Can the Yankees refuse to pay A-Rod and argue recission?

Dave Hoffman at CoOp lays out the arguments.

Shawn Hill Wins In Arbitration Over the Nationals

Shawn Hill won the first arbitration hearing of the year over the Washington Nationals. He will receive $775,000 instead of the team's $500,000 figure.

Some Weekend Links

Catching up with links:

* Tonight I have an SI column up on the legal ramifications of Alex Rodriguez's positive steroids test.

* Earlier this week, I was interviewed on the Fox News Channel and KCBS Radio to discuss different legal issues concerning Barry Bonds. Hope you can watch/listen.

* Kurt Streeter of the LA Times recently had a great story on basketball legend Sonny Vaccaro and the reasons why he opposes the NBA's age limit.

* Marc Isenberg of Money Players has been all over the different legal and economic issues concerning National Signing Day. Marc also recently publihsed a new edition of his excellent book Money Players.

* The National Sports and Entertainment Law Society has a bunch of great posts up on their blog, including a very useful recap of sports law news.

* Access Athletes Blog and Sports Agent Blog also have some excellent stuff worth checking out. Darren Heitner has a particularly interesting piece on the demise of the Continental Basketball Association. I remember when the CBA used to be a good place for NBA teams to find talent -- the Celtics, for instance, had some success in signing Kevin Gamble and Adrian Griffin, among other guys (as a Celtics fan who stuck with team during its long drought from the late 80s to a couple of years ago, I remember there quite a few Celtics with CBA stints on their resumes).

Football Rules and Title IX

I missed this a few days ago. Calvin Massey at the Faculty Lounge considers what would happen if football rules were changed to limit substitutions so fewer players are needed and fewer will get regular playing time. He argues that fewer playing slots would justify reducing the number of scholarships a school can offer from 85 to 45 or 50. The extra scholarship slots then could be used to assist schools with Title IX compliance--either by allowing them to bring back some men's sports (such as wrestling) that had been cut in the name of Title IX or by increasing women's sports opportunities.

It is an interesting idea, although one that he recognizes is not going to happen. But it also is noteworthy for considering how sports "laws" (i.e., the rules of the sport) inform societal laws and vice versa. Thoughts?

Hill and Nationals are first to go to a hearing in 2009

Oft-injured Washington Nationals pitcher Shawn Hill is the first player to go to a hearing this year. Hill, who made $402,000 in 2008 (a figure just above the minimum major league salary), was seeking $775,000 from the panel. The Nationals offered a modest raise to $500,000.

AP stories listed the arbitration panel as Robert Bailey, Fredric Horowitz, and Elizabeth Neumeier. MLB.com reporter Alden Gonzalez listed the panel as Elizaabeth Neumeier, James Oldham, and Steven Wolf.

Hill posted a 1-5 record in 2008 with a 5.83 ERA. After starting 12 games, Hill was placed on the disabled list on June 25. In September, Dr. James Andrews performed arthroscopic surgery to scrape bone spurs and calcium deposits from the pitcher’s right elbow.

I would not be surprised if the Nationals received the nod from the panel. Hill has just over two years of credited service.

Salary Arbitration Update

According to my research, 22 of the 46 players who exchanged figures last month with their teams have settled. Forty-five percent have settled below the midpoint while 6 received multiyear deals from their teams. Keep in mind that settlements below the midpoint are often close to the figure or performance bonuses exist that might ultimately increase the final salary amount paid to the player beyond the midpoint.

The Washington Nationals still have four unsettled cases: Shawn Hill (asked for $775,000 - club offered $500,000 - the midpoint is $637,500), Scott Olsen (asked for $3,500,000 - club offered $2,500,000 - the midpoint is $3,000,000), Josh Willingham (asked for $3,600,000 - club offered $2,550,000 - the midpoint is $3,075,000), and Ryan Zimmerman (asked for $3,900,000 - club offered $2,750,000 - the midpoint is $3,325,000). The Nationals have won three of their four arbitrations since the Expos were moved to Washington. In 2006, the Nationals defeated Alfonso Soriano. The following year that split two decisions, defeating John Patterson while beating Chad Cordero. Last year, they won their hearing with Felipe Lopez. The final hearing for the Expos was a team win over Nick Johnson in 2004. This year is shaping up as another hearing year for the Nationals.

