Connecting Minimum Age Restrictions in NBA/NFL with Jim Tressel and Ohio State mess

Sports Illustrated's Zach Lowe makes the connection in this piece, in which he interviews Alan Milstein, a contributor to this blog who litigated on behalf of former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett in his antitrust challenge to the NFL's age limit in 2004 [I provided Alan with legal analysis during the litigation].

Here are a couple of excerpts of Zach's piece:

* * *

As I devoured SI’s fantastic Jim Tressel reporting and the avalanche of stories covering Tressel’s resignation from Ohio State University, I kept thinking back to the concept of age limits in the NBA and other leagues, even though the age limit issue is not precisely implicated in the Tressel case.

Amid all the alleged details of no-show jobs, tattoos-for-memorabilia, small cash gifts and cars (oh so many cars), I asked myself two questions:

1) Why do we care about this?

2) Why are these players in college?

* * *

The [NBA] has made noise about upping it to 20, a move the players’ union has said it opposes, even though the union does not represent players outside the league. Some members of that union — marginal veterans — have at least a slight interest in keeping the best 18-year-olds out of the league, right? Sources close to both sides have said the age limit is a very minor issue amid the collective bargaining talks, so it’s unclear exactly what the rule will look like a year from now.

Alan Milstein is a lawyer who represented Maurice Clarett in the Ohio State running back’s suit against the NFL’s age limit, and he has said before that he is looking around for the right player to challenge the NBA’s rule. Milstein told me today that any move to increase the age limit will accelerate his fight against it. “If they add another year, I have absolutely no doubt that somebody will be ready to challenge it,” Milstein said. “It will certainly make the pool of potential litigants bigger.”

* * *

To read the rest, click here.

Down Go the Dodgers: the Stow Suit Deepens the Debacle

The legal web cast over the storied Los Angeles Dodgers franchise just keeps getting more tangled. The family of injured San Francisco Giants fan, Bryan Stow, filed a nine-count Complaint against the Dodgers, its various holdings, and owner Frank McCourt. Stow was severely beaten in the parking lot following the opening day game between the Dodgers and Giants and remains in a coma in a San Francisco hospital. The much publicized incident has occasioned harsh criticisms on Dodgers management, but has also inspired generous charitable contributions from many parties, including much maligned former Giant, Barry Bonds. The Complaint includes various counts ranging from negligence, infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and assault and battery. The full Complaint can be read here.

The allegations paint a picture of gross mismanagement of funds and resources attributable to the McCourts. The public picture already painted by the much publicized divorce proceedings between McCourt and his wife, Jamie, and their insistence on maintaining their posh lifestyle despite financial misfortune would seem to support the allegations. The complaint focuses on a myriad of inadequate security measures in place as a result of McCourt’s lapses in judgment and spending. Dodger stadium was built in 1962, and the Stows partially attribute the incident to inadequate and antiquated parking lot lighting where the beating occurred. A further contributing factor cited is the “half-off” alcohol promotion for day games at Dodgers Stadium. The most obvious danger, however, is the vastly insufficient quantity and quality of security personnel. McCourt subsequently acknowledged the shortcomings in security (including a drop in the number of uniformed police utilized and no chief of security) and took remedial measures, but that is of little consequence to Stow and his family.

Following, but presumably unrelated to, this heinous incident, Major League Baseball assumed control of the Dodgers. By all counts, MLB was compelled to this move by an apparent lack of financial management. The Commissioner can assume control of teams under his broad power to act in the best interest of baseball and clearly it is his prerogative to prevent further embarrassment to a once proud franchise and ensure the safety of patrons. Mike discussed the full legal ramifications of the takeover in his Sports Illustrated column last month.

Generally, spectators assume the risks associated with attending a live sporting event (e.g. foul balls), but that does not preclude an owner’s liability when certain actions or omissions exceed the spectator’s reasonable expectations, like assault and battery. Fortunately for the Dodgers Defendants, the general rule is that premises owners are not liable in tort for the intervening criminal acts of third-parties. However, a question for consideration that may allow the Plaintiffs here to survive dispositive motions are what level of security was provided by the Dodgers to patrons in the parking lots and at the taxi stands prior to the incident, as the same may show that the Dodgers assumed a level of control that removed the organization from claiming shelter from liability for the intervening criminal acts of third-parties. Remember that actions taken by the Dodgers, under MLB control and otherwise, since the incident would likely not be allowed as evidence in a liability action against the Dodgers as the same would be regarded as a post-remedial measure.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, say MLB has with regard to the named Dodgers Defendants as the same are now under some level of control by the League; a control that McCourt has been fighting against. Certainly the filing of this lawsuit is not helping the League’s efforts to reverse the downward spiral the Dodgers organization finds itself in.

Changing rules

MLB, team officials, and the media are talking about the rules governing collisions at home plate, following the pretty gruesome injury Giants Catcher Buster Posey suffered in this collision last week.




ESPN's Jayson Stark inadvertently touched on two significant jurisprudential issues and how sports reveals them. First, Stark decries that it took this injury to get people talking about changing these rules:

It always takes something like this -- something like the horrifying sight of Buster Posey lying there, face in the dirt, writhing in pain -- to get folks talking. Why is that, anyway?
Now, after the fact, people are asking what we can do to protect both catchers and baserunners from these scary two-vehicle pileups at home plate. NOW, in retrospect, people wonder if there's a way to tweak the rulebook in the name of safety. So here's a question: How come, in baseball, we never seem to have conversations about what we can do to prevent these moments BEFORE they happen? Why is it always after the fact?

