Sports Agent and Sports Lawyer Blog

What did you do last night? You watched the Super Bowl, of course. Where did you watch it? Unless you were in attendance at Sun Life Stadium in South Florida, you did not watch it at an NFL stadium.

This article makes the case that the NFL should allow telecasts of major games such as the Super Bowl in the participating team’s stadiums. The reason this is not done is as follows:

As the NFL has explained in the past, it prohibits mass out-of-home broadcasts of games because fans watching games in public places (as opposed to on their home televisions) do not count for the Nielsen ratings, so more fans watching outside of their homes means lower ratings, which means lower revenue for the NFL through it television deals. But the NFL has accounted for fans watching games on cell phones and laptops, so why not in stadiums?

Still, as the writer notes, wouldn’t it be a wonderful opportunity for fans to share a “once-in-a-lifetime experience” of “watching” the Super Bowl together? After all, being a football fan is about being a member of a community, and what better place to watch a game than with like-minded fans?

Did you know that it is now illegal for fans of a certain Japanese baseball team to cheer with musical instruments? A court in Nagoya, Japan, denied a request from members of the fan clubs of the Chunichi Dragons baseball team to be allowed to continue to cheer with instruments, drums or whistles.

Prior to the 2008 season, the groups sought permission to perform organized cheers with the use of trumpets and other musical instruments. But Nippon Professional Baseball turned down the request in March 2008 following consultations with team representatives and police authorities.

On the surface, this sounds like a simple – if peculiar – ruling. The noise is too loud, so the fans are barred from making the noise. Further probing of the issue reveals an unusual twist: several fan club members are in the “Yakuza” which is the Japanese catch-all term for organized crime. Somehow, I find it hard to imagine the Mafia getting involved in baseball cheering here in the United States.

The tragic sports lawsuit currently underway in Mississippi over former New York Mets prospect Brian Cole’s death has the potential to shed light on the legal question of how to prove the potential earning power of a professional athlete.

Cole was 22 years old when he was killed in a 2001 rollover accident shortly after the end of spring training. His sports lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the vehicle is prone to rolling over. The damages portion of the lawsuit could be groundbreaking.

So far, Jim Duquette, who was the Mets general manager at the time of Cole’s death, has testified. Former Mets outfielder and coach Mookie Wilson will also testify:

Their belief: Brian Cole should have been a major-league star. He probably would have come on the scene right with Jose Reyes in 2003.

All sports agents, coaches and general managers know that predicting the likelihood of success of a minor league baseball player is a risky proposition. Wilson will allegedly compare Cole to Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett. Cole’s former teammate, Heath Bell, predicted that Cole would earn $100 million in his major league career.

The outcome of this trial bears careful study, because athletes involved in lawsuits often allege that their future earnings were somehow taken away from them. Fortunately, these lawsuits do not usually involve a tragedy, but for one reason or another, an athlete has a viable case to argue that his career was cut short. Given the speculative nature of predicting future success in baseball – and in all pro sports – the manner in which Cole’s legal team proves his future earnings could impact the body of sports law for years to come.

Justin Gatlin's story sounds like a sports lawsuit in waiting.

Let's be honest and say that Justin Gatlin does not inspire much sympathy. The 2004 Olympic medal winner in the 100 meters and bronze medalist in the 200 was banned for doping. After his four-year doping ban expires on July 24, 2010, Gatlin has made it clear that he intends to get back into the sport. In fact, he is here in Florida training hard to make it happen.

What I found interesting about this article is that it makes it sound like the new Diamond League, track and field’s newest elite circuit, and several top European meets, are possibly acting in concert to keep Gatlin from competing.

Similarly, the article says that the USATF would not intervene on behalf of Gatlin if those meets do not accept him. While USATF should be commended for its stance against doping, one has to wonder about whether the sport’s governing body is preventing Gatlin from earning his living. In addition, the article states that USATF has required Gatlin to make appearances to speak to youth about his indiscretions.