Here is a list of the players who have settled by category with the Midpoint figure/Settled amount:

League minimum salary in 2009 = $400,000
22 players Settled - 46 total

Multiyear deals - 6
Above - 3
Midpoint - 3
Below - 10

Multiyear deals

Prince Fielder (Milwaukee Brewers) - $7,000,000/2-years, $18,000,000 plus a $1,000,000 signing bonus
Zack Greinke (Kansas City Royals) - $3,900,000/4-years, $38,000,000
Jason Kubel (Minnesota Twins) - $2,900,000/2-years, 7,200,000 including a $350,000 buyout
Paul Maholm (Pittsburgh Pirates) - $3,225,000/3-years, $14,500,000 including a $750,000 buyout
Nick Markakis (Baltimore Orioles) - $3,950,000/6-years, $66,100,000. An option exists in the contract for 2015.
Jayson Werth (Philadelphia Phillies) - $3,500,000/2-years, $10,000,000

Above the midpoint

Justin Duchscherer (Oakland A’s) - $3,800,000/$3,900,000
Casey Kotchman (Atlanta Braves) -$ 2,862,500/$2,885,000
Rickie Weeks (Milwaukee Brewers) - $2,400,000/$2,450,000

At the midpoint

Brian Bannister (Kansas City Royals) - $1,737,500/$1,737,500
John Maine (New York Mets) - $2,600,000/$2,600,000
Justin Verlander (Detroit Tigers) - $3,675,000/$3,675,000

Below the midpoint

Garrett Atkins (Colorado Rockies) - $7,300,000/$7,050,000
Brian Bruney (New York Yankees) - $1,325,000/$1,250,000
Marlon Byrd (Texas Rangers) - $3,150,000/$3,060,000
Melky Cabrera (New York Yankees) - $1,450,000/$1,400,000
Chad Durbin (Philadelphia Phillies) - $1,650,000/$1,635,000
Geoff Geary (Houston Astros) - $1,762,500/$1,700,000
Macier Izturis (Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) - $1,642,500/$1,600,000
Wandy Rodriguez (Houston Astros) - $2,625,000/$2,600,000
Brian Tallet (Toronto Blue Jays) - $1,125,000/$1,015,000
David Weathers (Cincinnati Reds) - $3,800,000/$3,400,000

Title IX and the definition of sport

Having read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Noffke v. Bakke and Marc's ATL post on its Title IX implications, let me weigh in.

First, the court relied on a dictionary to define sport as an "activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs." This is, to my mind, far too broad a definition--more on that in a minute. The court also found that the statutory requirement that there be "physical contact" in the activity applied to more than aggressive physical contact with the opponent. It included any physical contact, with opponent or teammate, incidental or not. That seems right to me, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post on the case--a lot of things that must be considered sport and that surely were intended to be covered by this statute (which was enacted to limit liability for sports injuries resulting from simply negligence) almost never involve direct contact with an opponent (e.g., baseball, tennis, volleyball, track, swimming).

Second, the court rejected any requirement that something be competitive in order to be a sport. And that actually makes irrelevant what I consider the central element of a meaningful definition of sport--objective scoring (as opposed to "judging") and objective determinations of winners. The court's main justification for this was the inconsistency it would produce--something would or would not be a sport depending on what the team was doing and when--whether it was practice or a game or whether the cheerleaders were leading cheers at a basketball game on Friday or participating in a competition on Saturday. This argument strikes me as silly. It would be rational enough to recognize that a team (say, the boys' basketball team) has as its central goal or purpose to engage in competition, but that practice (in which score may not be kept) is necessary to achieve that purpose. Thus the Wisconsin statute should provide immunity for all activities related to that purpose of competing in games on Saturday, including practicing on Thursday. Same with che

This also is why I somewhat depart from Marc's analysis. He makes much of the difference between those squads that engage in competitive cheerleading and those that merely are the "spirit squad" (leading cheers at games). But if competition is irrelevant to the definition of sport (assuming the Department of Education were to adopt the same definition for Title IX), it also is irrelevant whether a team engages in competitive cheering or spirit. Both are sports--activities involving physical exertion and skill, governed by a set of rules or customs. And what else falls within that broad definition? Dance team? Yes. Marching band? Why not. And with no requirement of competition or scoring, much less objective scoring, we do not even have to reach whether a particular band or team participates in competitions or not to define the activity as sport.

And that makes the Wisconsin Supreme Court's definition of sport problematic for us in Title IX. For one thing, we have to think about Title IX not only as to NCAA participation, but also for participation in high-schools and middle-schools, all of which are bound by Title IX to provide athletic opportunities to females. In fact, these schools have the real burden and obligation, because this is where a truly substantial number of girls will be able to take advantage of opportunities to play sports--they have the time, they are more likely to have the skill level (compared with the ability at the collegiate level), and the greater number of schools nationwide means greater opportunities for more girls. But any definition of sport that includes band, dance, and cheer--all worthwhile activities, to be sure--potentially undermines Title IX by helping schools out of their obligation to provide meaningful sporting opportunities for women. If a school can satisfy its Title IX obligations through band and cheerleading (activities in which women historically have participated in large (even predominant) numbers), it has no incentive to also provide new opportunities for women, such as lacrosse or tennis. Band and cheerleading and dance keep the school in Title IX compliance because schools can point to those as existing opportunities for female participation, without having to add anything new.