Why? Because law is almost always reactive. Legislators (and, as I have argued before, the Commissioner and MLB are, at bottom, legislative actors) make legal rules in response to a problem, usually after the problem has been demonstrated by one fairly horrific or problematic example. But that is in the basic nature of legislation. We usually do not know we need to change a legal rule to prevent X until X occurs and we see the full consequences of X. Or at least to see the full consequences of X to know that the cost of allowing X to continue outweighs whatever benefits from it.

Moreover, law responds to individual stories, which are what overcomes the stasis needed to change rules, even in a relatively simple system such as a sports league. Collisions at home were not considered a problem in need of a solution; the occasional high-profile injury (Ray Fosse, anyone?), while known and unfortunate, did not outweigh these collisions as a long-standing part of the game. Now, everyone is rushing to act because this one set of facts put the issue on the legislative table.



Second, Stark points out that: 1) No one can figure out what the best rule should look like and 2) Catchers were the group most opposed to changing the rules. This demonstrates the problem of legislating off of single, rare, especially horrific stories or sets of facts. Rulemakers tend to ignore the uniqueness of the one story or its outlier nature and rush to change the rule to make sure this unique event does not happen again. But in doing so, they risk eliminating the positive aspects of the old rule and creating a new regime that, while eliminating the targeted problem, creates a host of new ones. In a rush to act, they also risk misweighing the costs/benefits of the old rule, ignoring that the unique story is "part of the game" and outweighed by its benefits. This is why it is so telling that the players most affected by the situation oppose the change--they understand that injuries happen and accept that as the risk. The question is how much rulemakers will consider that "expertise." On the other hand, I am surprised no one has mentioned concussions and head injuries. Although there is no evidence of a problem based on diagnoses, it is logical that some head injuries are involved with the sorts of collisions involved. If so, it gives legislators something to act on beyond this one particularly gruesome case.

Good piece by National Law Journal on 8th Circuit and NFL Lockout

Marcia Coyle interviews Robert Boland, Michael LeRoy, and me for this story, which is a good read.  The online version of the story is available at this link.

Upcoming Sports Law Seminar in Minneapolis

Steven Silton, a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson in Minneapolis, has let me know of what should be an excellent sports law seminar on Friday, June 17.  The event is hosted by Hinshaw & Culbertson and Brewer Sports International.  Drew and Jason Rosenhaus will be speaking, along a number of other prominent persons in the industry - click on the image to the left for more info. 

While the event is invite only, Sports Law Blog readers will be given preference if they are interested in attending.

Here is the invitation:

On behalf of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and Brewer Sports International, we are pleased to invite you to the Sports Law for Rookies and Veterans seminar on Friday, June 17, 2011, located in downtown Minneapolis.  This unique program represents the intersection of issues in professional and amateur sports, media, and the law.  We have assembled a panel of industry leaders from across the country including Superagents Drew and Jason Rosenhaus, Minnesota Timberwolves Chief Marketing Officer Ted Johnson, sports radio host Henry Lake and representatives of the NFLPA.  The program will include a special lunchtime presentation of the “Champion’s Code” from best-selling sports author Ross Bernstein.

We are pleased to offer this complimentary seminar, with lunch provided, to you and another guest within your organization.  Attached please find additional details regarding the program.  To RSVP, please use the link on the attached or contact Marie Pocock of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP at mpocock@hinshawlaw.com or 612-334-2512.

Please note, this exclusive program is by invitation only and space is limited.  Should you have more than one person from your organization that would benefit from this event, please contact Marie.

Finally, this seminar is the official kick-off for the 6th Annual JBF Worldwide Blue Carpet Celebrity Weekend. Please visit www.jbfworldwide.org for more details (or the event's Facebook page). We welcome you to stay the weekend and support the great things that JBF is doing around the world. For your convenience, a block of guest rooms has been reserved at Le Meridien Chambers. Reservations must be made by Friday, May 27.  Please be sure to reference the Brewer Sports International room block to receive the discounted rate.

We hope you will consider taking time out of your busy schedule to join us for this exciting program.  Please feel free to contact either of us with any questions.


Truly, 

Steven H. Silton Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Jack Brewer Brewer Sports International

European Soccer Adopts Salary Cap without Collective Bargaining: Antitrust Implications

Over on The Conglomerate, Wharton professor David Zaring writes about the antitrust implications of European Soccer adopting a salary cap (Part 1, Part 2).  As there is no players association with which to bargain, the cap has been unilaterally imposed.

I talk to David about the antitrust implications and to what extent extraterritorial reach of federal antitrust law, along with EC Treaty antitrust provisions, could pose hurdles.

Sports and politics, mixed

Let no one say sports and politics do not mix all the time. In DC's Congressional Softball League, the team from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the "Czardinals") pulled out of a scheduled game with a team of people from various drug-policy reform groups (the "Capitol Hemp One Hitters") (H/T: Deadspin). According to a press release from the One Hitters, this is the sixth time that the Czardinals have backed out of a game with them--reflecting on the softball field that office's attitude "on the national stage" towards those who even propose or want to discuss legalization as a policy option.