After all that, and after he pays his penance, USATF is not only refusing to help him, but actively standing in his way? It is not a lifetime ban. Gatlin would be within his rights to wonder whether the USATF is hindering his comeback. USATF may or may not have legal liability, but if they are seen as conspiring with the Diamond League and other meets to keep Gatlin from competing, I would not be surprised to see an eventual lawsuit. The issue is that even though Gatlin is forever stained by his doping suspension, if he is cleared by the regulatory authorities, then other bodies may not be on solid legal ground by obstructing his efforts to compete.

Sports lawyers around the country are starting to take increasing notice of MMA. As MMA moves further into the mainstream and the amount of money at stake continues to soar, you may see more lawsuits such as the Fedor-Affliction Entertainment dispute currently raging in California.

This week the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which is not necessarily a harbinger of things to come, as the standard to survive a motion to dismiss is not a high threshold. Sherdog provides its usual expert analysis and summary of the sports lawsuit by attorney J.R. Riddell:

In the suit, the world’s No. 1-ranked heavyweight and M-1 claim that Affliction breached the “Fight Agreement” requirement to stage and promote a third bout for the fighter after advertised opponent Josh Barnett was refused a license in California for an alleged positive steroids test two weeks before the event. They claim that Affliction did not undertake “all reasonable efforts” to find a fighter to replace Barnett, and even go so far as to argue that Affliction lost interest in promoting the third bout partly because it was apparently pursuing a competing objective at the same time -- repairing its soured relationship with competing promoter, Zuffa LLC, parent company to the UFC. Shortly after Affliction’s decision to cancel the event, the UFC announced that it had reached a sponsorship agreement to allow the previously banned clothing brand back into its shows.

These days, anyone who is looking to dabble in MMA can find a local gym with an octagon and a trainer willing to train you to be the next UFC star. Now, however, UFC itself has taken the grass roots concept to a new level.

I have said before that UFC has been savvy in its growth efforts over the past several years as the sport has gradually shifted into the mainstream. The latest venture, UFC-branded fitness center, is just the next step in the process.

The gym features the traditional assortment of weights, treadmills, exercise bikes and other aerobic equipment, along with television monitors and blaring music. But the major differences are the obvious UFC trappings. An Octagon in the center of gym is used for martial arts classes. Huge wall photos of UFC Hall of Famers and life-sized cardboard cutouts of current stars decorate the interiors.

The idea is brilliant, as it exposes several types of fans to the sports. First, you have the amateur and budding MMA fighters who love the sport, practice it at an amateur level and maybe hope to hit the big time. Next, you have the casual fans who will work out at the gym, never set foot in the Octagon, but absorb the MMA theme, and become interested in the sport. The concept additionally provides an extra income stream to UFC fighters, as individual stars will have their names applied to each gym.

It also is another way of breaking down whatever negative stigmas exist by making the brand name part of communities and marketing the fighters as larger-than-life stars to families. It also creates new venues to market the company’s stars and major events, as part of the concept includes regular personal appearances by fighters at the gyms.

As always with ventures spearheaded by Dana White, this development bears watching for agents and sports lawyers who are thinking of expanding their base into representing MMA fighters.

After news that Charles “Krazy Horse” Bennett was arrested yet again last week, you have to wonder how long he will continue to last as a big-time fighter.

Last week he was arrested for fighting a teammate. This sounds like something out of a bad movie:

“During routine sparring, tempers flared between Charles and the other fighter, and Charles ended up getting dropped by the larger training partner,” wrote Vaughn. “They were quickly broken up and Charles left the mat, got dressed and left the building. He returned about 15 minutes later, walked down to the training area and pulled out a heavy piece of steel he must have found in the parking lot and began attacking the other fighter (from behind) with intent to do serious damage. He was tackled by two other fighters and disarmed.

The incident in isolation might not have been significant, but it is yet another in Bennett’s long history of legal problems. The Sherdog.com article notes that he has been arrested for crimes ranging from “traffic violations and drug distribution to kidnapping and battery upon a pregnant female.”

The reason we need to keep an eye on this sort of thing is that guys like Bennett give the entire sport of MMA a black eye. With so many positive developments, such as the approval of MMA in Massachusetts, Brock Lesnar’s return and the sport on the verge of the mainstream, naysayers will continue to point to people like Bennett as the reason that MMA will never take off.

NASCAR and a race promoter in Milwaukee have settled their lawsuit over non-payment of nearly $2 million for two races last June.

