Sports Agent and Sports Lawyer Blog

When word spread this week that former Raiders football coach Randy Hanson sued the team and head coach Tom Cable, the reaction was mixed. While no one who has followed the saga was too surprised that Hanson finally sued, one has to consider the deeper implications of the lawsuit.

As a sports lawyer at a small firm, my clients often come to me to seek legal counsel about a perceived wrong. They are breathing fire and want someone to pay! They want to sue! As their lawyer, it is my job to ensure that they are considering all the ramifications of the lawsuit. Had Hanson approached me, the first thing I would have said to him was, “You know that you will never coach in the NFL again, right?”

Even if Hanson wins, he will be viewed as a troublemaker. No team will take a chance on hiring him. I am not necessarily saying that I would advise Hanson not to sue, but just that I would ensure that he fully comprehends everything that could result from the lawsuit. A person has to stand up for what he believes in, and if that means coming to the realization that his chosen profession is going to come to an end, then so be it. I have no problem with principle. I have no problem with people who face consequences from their lawsuits, win or lose. I just want to make sure that my clients fully grasp what they are getting themselves into.

MLB has imposed a blanket ban on dangerous weapons, and has begun posting warnings in spring training clubhouses. It is tough to argue with this stance and say that players should be allowed to bring their guns, knives and explosives into the clubhouse.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to parse the specifics as to how the ban is interpreted the first time a player is cited for a violation. For instance, according to this article, the weapons are barred “while performing any services for MLB.” If a player gets in trouble for violating the ban, a good lawyer could have a field day with this vague definition.

For instance, what if the player is caught with a gun while on the way to or from a game? Is that part of a “service for MLB?” What if he is busted while at an event which is not sanctioned by the league or team, not at the team stadium, but is required by his contract, such as the team’s annual offseason fan fest, or an autograph signing? The ban should also spell out the penalties for violations.

Here is hoping that the MLB Players Association and league hammer out the details before anyone gets in trouble for violating the policy and takes the policy itself to task as a result.

As a sports lawyer who is also the father of a little girl, I was fascinated to read the obituary of Judge Sylvia Pressler, who died earlier this week.

As a hearings officer in New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights, she ruled in favor of a 12-year-old girl who wanted to play for a Hoboken Little League team.

“The institution of Little League is as American as the hot dog and apple pie,” she wrote in her ruling. “There is no reason why that part of Americana should be withheld from girls.”

Thanks to Judge Pressler, girls playing sanctioned Little League baseball is an everyday occurrence.

We all know the horrific story of Nodar Kumaritashvili, the Georgian luger who was killed in a training run at the Olympics. While this article focuses on his body being shipped back home for a burial, the crisis may not be over in many respects.

It’s not disrespectful to wonder if someone is at fault for Kumaritashvili’s death. Some have already been quoted as stating that “driver error” is to blame. However, might the fact that the post on which Kumaritashvili hit his head was padded after the accident be indicative of liability, considering that the organizers thought to add the seemingly self-evident safety measure only after a death?

To be honest, I do not know if the Canadian laws would favor a negligence lawsuit as they would if this tragedy occurred in the United States? Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder if this tragedy turns into a sports law story, as so many unfortunate deaths during competition end up in court.

Here is another sports lawsuit in which a plaintiff is suing because his future career as a professional athlete has been tainted by circumstances beyond his control. In Greenwich, Conn., a father is suing the city because his son, now 18, was injured four years ago while playing soccer in a public facility.

This sounds just like the high school softball player suing in New York City, which we blogged about late last year.

The problem from the plaintiff’s perspective is how to prove damages. Based on the article, they may have no difficulty proving that they suffered out-of-pocket medical damages. They may not have difficulty proving that the city or soccer league was liable. Proving lost future earnings as a result of the son’s alleged professional soccer career having been destroyed will be an uphill battle, to say the least.

Comments such as the one made by the player’s father in the article are not helpful:

"If he decides to try out, (a college coach) could say, `No, sorry, you're injured,' " he said of his son, Mark, 18, a Greenwich High School senior and varsity soccer player. "Because of his injury he is at a disadvantage -- and it's not his fault."

Had there been some evidence of the player being at an elite level, he may have a solid chance at proving damages, but even that would be relatively unlikely to result in a large payout. Now the father is apparently acknowledging that the son may not even try to play in college. That is not a sound legal strategy for a plaintiff who is seeking to prove that he has lost his future earnings potential.

Rams running back Steven Jackson has been cleared of allegations that he beat his girlfriend, who was nine months pregnant at the time of the accusations.

Investigators found insufficient evidence that Jackson, 26, attacked Supriya Harris of Mableton, Ga., in March 2009, Las Vegas police Officer Barbara Morgan said. "Our investigation is complete," said Morgan, a department spokeswoman. "I don't think the time passage was a factor here. We contacted the victim, the accused and witnesses. There's insufficient evidence to go forward with the case.

We can only go by what we are told from published reports, but one has to wonder about this. Jackson has been cleared but his name will forever be linked to the allegations.

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.