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, 31 October 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, 29 October 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, 26 October 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, 25 October 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, 24 October 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, 22 October 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)