown (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton)
Kerry Cahill (former student-athlete)

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Sports Law Symposium today

Sorry for the late notice, but if you're in the Cleveland area, there is an outstanding sports law symposium this afternoon at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law:

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Entertainment and Sports Law Symposium

The Legal Evolution of Professional Golf and Tennis 

Friday, April 15, 12 p.m.- 5 p.m. 

C|M|LAW, Moot Court Room, 1801 Euclid Avenue

Sponsored by the Entertainment and Sports Law Association.

Special guest Panelists will share their experience and knowledge on the legal aspects of player representation, event management, broadcasting, publicity rights, exploitation, and legal governance.

12:00 pm – 12:30 pm: Registration

12:30 pm – 2:00 pm: The Legal Evolution of Professional Tennis

Kevin Callanan, vice president of IMG Tennis 

Jim Thomas, former tennis professional

Gavin Forbes, senior vice president of IMG Tennis

2:15 pm – 3:15 pm: Legal Governance of the

Zandria Conyers, legal counsel to the LPGA

Peter Carfagna, executive-in-residence Professor at C|M|LAW, LPGA Board Member

3:30pm – 5:00 pm: The Legal Evolution of Professional Golf

Dave Lightner, owner of Fairway Sports Management 

Jay Burton, senior vice president, IMG Golf

Jim Juliano, managing partner at Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper, LLC  

This symposium is free and open to the public. Preregistration is not necessary.

Continuing Legal Education credit: 4 hours (free)

Contract Michael Kluchin at Michael.kluchin@law.csuohio.edu for more information

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

New Sports Illustrated column: Barry Bonds Verdict: Who Won?

I have a new SI colum on the Barry Bonds verdict. Bonds was convicted on obstruction of justice, but Judge Illston declared a mistrial on the three perjury counts. Here's an excerpt of my column:

* * *

But federal prosecutors convict 90 percent of indicted defendants. Shouldn't they have done better here?

This question begets big picture and small picture responses.

Big picture first. While the 90 percent statistic has received a good amount of attention, it does not speak to considerable differences in wealth among indicted defendants and the possible impact of those differences on trial outcomes. Bonds possessed the wherewithal to assemble a team of leading defense attorneys, from different law firms and with complementary skills. The vast majority of indicted defendants, in contrast, cannot afford a "team" of lawyers. In fact, according to statistics provided by Department of Justice in 2000, 66 percent of federal felony defendants are represented by court-appointed counsel. Also, and less important, the 90 percent conviction rate is for all crimes; the federal government's success rate in perjury trials is slightly lower, at about 85 percent. . . .
* * *

When will Bonds be sentenced and how long will he be sentenced?

First, the defense will ask that Judge Illston overrule the jury's decision. It is extremely unlikely that she would do so, as she would have to conclude that the jury was unreasonable in finding Bonds guilty.

Bonds will likely be sentenced in four to six months. In the months leading up to the sentencing hearing, the U.S. Probation Office will author a "Presentence Investigation Report" which will recommend a sentence. Bonds' lack of criminal record will work in his favor. His refusal to plead guilty, however, will count against him. Sentencing guidelines suggest that he could receive a sentence of 18 to 30 months, though those guidelines are permissive and Judge Illston will reserve the right to impose a sentence outside that range.

During the sentencing hearing, Bonds will have an opportunity to speak and offer an apology -- or to insist on his innocence. Friends and family of Bonds may also speak on his behalf at the sentencing hearing, or they can provide letters asking for leniency.

Bonds may be fortunate that Judge Illston is sentencing him. Judge Illston presided over two other BALCO-related perjury trials in which the defendants -- track coach Trevor Graham and cyclist Tammy Thomas -- were convicted, with Graham convicted on perjury and Thomas convicted on both perjury and obstruction of justice. Illston sentenced each to home confinement (Graham for one-year; Thomas for six months). While Illston could distinguish Bonds as more culpable than Graham and Thomas and more deserving of time in prison, Bonds should take some comfort in knowing Illston's sentencing in the Graham and Thomas cases.

Even if "only sentenced" to home confinement, Bonds would still experience substantial restrictions on his freedom. He would likely have to wear an electronic monitor at all times and could only leave his home with approval by his supervising officer. Home confinement, however, sure beats prison.

If Illston sentences Bonds to prison, she could opt for a sentence similar to that received by track star Marion Jones, who, pursuant to a guilty plea, was sentenced to six months in prison, two years of probation and community service.
* * *

To read the rest, click here.

Academics and Practitioners Ask Dept. of Justice to Investigate the BCS

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a group of 21 law and economics professors and practitioners have submitted a letter to the United States Department of Justice, urging the DoJ to launch a formal antitrust investigation of the Bowl Championship Series. The letter (which is available here) argues that the BCS violates antitrust law both by unfairly restricting schools in the so-called non-automatically qualifying conferences from competing in the BCS National Championship Game and other BCS sponsored bowl games, as well as by disproportionately distributing its revenue in favor of the six automatically qualifying conferences. Signatories to the letter include economists Andrew Zimbalist (Smith College) and Richard Thaler (Univ. of Chicago), as well as law professors Roger Abrams (Northeastern Univ.) and Raymond Yasser (Univ. of Tulsa).