The lawsuit, which focused on fraud in the inducement, settled for confidential terms. One media outlet reports that there are still “hard feelings” based on the statement that NASCAR issued after the settlement:

“While we’re glad to settle the litigation, this is a very unfortunate conclusion. NASCAR has loved racing at the Milwaukee Mile for nearly 20 years and our fans deserve better. We depend on strong partnerships in each community where we race to make the events exciting and successful for everyone.”

NASCAR will apparently no longer race at Milwaukee Mile. According to the article, the Mile still has multiple additional legal problems.

Today we have news that a new professional basketball league has been launched. This one has an unusual caveat: The players have to be white.

The mayor of Augusta, which will apparently be getting a team, sums up the prevailing sentiment:

"As a sports enthusiast, I have always supported bringing more sporting activities to Augusta," he said. "However, in this instance I could not support in good conscience bringing in a team that did not fit with the spirit of inclusiveness that I, along with many others, have worked so hard to foster in our city."

Usually I keep politics and social commentary out of this blog, but I have to say that a race-based basketball league does not sit well with me for what should be obvious reasons. The legality of the league's structure is questionable, and raises interesting theoretical legal questions about private entities setting up entry barriers. Sometimes, however, just because something may not be illegal, does not make it a good idea.

Gender discrimination lawsuits, especially by coaches, are typically brought by females. However, as a Pennsylvania trial court ruled recently, male coaches can bring sex discrimination lawsuits as well.

Former Lock Haven University swim coach George Garlick filed a sex discrimination lawsuit, alleging a hostile workplace environment which led to his dismissal in 2005. According to this article, Garlick was a successful coach who turned around the men’s and women’s teams from perennial cellar-dwellers to top-ranked programs.

It is also interesting to note that Lock Haven has faced six sports lawsuits against the university and/or athletic director over the past several years. In a seventh lawsuit, the athletic director herself, has sued certain parties. While Garlick alleges that the athletic director and university prefer female coaches, the former field hockey coach settled for $200,000 to dismiss her lawsuit contending that females were paid less than males.

When the trial court denied summary judgment for the defendants, it signified that the case is headed for trial later this year. While Garlick still has a long way to go to prove his sex discrimination case, the lawsuit should serve as a reminder that men, in addition to women, have the right to redress their grievances in court if they feel they have been discriminated against.

A coach's sports lawsuit in California was reinstated by the state’s appellate court.

David Ohton, a strength coach at San Diego State University, was tabbed as a whistleblower for cooperating with an audit that revealed athletic department mismanagement. He alleges that he was then removed from his job, although he still works for the baseball team and other sports.

After investigating Ohton’s whistleblower complaint, CSU said in a letter of determination that Ohton was retaliated against but dismissed it as “minor” retaliation. The university also said his removal as the football team’s strength coach was for other operational reasons. “The Legislature designated such retaliation as a criminal offense,” the justices’ decision said. “Therefore, when CSU makes a finding of retaliation, to satisfactorily address the whistleblower complaint, its determination letter must state whether the matter was referred to criminal prosecution, and if not why not. Anything short of this defeats the protections created by the statute. Here, because of CSU’s silence on the issue of punishment and discipline, CSU did not satisfactorily address Ohton’s complaint.”

This is an interesting lawsuit for sports lawyers to follow, because it illustrates the difficulty faced by whistleblowers who go up against institutional mismanagement. While it is governed by the specific restrictions which California law places on whistleblower retaliation, there may be similarities with other state's laws.

Walter Dix is back!

The 2008 Olympic bronze medalist in the 100 and 200 has announced his indoor schedule.

Dix, who has been training twice a day and who is finally healthy after an injury plagued 2009 season, expects to make his 2010 indoor debut at the Milrose Games in New York City. He then plans to run at the Reebok Boston Games in Boston on February 6; the Tyson Invitational in Fayetteville, Arkansas on February 12-13; and the USA Indoor Championships in Boston on February 28. Dix is also expected to run in the Visa Championship Series.

Editor's Note: Walter Dix is a client of the sports law firm of Koch & Trushin, P.A. This is the first of an occasional series of blog posts regarding Dix's track exploits.