For additional discussion of the antitrust issues surrounding the BCS, check out my article "Antitrust & The Bowl Championship Series," and Michael McCann's "Antitrust, Governance, and Postseason College Football."

Division by Multiplication: Illinois Once Again Heats up the Public v. Private Debate in HS Sports

In 2005, the Illinois High School Association (the “IHSA”), which governs both public and private high school sports in Illinois, implemented an enrollment multiplier that requires actual enrollments of non-boundaried schools be multiplied by 1.65 in determination of classification for athletics competition. This multiplier pits smaller private schools against much larger public schools, the effectiveness of which has been hotly debated, in Illinois and other states throughout the country that have implemented mechanisms like a multiplier in an effort bring the number of state championships won by private schools more in line with their smaller numbers relative to public schools.

I wrote a law review article on the subject in 2009 evaluating enrollment multipliers in high school sports entitled Prep Plus: Evaluating the Motivations for and Effects of Enrollment Multipliers and Other Measures in High School Sports¸ 10 Tex. Rev. Ent. & Sports L. 1 (2008). I have also written about the topic in this space back in 2006.

The multiplier has been in effect in Illinois for five years now, and last week, Illinois State Representative Michael Connelly of the Illinois House of Representatives has reignited the bitter debate over the IHSA’s use of an enrollment multiplier for high school athletics competition. Representative Connelly has proposed an Amendment to House Bill 2392, which forbids the use of multiplier or multiplier-like devices in the determination of classification for athletics competition. The amendment has gained twenty-five co-sponsors thus far. The amendment requires that competition classes be established based solely upon actual enrollments of boys and girls for respective sports (e.g. boys’ enrollment determines football class). An identical form of the bill is making its way through the Illinois Senate in the form of Amendment to Senate Bill 624.

Historically, both proponents and opponents of the enrollment multiplier have sought a level playing field, but the arguments are strikingly adverse. Proponents of the multiplier denote that because parochial, private, charter and magnet schools are not bound by pre-determined school districts, these non-boundaried schools draw from a larger pool of students, and, as a result, gain a competitive advantage. Opponents argue that enrollment multipliers create unfair “David vs. Goliath” matchups that are inherently prejudicial.

The arguments being advanced in Illinois this time around are essentially the same. In a letter directed to high school principals, the Executive Director for the IHSA, Dr. Marty Hickman, stressed that a number of non-boundaried schools have won championships since the implementation of the multiplier. Thus if the goal of the multiplier was to lessen the amount of championships won by non-boundaries schools, thereby bringing the numbers of non-boundaried schools winning championships more in line with the proportion of non-boundaried schools in the IHSA, Dr. Hickman is admitting that the multiplier has failed.

Dr. Hickman also urged opposition to the Amendment on the basis that it usurps principals’ governance and oversight power of the operations of the Association. The IHSA, as the governing body for high school athletics in Illinois, clearly sides with public institutions here.

Representative Connelly and his co-sponsors will argue that Dr. Hickman’s contentions ignore the other end of the spectrum. While it is true that large parochial schools enjoy significant athletic success in Illinois, smaller private institutions with no history of athletic prowess are often forced to compete against public school powerhouses, leading to lopsided results that benefit no one. Also, the fact that large private schools are still achieving exemplary results indicates that the multiplier is disproportionately affecting the schools with small student bodies and even smaller budgets.

The Amendment was proposed by Representative Connelly on April 1, 2011 and has yet to be debated by the General Assembly. The rhetoric already emanated suggests that it will be furiously contested. With staunch bipartisan support on both sides of the fence, it will be interesting to see if this proposed legislation will be implemented.

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Sports Lawyers Association and Sullivan and Worcester Panel: Boom Goes the Dynamite!

I'm looking forward to speaking on this Sports Lawyers Association and Sullivan & Worcester panel in Boston on Thursday, April 28,2011 -- you are interested in attending, please RSVP.

The Sports Lawyers Association and Sullivan & Worcester LLP present

Boom Goes The Dynamite! Top Sports Transactions of 2010

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Program: 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm
Reception: 6:30 pm- 7:30 pm

Sullivan & Worcester LLP
One Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109
MAP

The Sports Lawyers Association and Sullivan & Worcester LLP invite you to attend a panel discussion on the top sports transactions of 2010, including the sale of the Golden State Warriors, the Texas Rangers and the acquisition of Liverpool FC.

Speakers:

Christopher Brumm, Counsel, Major League Baseball
Sal Galatioto, President, Galatioto Sports Partners LLC
Professor Michael McCann, Vermont Law School
Ed Weiss, General Counsel, Fenway Sports Group
Mike Zarren, Assistant General Manager and Associate Team Counsel, Boston Celtics

Click to RSVP

Please RSVP by April 22. If you have questions or need more information, please contact Katie Potter at 617.338.2923 or kpotter@sandw.com.

Monday, 11 April 2011

Boston College Law Review: The NCAA at 100: Perspectives at 100: Perspectives on its Past, Present, and Future

Boston College Law Review has published its symposium issue on The NCAA at 100: Perspectives at 100: Perspectives on its Past, Present, and Future. Here are the completed articles from it -- there is some great reading here: