Sports Agent and Sports Lawyer Blog

In January, we blogged about a swim coach discrimination sports lawsuit at Lock Haven University.

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.

Recently USA Today picked up on the fact that seven lawsuits have been brought in recent years against the Lock Haven athletic department. What is unique about this situation is that it can be classified as a reverse-discrimination situation because of the allegations that the women’s teams are better supported than the men’s teams. Here is a rundown:

Taylor filed a defamation suit against five men affiliated with a community group called Preserving the Legacy of Wrestling (PLOW) plus the general manager of a sports radio station. (Taylor argues she is not a public figure because athletics directors at state schools in the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference are faculty members who do not make personnel decisions or supervise coaches, who are members of the same union.)

•Wilson filed a federal civil rights suit against LHU and Taylor alleging he is held to more stringent job requirements than other coaches because he is black.

•George Garlick, former women's swimming coach whose contract was not renewed, filed suit against LHU alleging Taylor favors women over men for coaching positions. (He was replaced by a man. LHU has eight head coaches who are men and five who are women; some coach more than one sport.)

•Wrestler Landis Wright filed suit against Taylor and others alleging he was forced off the team and lost his scholarship because of negligent supervision and retaliation.

•LHU paid Rudy $200,000 to settle a suit in which she contended female coaches were paid less then their male counterparts in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

•Guerriero got a settlement of $47,500 after filing suit alleging he was moved from a job as assistant athletics director for speaking out against what he charged was a sexually hostile work environment.

•Guerriero won $60,000 in compensatory damages in a federal civil rights retaliation lawsuit. He said he was unfairly removed from a sports marketing job (in development, not athletics) that was part of his original settlement. He is a full-time faculty member with tenure.

When you put on a helmet and step on the field there is an idea that it is supposed to provide you with some measure of protection. Why else would they be required? I am sure that’s what Jordan Wolf thought when he walked up to what would turn out to be his final at-bat.

Wolf, a member of the 2008 Baltimore Orioles' Class-A farm team, was hit in the head with a 93-mph fastball. The impact resulted in a skull fracture stretching from his ear to the top of his head. Wolf lost all feeling on the right side of his body and his ability to speak due to a brain hemorrhage. Two years later the 25 year-old has been diagnosed with epilepsy and suffers from multiple seizures.

Wolf is now suing Rawlings, the helmet manufacturer, and the MLB for failing to provide him with adequate protection. Not surprisingly, lawsuits against helmet manufactures have been around for years. In one case, a 14 year-old boy was rendered quadriplegic when a teammate struck him on top of his helmet during a high school football game. The helmet company, Athletic Helmets, lost this $12 million lawsuit. Here the court found that Athletic Helmets’ warnings and instructions for use were inadequate, not that the helmet was defectively designed.

Are these injuries just a risk of the game, or will Wolf be successful in proving that Rawlings and/or the MLB should have know his helmet was inadequate? New helmet designs make it obvious that proper helmet protection is important to prevent serious injuries. Rawlings, the official MLB equipment supplier, has since changed their helmet designs and introduced one that can withstand a pitch up to 100mph. Also the NFL recently introduced a new helmet design to provide their players with more protection from serious injury. This might be a sign that these companies and organizations knew their old designs were inadequate.

What is your first reaction when you hear that the father of a youth baseball player has sued a coach because his son was hit by a pitch?

First you think about how our society is too litigious and parents need to take a deep breath and let kids be kids, right? In this instance, however, the facts bear closer scrutiny.

According to the article, a coach on one team instructed his player to purposefully throw at a player on the opposing team. The batter allegedly broke two bones in his left hand as a result. Now the lawsuit seeks compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering.

So what’s wrong with this picture? If the facts as depicted are true, then the hit batter has every right to recourse against the coach. Coaches have a high level of responsibility to the safety of not just their own players but to all players in the league. It is good sportsmanship.

It is also illegal to order a kid to hurt another kid. Think about it for a second. If there wasn’t a baseball game going on, do you think a parent would be held accountable for telling his kid to throw a ball at another kid? Of course. That would be potential criminal and civil battery. Therefore a coach should be held accountable if he ordered a player to try and injure another player in a game.

Thousands of children are home-schooled in every state, but does that mean they should be ban from participating in public school athletics? Louisiana recently passed a law allowing it this type of participation, but there is still some debate among superintendents on what effects this new law will have on the upcoming school year.

The law says any home-schooled student who is allowed on a high school team must live in that school's attendance zone, fulfill the same academic and physical requirements of other student-athletes and can be kicked off teams, as any other student. The law says parents must provide insurance and cannot sue if a school rejects or dismisses a home-schooled student from playing sports.

Apparently, Louisiana officials are uncertain about the ramifications. Suffice it to say, the issues will play themselves out over the coming school year and beyond. The bottom line is that this is probably good news for kids who are home schooled. It also means that those kids - and their parents, of course - need to ensure that they comply with the eligibility requirements as defined by the law.

Probably two of the most famous athletes that have come from home-schooling backgrounds are football stars, Tim Tebow and Jason Taylor. Grown up in Pennsylvania Taylor was allowed to play at his local high school, while Tebow, a Florida resident, was also allowed to play in high school and became the first home-schooled athlete to be nominated for the Heisman Trophy.

Since 1996, Florida legislation has allowed home-schooled students to participate in athletics at schools within the districts they live. Tebow's success has also inspired citizens of other states to propose legislation allowing equal access for home-schooled children. A few states, such as Alabama, have even named this proposed legislation the "Tim Tebow Bill."

Currently about 24 states allow equal access to home-schooled children, and each state involves different eligibility requirements. If your children are home-schooled and looking to participate in public school extracurricular activities it would be wise to consult a sports lawyer to be sure you comply with your states requirements.

Every year parents of youth sports athletes sign waivers of liability that are required before the first practice. It happens millions of times a year all over the United States. If the parent has ever reviewed the details of the waiver, they all seem the same: They protect the team or league and all of its employees, including volunteer coaches, against liability.

A shocking development out of Michigan has threatened to turn this standard procedure completely on its head. According to the Michigan Supreme Court these waivers are not. In a recent case, Woodman v. Kera, the court held under Michigan law that waiver-of-liability forms signed by parents on behalf of minors are unenforceable.

Key to the court’s decision was the holding that under the common law in Michigan a minor lacks the capacity to enter into a pre-injury waiver, and that the minor’s parents also lack the legal capacity to bind their child to such contract.

This decision may be overturned quickly by the state legislature, which has the authority to make such waivers enforceable. Imagine the ramifications of the youth sports waivers not being enforceable in a court of law. No one would coach or organize youth sports and insurance premiums would skyrocket.

The decision in the Woodman case is contrary to that of many other Midwest States. Here in Florida decisions on this issues have not been very consistent. In a 2004 case, Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, the Third District barred a mother's claim on behalf of a minor child when he got hurt at camp. This was based on the fact that she had signed a pre-injury release form before his participation.

Similarly in 2007 the same court found a parents’ execution of a pre-injury release enforceable for participation on the high school cheerleading squad. However the appellate court held that pre-injury releases are unenforceable as against public policy. The court stated that its decision was limited to commercial enterprises because, "they can insure against the risk of loss and include these costs in the price of participation."

It remains to be seen whether Michigan’s outcome will affect Florida youth sports law and whether the entire landscape of the youth sports scene will change. If you are a parent or coach and have questions about a waiver’s legal precedent or whether a lawsuit can still occur despite a waiver of liability, consult a sports attorney.

Athletes who start foundations must pay careful attention to their foundation's efforts. Many successful professional athletes have started their own charitable foundations. Derek Jeter, for example, began the Turn 2 Foundation to help children and teenagers avoid drug and alcohol use along with rewarding those with high academic achievements. Others such as Dwayne Wade, who founded Wade's World, and Peyton Manning, who started PeyBack, also use these foundations to give back and promote successful futures to the youth in their communities and across the country.

Although these are examples of successful foundations, some athletes have had trouble managing their own foundations. This became the problem for former Chicago Bear Chris Zorich.

Zorich founded his charity in 1993, and received numerous accolades and awards throughout the years for helping disadvantage children. His charity included toy drives during Christmas, providing dinners on Thanksgiving, and making regular hospital visits. But in 2002 things started to go downhill for the Chris Zorich Charitable Foundation.

In April the Internal Revenue Service filed a $10,000 lien against the charity. And the Illinois attorney general's office, which canceled the charity's registration six years ago, said it was trying to reach Zorich regarding the charity's operations after the Tribune asked about its status.
The foundation reported $864,645 in assets on its 2002 tax return, apparently the last one filed. Zorich said he forgot about the money and assumes it's still there. When the Tribune asked to see a bank statement listing the funds, Zorich responded that he did not have one available.

Zorich, who retired from the NFL and now works in the University of Notre Dame's athletic office, said the charity closed in 2008 and last accepted donations around 2005. He said he was surprised to hear that http://www.chriszorich.org lists an address to mail donations.

Zorich stated he was aware the registration was canceled in 2002, but assumed his cousin Barbara Singer, the foundation's executive director, had handled the matter. When Singer was diagnosed with cancer, Zorich failed to bring in additional employees to help run the foundation.. His reason for this seemed reasonable on a personal level: He didn't want Singer to feel like she was losing control of everything in her life. Later when Singer passed away Zorich had approximately $800,000 in the foundation’s bank account that needed to be distributed, but he failed to do so. He claimed he would hire an accounting firm to help, but has yet to hear back from them. Failing to file an annual return for three consecutive years can cost a tax-exempt organization to lose their status and become subject to penalties. As of now the IRS still considers the Zorich charity tax-exempt.

It seems that Zorich didn't understand how much work actually goes into running a successful charity. He should have hired other employees to help manage the it as soon as the charity stopped being one of his top priorities. Additional help was especially needed when his executive director became ill. When you are sitting on undistributed documents worth around $800,000, someone is bound to come looking for them. Charity foundations should not loose sight of what their charities were initially set up to do, help others.

As a professional athlete, your agent is supposed to protect you from the unsavory elements who always want a piece of you. But what happens if your agent is ripping you off? It’s every player’s worst nightmare.

A football player in Buffalo, Bills cornerback Terrence McGee, has agreed to a settlement in a lawsuit filed against his former agent. The lawsuit alleged McGee was bilked out of more than $1 million. The agent has also agreed to drop his lawsuit accusing McGee of defamation of character as part of this settlement.

In a lawsuit filed in Harris County District Court in Texas in February 2007, the player accused financial adviser Craig Curry of funneling McGee's money into unauthorized and possibly nonexistent investments. The money transfers were made shortly after McGee signed a contract extension with the Bills in a deal that included a $5 million bonus.

What is unusual about this lawsuit is that a Bills coach was also named in the action. Jerry Gray, the Bills defensive coordinator at the time, and the agent were accused of conspiring in the scheme along with having a personal economic interest by introducing McGee to Curry. McGee claimed that the agent and Gray knew of Curry's criminal past, thus making him unqualified to represent NFL Players. McGee feels they should have warned him of this.

This lawsuit offers a myriad of lessons for pro athletes. First, do not blindly trust everything that your agent says or does; sometimes it’s wise to have an attorney keeping an eye on the agent. Second, always be judicious as to where you invest your money. NFLPA financial advisers are required to be licensed by the union, and they also prohibit convicted felons from representing players. Not all sports maintain such stringent requirements for their financial advisers. That’s why it is up to the player – or his legal adviser – to vet anyone who is managing a player’s money.

A Spanish-speaking baseball coach has sued the sponsors of a youth baseball league because they allegedly prohibited him from speaking Spanish while coaching.

Jose Roman Sr. of Lebanon, Pennsylvania is seeking $1 million in damages. According to the complaint, the basis of the lawsuit is the league’s rulebook provision prohibiting league umpires from speaking in any language other than English:

Roman's lawsuit states that he complained about the rule, calling it "racist and unnecessary because it had nothing to do with safety or baseball."

What seems unusual to me is that the rule actually did not apply to Roman. He was a coach while the rule applied to umpires. Presumably, he was a volunteer coach, so it is difficult to see how he could have suffered much in the way of damages “in excess of $1 million.”

Former Cleveland Browns wide receiver Joe Jurevicius’s lawsuit against his team has been resolved in a confidential settlement. For details of the lawsuit, see this link.

What make this lawsuit interesting is that Jurevicius sued because the team allegedly failed to protect him from getting a staph infection. The infection in his right knee apparently ended his career, thus limiting his future earnings. Specifically, Jurevicius alleged negligence by the Browns in their misrepresentation of the practice facility’s level of cleanliness.

This news is a good opportunity for all the teams and leagues out there – from the major leagues to high schools to leagues for toddlers – to think twice about whether all liabilities are covered. Something as simple as sanitizing equipment and facilities can avoid major legal problems. If you have not yet consulted with a sports law expert about your liabilities, make certain to do so.

In a fascinating window into one reason that MLB players have such a greater earning potential than their counterparts in Japan, the Japanese Supreme Court has ruled against players in a lawsuit over who owns their licensing rights.

The court’s ruling was apparently predicated on the distinction, or lack thereof, of “promotional rights” versus “commercial rights.” The Japanese uniform player contract, just as the MLB uniform player contract does, permits teams to utilize player’s likenesses in promotions. The court determined that commercial use of images constituted “promotional rights.”

I could not find an English language version of the Court’s ruling, but I believe that this ruling is misguided. How can you equate a billboard or pocket schedule or television commercial featuring a player with a for-purchase video game or baseball card?

A professional golfer has filed a lawsuit against the organizers of a tournament, all because they allegedly failed to protect him from a fan.

Daly, 44, wants $100 million because, he says, an injury he suffered at the 2007 Honda Classic in Palm Beach Gardens has damaged his game.

Daly filed two years ago after a woman taking pictures jumped in front of him in mid-swing. Daly claimed in the paperwork he aborted the movement because he feared killing the woman but felt his rib cage pop out. The paperwork reads that Daly and other players unsuccessfully tried three times before the incident to have security kick the unidentified woman off the course.

The civil complaint filed in Palm Beach County alleges that the defendants should have done a better job of protecting Daly from a fan who bothered him.

The Tubby Smith lawsuit has gotten a lot of attention lately (and is something we have covered previously on this blog). Some of the media analysis is finally bringing to the forefront an issue which attorneys have always known, which is that people should always document their oral conversations.

To recap, Smith was alleged to have offered a job to Jimmy Williams when Smith was first hired as basketball coach at the University of Minnesota. He called Williams, then an assistant coach at Oklahoma State, and discussed a job offer. Smith’s hiring was nixed by Minnesota executives because he was previously involved in NCAA violations during his last stint as a Gophers assistant.

Williams sued and alleged that Smith fraudulently offered him a job which was subsequently rescinded. Smith and his co-defendant, the University of Minnesota, said that Smith never made a job offer, but that he only mentioned the idea of a job. Williams alleged that Smith, as coach of a high profile basketball program, seemingly possessed apparent authority to hire. Thus, Smith alleged, he quit his job, sold his house and planned to move to Minnesota.

Not surprisingly, Williams prevailed at trial and was awarded more than one million dollars in damages. The lessons of the case are self-evident: put it in writing. Even if you think you are among friends – and there is no doubt that Smith and Williams were pals, as they traveled in the same college basketball coaching circles for 20 years – obtain assurances and confirm conversations in writing.

The baseball bat debate – wood vs. metal – is a topic we have covered many times on this blog (here and here and here). Now it looks as though some of the answers as to whether wood or metal bats are safer may never be reached.

This is an interesting article about the UMass-Lowell Baseball Research Center, which is facing financial troubles because of a lawsuit. From the article:

The UMass-Lowell Baseball Research Center opened in 1998 and struck profitable deals to certify every model of bat used in the major leagues and NCAA competition. As a gesture of goodwill, the center gave free advice to the National Federation of State High School Associations and youth baseball organizations, gaining national acclaim for addressing the dangers of balls rocketing off metal bats at dangerous speeds.

Accused of violating its license to operate the testing machine, the baseball center became entangled in a seven-year court fight that spanned two jury trials and ended in January with the taxpayer-supported university taking a $4.4 million hit: a $3.1 million court judgment, plus $1.3 million in interest. The case also cost the university $1.7 million in legal fees.

Elliot Hopkins, the baseball rules editor for the National Federation of State High School Associations, said the organization cannot afford to pay for the safety information it receives from the Lowell facility.

“Losing the center would literally cripple high school baseball nationally,’’ Hopkins said. “We couldn’t replace it.’’

Baseball prospects in the Dominical Republic are now subject to testing for performance-enhancing substances. The announcement by Major League Baseball this month is part of a comprehensive set of changes to the way in which baseball in the D.R. is organized.

As a sports agent who is already recruiting and scouting the Dominican Republic, I applaud this move. Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) have no place in baseball, whether in the D.R. or in the United States. The ban also levels the playing field between Dominican prospects and American high school prospects.

However, I hope that the initial stages of the testing program focus on the education aspect of this and not on the punitive aspect. If a 16-year-old kid from an impoverished town is caught using PEDs and is suspended for a lengthy term, or barred from signing a contract, this will not solve the problem. The players need to be educated and informed so that they can make the well-reasoned decisions about what to put into their bodies.

It’s no surprise that there is a story about high school basketball eligibility. The Jerry Joseph scandal is getting more surprising by the day. See if you can follow this twisted saga.

Geurdwich Montimer won a state title with Dillard High School in Florida three years ago. Jerry Joseph is now playing as a sophomore at Permian High School in Odessa, Texas. What do these facts have to do with one another?

Allegedly, Montimer and Joseph are the same person! That’s according to a rival high school coach whose team played against Joseph:

"I'm 100 percent sure," Boyd Anderson assistant coach Cedric Smith said. "I would bet my paycheck."

But the saga gets even stranger. Federal immigration officials have determined that Montimer is not Joseph, but he is an illegal immigrant from Haiti:

According to a report in the Odessa American, that investigation prompted Permian officials to contact the Ector County Independent School District police, who contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Monday, Permian principal Roy Garcia told the Sun Sentinel that ICE had determined Montimere and Joseph are not the same person, but that Joseph, a native of Haiti, is in the U.S. illegally.

"We have a document that says he's someone else and that says he is 16 years old," Garcia said. "The folks from ICE did some checking and said he is not Guerdwich Montimere. I'm confident with the information ICE gave me that it's not Guerdwich Montimere."

Who knows how this saga will play out. I just hope that the person known as Montimer or Joseph is not being taken advantage of.

The University of Virginia lacrosse murder case is something that needs no additional commentary. It is a tragedy and no one can deny this. Whether the fact that the victim and alleged killer were both lacrosse players and products of upscale prep schools is germane to the killing is a topic for debate.

What is important, however, is the issue of domestic violence among these athletes. As this article makes clear, this type of tragedy should never happen. The article implies that female athletes do not need to tolerate a higher level of “abuse” from men simply because they are athletes, but they are apparently not speaking up about such incidents. What could be unique about this case is the potentially imminent legal battle between the victim’s family and UVa.

Anti-domestic violence advocate Kathy Redmond makes the point in the article that the “growing permissiveness and lack of education by many women and girls” is … “potentially lethal.” If the reports are true that the aleged killer “has a criminal record dealing with alcohol and violence” and twenty percent of the lacrosse players at Virginia have alcohol-related arrests, then one has to wonder about liability. Specifically, could a is it just a matter of time before the institution which allowed him to play in a culture that allegedly fosters aggressiveness (according to the article) is held liable in a civil lawsuit? This is the type of tragedy that everyone wishes had never occurred, but now that it is out there and a young life has been lost, it seems evident that accountability is the next step.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. A professional athlete took what he thought was a harmless supplement, was banned for four games by his league for testing positive for a banned substance, so the athlete is now suing the supplement maker.

St. Louis Rams linebacker David Vobora, who was suspended for four games in 2009 after testing positive for a banned steriod now says that he inadvertently used a contaminated supplement, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday against the supplement maker.

In a federal civil suit filed in St. Louis, Vobora said that he began using S.W.A.T.S. "The Ultimate Spray" in 2009, after a SWATS athlete recommended it.

What’s more, the substance at issue is a “Christianity-based” spray which apparently helps on-field performance. I am a big supporter of taking every edge you can get. Each of my clients who are professional athletes have specific regimens and unique beliefs about what makes them successful. But sometimes, one has to draw a line and recognize that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

This is not intended to be a shot at SWATS, the supplement taken by Vobora. But let’s be honest. There is no “supplement” better than hard work, God-given talent and taking care of one’s body. Not even a sports lawsuit can hold someone else responsible if you put the “wrong things” into your body.

Sports lawyers could have a field day with a softball coach’s alleged misdoings in Colorado. The Boulder Daily Camera newspaper has the story.

Richard Dale Mott, the former Monarch High School softball coach in Boulder, Colorado, is being sued by the father of one of his players after allegedly running off with $80,000 in an investment scheme. Putting aside the unusual question of why anyone would give $80,000 to their daughter’s softball coach, this lawsuit raises all sorts of questions. It seems that Coach Mott was an interesting character:

Mott portrayed himself to his players and their parents as someone of extreme wealth, Davenport said. He told them he was worth $11 billion and owned an expensive home in Evergreen with a six-car garage packed with antique vehicles, Davenport claims.

The bottom line here is twofold. First, given that the coach allegedly stole $185,000 from several investors, it seems doubtful that the plaintiffs will ever get their money back. Second, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The investment was supposedly to fund a “gypsum mining operation in Wyoming.” I will admit that someone, somewhere probably earned a tidy profit investing in a mining operation. However, you can be sure that the investment was not made profitable by giving money to a softball coach who claimed he was a billionaire.

The Ben Roethlisberger story is well documented, but Lester Munson of ESPN.com raises the question of why another NFL player’s sexual assault allegation did not merit a similar media firestorm and suspension.

In January in Indianapolis, Colts defensive tackle Eric Foster was accused by a hotel worker of sexually attacking her in his hotel room. The police were called, Foster’s attorney and the victim’s attorney each performed investigations after the incident, and prosecutors declined to bring charges.

The alleged victim and Foster tell irreconcilably different stories about what happened next, and both offer evidence in support of their assertions. But scrutiny of court documents and analysis of interviews with the attorneys for both Foster and the receptionist indicate that Foster's evidence is more persuasive. The woman filed a report with campus police after the alleged incident, but Indianapolis prosecutors decided not to file any criminal charge against Foster.

The alleged victim claims in her civil suit that Foster lured her into his room with a claim of a malfunctioning heater, and then attacked her. Seeking money damages, she alleges that Foster is guilty of "exposing himself, touching, groping, and forcing [her] to engage in deviate sexual acts."

So what does the Foster case tell us about athletes who are in potential legal trouble? It probably does not provide any lessons other than that the athlete is well served to retain the best defense attorney possible, spare no expense in allowing his attorney to thoroughly investigate the allegations, and if he believes he is innocent, take a lie detector test and have counsel publicize the results. It still does not explain why the commissioner did not discipline Foster and imposed a six-game ban on Roethlisberger.

This sports lawsuit sounded frivolous at first.

When a New England Patriots season ticket holder sued the team and NFL asking for refunds for their season tickets while the team was illegally taping opposing signals, most people assumed it would be thrown out of court.

Not so fast.

Last week the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, signifying that the court is taking the matter seriously. Court watchers often like to make predictions based on judge’s comments and questions, which can be a dicey proposition under normal circumstances, but should give the NFL and Patriots cause for concern in this instance.

Some of the toughest questions came from Judge Robert E. Cowen, who called the taping "a tremendous violation, no doubt about that," of league rules.

Judge Cowen also asked how what the Patriots did was different from a team taking money to throw a game.

The NFL’s floodgate argument, that this lawsuit will result in a flood of lawsuits by disgruntled fans, probably has little merit. The case will be decided on the basis of the relationship and expectations that a fan can rightfully assume when he buys a ticket.

We have extensively detailed the metal vs. wood bat debate among youth league baseball. (See our blog posts: here and here, just as two recent examples). Each time we post about the subject, we get contacted by people who want to tell their side of the story.

Now a newspaper in Arkansas reports that teams in the area are seriously questioning whether they should switch from wood to metal bats. The Fayetteville Observer’s article creates what I would view as a terrifying depiction of what goes through the softball coach at a local college.

Miguel Justiniano, who coaches at Fayetteville State, says that he knows when his third baseman moves closer to the plate to field a bunt, he had better be right about the batter bunting, because a line drive down the line could have a devastating impact.

As far as the Broncos coach is concerned, metal bats make playing third base in softball one of the most dangerous positions in all of sports. But that's behind the pitchers, who stand only 43 feet away and must react to balls traveling more than 100 miles per hour.

"One day, when we have a death, everything will change," Justiniano says. "Do we need to wait for someone to pass away before we know this is harmful? I'd rather be safe and cautious than wait for something to happen."

Nevertheless, despite the acknowledgment that metal bats appear to be dangerous, it is interesting that none of the coaches interviewed for the article appear ready to advocate for a switch back to wood bats. The author does, however, note that the NCAA’s regulations on metal bat safety are imminent:

The NCAA has taken multiple steps to regulate metal bats. After USC beat Arizona 21-14 in the championship game of a 1998 College World Series that featured plenty of home runs, the organization adopted the BESR (ball exit speed ratio) standard in 2003.

Those regulations made bats heavier, shrank barrels and ensured that balls came off bats at the same top exit speed as wooden bats (97 mph). But the NCAA and state high school athletic associations will take further steps over the next couple years to continue making metal bats act more like wood ones.

Starting in 2011, the NCAA will make baseball teams use bats that meet BBCOR (Bat Ball Coefficient of Restitution) standards. High school baseball will follow suit in 2012, and bats with the BESR stamp will no longer be legal.

Bob Cook, who runs an excellent blog about youth sports called "Your Kid's Not Going Pro" has a comprehensive roundup of recent youth sports hazing legal matters. The article, updates six hazing incidents from around the country.

Bob's article speaks for itself, but it never ceases to amaze that people exist such as Bernie Busken, an Arizona football coach who apparently thinks that hazing is acceptable and who blames the victims. Based on his so-called apology, Busken would seem like a lawsuit waiting to happen for the school district in Chandler, Arizona. This is what Busken said:

“I have never done anything where I meant to hurt someone physically, mentally or anything else. I just tried to prepare them for their one shot to do well. All I can do now is apologize. If I was kidding around and I crossed a line; for those things I was wrong and I am sorry.”

Here is a news flash for Coach Busken: It is not an apology when you blame the victim. It is only an apology if you take full responsibility for your actions and show contrition. The "I'm sorry if you were hurt" language is not an apology.

Here in Florida, hazing is prohibited by the so-called Florida Hazing Law, which is Florida Statute 1006.63. The law, linked here, provides criminal penalties for hazing. It requires an anti-hazing policy and offers a broad definition of hazing:

Any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for purposes including, but not limited to, initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating under the sanction of a postsecondary institution.

Even though institutions are required to maintain an active anti-hazing policy, hazing still happens. Coaches and administrators have to be held responsible.

A baseball player has filed a lawsuit because the sun got in his eyes.

This lawsuit is a unique case, as far as I can tell. The elements are a fundamental part of baseball, which is why baseball players typically wear sunglasses if necessary. Nevertheless, I would stop far short of arguing that this lawsuit is frivolous on its face.

The Canadian amateur baseball player is suing the company that owns the ballpark because he believes it allegedly failed to put a sun screen in place. George Black was allegedly injured in 2004 when he was hit by a line drive. He is seeking $1.25 million in damages.

While Canadian tort law may differ from American law, the cause of action appears to be virtually identical, as the plaintiff is already trying to stave off the standard assumption of risk defense.

Norman F. Williams, lawyer for Mr. Black, said there is a general view that if you play baseball and get hurt, "you're the author of your own misfortune."

"It's wrong in this case because [Mr. Black] didn't assume all the risk. Dofasco assumed the risk, part of it if not all, by not putting up sun visors to protect him when they knew it was a danger not to do that," he said. "These are not professional ballplayers."

When should a coach have a written contract? If the coach is my client, the answer is "always." Sometimes, however, from the coach's perspective, he does better without a written deal.

For instance, consider the case of Mike Bellotti, the former Oregon athletic director who recently quit to work for ESPN. He is receiving $2.3 million in severance for quitting. Now reports have surfaced that he never had a written contract.

Oregon had no signed agreement when Bellotti, who was the Ducks' football coach for 14 seasons, took over as athletic director last July. Although previously the university said that terms with Bellotti were negotiated orally with Lariviere, Grier's letter said that was untrue.

This story will play out over the next few weeks and months, as the state authorities in Oregon are investigating. Nevertheless, it is a unique situation that bears watching for coaches and college officials who are let go. The key issue here is that the public is perceiving the employer and not the employee appears to be the so-called “bad guy.”

"This points out exactly what is wrong with executive pay and why there is so much outrage with this around the country," said Frank Glassner, chief executive of Veritas Executive Compensation Consultants in San Francisco. "It's a plain misuse of funds, whether they come from taxpayers or donors."

This statement is a bit of hyperbole, if you ask me. As an agent who represents players and coaches, I would advise them to have their contract in writing. But if they fail to get a written deal, and then they receive a so-called golden parachute anyway, it is not the player or the coach's fault.

Every couple of days I get inquiries from people asking about how to get a job in sports or in sports law. My advice is always to read this blog and about 25 other quality publications every day so you can learn as much as possible, and then try to get several internships while you are in college. Also, have realistic expectations about your career path. You need to start at the bottom, absorb as much as you can, try to carve out a niche for yourself and understand that personal and professional relationships are equally as important as your competence.

For a little more detail on how to get a job in sports, Dan Fitzgerald at Connecticut Sports Law Blog has posted a solid roundup of articles on breaking into the business. It is worthwhile for anyone interested in breaking into the sports business. SportsAgentBlog also has a terrific roundup for anyone looking specifically for an internship with a sports agency.

When a federal judge dismissed Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against Duke for kicking him off the golf team, you can be sure that other sports lawyers were paying close attention.

The judge agreed with the magistrate’s decision from last year that teams can set their own regulations for who does and does not play on the team. The bottom line is that the player probably was kicked off the team for performance or off-field reasons, and the decision to cut him was affirmed. It should probably go without saying that coaches can decide who plays on their team.

Still, the opinion seems to contain a small loophole that future players who try to sue can latch on to. I am not suggesting that most players who get cut can or should sue their school. Everyone knows that collegiate sports are about performance; if an athlete is not performing, he will not remain on the tam. However, the Giuliani opinion held that certain statements made by the coach who allegedly recruited Giuliani were not clear enough to constitute a binding legal contract. This may be the key point in the opinion because if a player in a future lawsuit can prove that certain statements and promises were made to him, then he might have a stronger case than Guiliani. The key, as always, is in proving that the statements were made, in addition to proving that they were binding.

It’s baseball season, so that means we need to talk about metal bat injuries once again. In the San Francisco Bay Area, a 16-year-old high school baseball player was in critical condition after being hit in the head by a line drive in a practice.

From the article:

Gunnar Sandberg, 16, a student at Marin Catholic High School, remained in critical condition Tuesday at Marin General Hospital, said hospital spokeswoman Kathie Graham. He was removed from a medically induced coma on Friday and underwent a brain scan Monday after doctors “didn’t like what they saw,” said school principal Chris Valdez.

Not surprisingly, the article also points to “renewed concerns about the safety of metal baseball bats” and mentions the Brandon Patch verdict in which the parents of a high school player in Montana were awarded $800,000 after the player was killed by a metal bat from a game.

We have blogged about the safety of metal bats before. This blog entry about a league switching back to wood bats in fact drew the most calls and e-mails from readers. What seems a little unusual about this particular situation is that the school, Marin Catholic, immediately chose to switch to wooden bats for the rest of the season. Is this a wise decision? It probably cannot be quantified in terms of safety – if no one else is critically injured throughout the rest of the season does not mean that the wood bats are automatically safer or that the decision was warranted. At the same time, it does not mean the decision was a poor one either.

Still, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association is taking an aggressive stance, this time choosing to criticize the school for switching to wood bats. As an attorney who represents and advises businesses (in addition to representing individuals), I can understand why the SGMA would need to insist on the metal bat’s safety. It would no doubt be bad for business if the group acknowledged that metal bats raise concern, right? Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association would probably be better served by offering sympathy to the injured child and his family, and would probably be wise to avoid criticizing the school for its decision to switch to wood bats.

It’s a story we have heard repeated again and again – a mortgage firm catering to pro athletes is in the news and a number of athletes have lost a significant sum of money.

This time the news comes from the Houston Area, where a company called Pro Style Financial apparently invested money on behalf of numerous NFL players, among others. From the article:

McCray joins Italian basketball professional Henry Domercant, former Denver Bronco A. Kyle Johnson, and Dallas Cowboy Jeremiah "Jay" Ratliff as alleged victims — all of whom invested in the trust through their financial agent Pro Style Financial, a financial advisory firm that works with a variety of professional athletes and is the subject of an adversarial lawsuit by Trustee Steven Notinger who is trying to identify and regain some of the assets of the failed mortgage company.

This is yet another cautionary tale. I hate to sound like a preacher, but if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Just because you’re a professional athlete making millions of dollars a year does not necessarily mean that you have access to investments which work miracles. That’s why pro athletes should always have someone double check and verify the credentials of those with whom they are investing. It is not foolproof, but having a sports lawyer on retainer to conduct due diligence on potential investment opportunities is always a good idea.

Remember when two employees of the Dallas Cowboys were severely injured last year when the team’s practice facility fell apart in a storm? It looks like the lawsuit over who will be held liable is starting to take a turn for the worse.

According to this article, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have alleged that the team knew about the facility’s potential danger of collapsing, but ignored the warnings.

Two summers before the Dallas Cowboys' practice facility collapsed, team officials were scrambling to deal with warnings that the massive tentlike structure was unsafe. Speed was of the essence, given concerns expressed by a building-collapse expert the team had hired and the fact that training camp was starting soon.

The article also makes it sound as though the Cowboys are portraying the plaintiffs as greedy in light of their settlement demand. Any way you view this story, the fact that assistant scout Rich Behm is permanently paralyzed and assistant coach Joe DeCamillis remains injured is a tragedy.

As a sports lawyer, it is also interesting to note that the Cowboys are seeking indemnification from the parties which built the facility. The article is unclear if a separate lawsuit was filed, but if would probably make the plaintiffs' lawyer's job easier if they no longer had to point to an empty chair as a possible responsible party.

We have blogged previously about the safety of sports equipment (such as mouthguards and baseball bats (here and here). Now it is time to take note of a lawsuit underway in Canada regarding the safety of hockey helmets.

The parents of a youth hockey player are suing helmet maker Bauer Hockey Corp, alleging that the helmet did not adequately protect the player against injuries. The article describes Darren More’s injury in this way after crashing into the boards following a hip check:

He was in a coma for six weeks, and remained in hospital four a total of four months. Darren’s injuries included a subdural hematoma, brain swelling and hypoxia.

Darren was unable to graduate high school and cannot seem to function in the manner that he did before the injury.

It is interesting that the plaintiffs have also sued the Canadian Standards Association, which certifies helmets for use. Whether Darren was injured because his helmet was faultily constructed helmet or by a freak accident, here is hoping that this lawsuit resolves the issue and compensates the family if the helmet maker or standards board was derelict in its duties. While Darren's situation is nothing short of tragic, if it leads to changes in the way helmets are designed, it would be a positive legacy for the future

A television broadcaster is suing Anaheim Ducks General Manager Bob Murray for assault and battery, accusing the GM of being emotionally unstable, having a “propensity to violence” and showing a “history of aggressive and violent behavior.”

Rachel Paris was apparently hit by a chair thrown by Murray during the Stanley Cup Playoffs while the Ducks were playing the Red Wings in Detroit last May. She was involved in coordinating the broadcast, which meant that she was sitting close by Murray. She filed a lawsuit against Murray and his employer for her injuries.

The interesting thing about this lawsuit is not that it also names the Ducks as a defendant, but it is the legal theory asserted against the team. Count III of the lawsuit accuses the hockey team of negligence. The allegations made in the complaint are extreme. First, the plaintiff alleges that the Ducks had a duty to ensure that their employees were “reasonably and emotionally stable.” Second, they had a duty to ensure that their employees “did not have a propensity to violence” and that their employees “with a history of aggressive and violent behavior were properly supervised.” Next, they are alleged to have violated their duty to “have known of the propensity of violence” of Murray and to have known about “Bob Murray’s violent and aggressive nature.”

The assault and battery counts are not necessarily surprising. Even the intentional infliction of emotional distress count is not surprising. These are standard allegations in such a lawsuit. Bringing a negligence claim also is not a big shock, but the surprise is that the plaintiff has apparently set an enormous hurdle to prove negligence. She will have to prove Bob Murray’s emotional instability; show his “propensity of violence” and prove that he had a “history of aggressive and violent behavior.”

I do not know if Murray has a temper or a violent history. He spent 15 years playing for the Chicago Blackhawks, so we can assume he got into a few fights over the years, but that is not an apt comparison. As a lawyer I think it may have made more sense to allege simple negligence against Murray himself rather than making such extreme allegations against the team. Having to prove his history of violence will probably not be an easy task.

A New Jersey Court has ruled in favor of a minor league baseball team in a lawsuit brought by a fan who was injured while participating in a three-legged race.

Daniel Duncan, who weighed about 340 pounds at the time of the injury, was at a Somerset Patriots game with his wife and son on August 5, 2006. He registered for one of the between-innings promotions and his name was called. At the registration area, team employees answered fan questions about the events, but Duncan chose not to ask anyone about the three-legged race, which the team called the “Monmouth Park Horse Race.”

Duncan thought he was participating in a race in which the fans carried flags around the field in a pretend “race.” That’s how the race used to be run. Instead, he was actually signed up for a three-legged race, which was the format since the start of the 2006 season.

When Duncan and the others got down to field level, a team staffer explained the race details and asked if there were any questions. Again, Duncan, apparently now aware that the race was not what he thought, did not ask questions and did not back out of participation. Obviously, he was not coerced into participating.

To make a long story short, Duncan slipped and hurt his foot after being paired with someone who was about half his weight. The grass was dry, although everyone acknowledged that the groundskeeper sprayed the field before the game. No one else fell.

The court’s analysis turned on the issue of the duty owed by the team to the fan, who was an “invitee” meaning he was invited onto the premises. In lay terms, it is similar to the duty you owe to someone who you invite into your house – you have to generally make sure that the house is safe from any foreseeable injuries. The court found that the team could not be liable because the plaintiff could not claim ignorance as to the risks:

Any risks inherent in a three-legged race were not something known to the proprietor but unknown to the participant. … Further, walking or running on grass is a common experience, and the risk of doing so with any particular kind of footwear is known equally by the participant and the property owner.

It sounds to me like the team did everything right. Had Duncan been chosen at random and if the race’s details were not explained, or if the ground had been soaked, the decision may have gone the other way.

John Daly had an interesting week after learning that he lost his libel lawsuit against a Jacksonville newspaper. Then things really got interesting.

On Tuesday, his lawsuit against the Jacksonville Times-Union newspaper came to an end when the judge granted summary judgment for the newspaper. The court found that there was no “actual malice” and that the offending column contained inactionable opinion statements by columnist Mike Freeman.

Daly had attacked three phrases in the column, which described his troubled personal life in unflattering terms. The objectionable portions included mention of domestic-violence accusations, comparison to basketball player Shawn Kemp because of his children from different women and discussion of Daly’s “Thug Life qualifications” and “rap sheet.” Freeman compared him to former Jaguar R. Jay Soward, who had a well-known drug problem. Carithers found the domestic-violence portion of the column was true. The comparisons to Kemp and Soward and the Thug Life statement weren’t actionable because they were the columnist’s opinion, the judge said.

Next, Daly allegedly Tweeted about the story, asking his fans to call and criticize the newspaper reporter.

Daly late Tuesday night posted the cell phone number of the Times-Union’s Garry Smits on two of his three Twitter posts, writing in one of them, “here’s the JERK who writes NON-NEWS article ... CALL & FLOOD his line & let’s tell him how we feel.” Smits said he received nearly 100 calls.

That is an interesting reaction to losing a lawsuit. Now the Golf Writers Association of American has asked the PGA Tour to suspend Daly for his conduct. Somehow, I doubt Daly would be too upset given his immense popularity despite his golf game, which has been middling at best since his last victory in 2004.

Sports agents can be easy targets sometimes, because the bad apples in the industry get an undue amount of attention. Sometimes, however, people go too far in impugning sports agent.

See if you can follow this saga of a potential problem with a sports agency. A major league ballplayer fires his agent. The cops are investigating a former employee of the agency for stealing money from the player. Somehow, a sports writer links this alleged theft with an entirely separate lawsuit filed against this sports agency.

Got all that? Me neither. Let’s see if we can sort out this scenario and figure out the preposterous implication made by this sports writer, a former lawyer who usually does outstanding work in my opinion. Last month, Angels first baseman Kendry Morales fired Hendricks Sports Management. Last week, the news was reported that an employee of Hendricks is being investigated by Coral Springs police for the disappearance of more than $300,000 from Morales’ bank account. Sounds like a fiasco, right? Clearly, the authorities will sort out whether money was stolen, and if it was, the responsible parties will face criminal charges.

The next part is what makes no sense. In December, heralded Cuban prospect Aroldis Chapman switched agents from a relative unknown to Hendricks. He then signed a 10-year, $30.25 million contract with the Cincinnati Reds. His former agent, the relatively unknown Athletes Premier International, sued Hendricks as a result of Chapman’s switch. Somehow, the writer links Chapman's choice to retain Hendricks with the alleged criminal actions by a Hendricks employee.

I cannot figure out what the alleged criminal activity by the apparently rogue employee has to do with Chapman’s switch. A Hendricks employee allegedly stole money from a client. A player switched from another agent to Hendricks, spurring a lawsuit from the old agent. How are these things an indication that a player should not sign with Hendricks. The Hendricks brothers have been around for decades so they do not need this blog to defend them, but it seems to me that their name is being unnecessarily dragged through the mud.

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.

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.

Here is an interesting perspective from a blogger who analyzed the Gilbert Arenas situation from a different angle. The blogger, Jordi Scrubbings, suggests that time is ripe for the National Rifle Association to take advantage of the situation and work with sports leagues and teams to educate them about gun ownership.

If possible, the NRA should teach courses not only to active players now, but also as part of the indoctrination seminars leagues have for new players – where players are warned about groupies, instructed on finances, taught how to talk to the media, etc. This would lay the groundwork for a change in behavior. If the players opt not to own a gun, that’s their choice. But for those that do chose to own and carry, at least they are instructed the right way.

While I will refrain from giving my political opinions about the NRA, I have to admit that the idea makes sense on some level. Rather than trying to ban pro athletes from owning weapons, why not teach them to use their weapons safely? As a sports agent, I would not advise my players on whether or not to carry weapons. I would, however, want them to use their guns safely if they chose to arm themselves.

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — On Jan. 29 sports agents, litigators, salary cap analyst and sports law students will huddle up at the University of Florida Levin College of Law to get ready for a whole new ball game.

In the next two years, time will expire on the Collective Bargaining Agreements affecting the negotiation of salaries and playing conditions for professional athletes. The 2010 UF Sports Law Symposium, “Discussion: Bargaining Collectively,” presented by UF’s Entertainment & Sports Law Society, will bring together sports law experts and representatives from the National Football League, National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball to discuss why CBA’s exist, how they help players and owners, and to identify contract terms that will likely be argued before the agreement expires. The free event, set to kick off at 11 a.m. at UF Law’s Chesterfield Smith Ceremonial Classroom 180, will offer CLE credits.

“The 2010 UF Sports Law Symposium will be an excellent forum for students, athletes, professors and others interested in sports law to network and learn from the brightest minds in sports law,” said Darren Heitner, president of UF Entertainment & Sports Law Society.

The keynote speaker for this year’s symposium will be Harvey W. Schiller, Ph.D., who has served as president of the International Baseball Federation since 2007 and is also chairman of the board and CEO of GlobalOptions Group, a multidisciplinary international risk management and business solutions company located in New York. Prior to joining GlobalOptions in 1994, Schiller held posts at Turner Broadcasting System, served as the executive director/secretary general of the United States Olympic Committee and was the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference.

Continue reading "UF Sports Law Symposium to Examine Legal Playbook as Collective Bargaining Agreements Expire " »

The sports agent sponsorship scam which recently came to light in England illustrates yet again why all athletes should consult their sports lawyer before handing over their hard earned money.

In the latest scam, a British sports marketing agency asked for money up front from athletes in exchange for the promise of procuring endorsements. Even Andrew Steele, one of the athletes who was ripped off, acknowledged that he thought being forced to pay upfront was a red flag:

“I asked: 'why does it have to be up front, why can't I give it once the sponsorship has been secured?' They said that if the money didn't materialise then I would get a refund, so I thought I'd go for it.

Steele said his fears were lessened because the agent employed several prominent former athletes. This seems to be a common practice among sports marketing agents who are operating scams. They pay athletes to recruit other athletes. Because pro athletes tend to stick together, they feel better when one of their own is on board.

The bottom line here is that any time a sports agent request money up front, the athlete should run quickly in the opposite direction. While there may be certain hourly and flat-fee arrangement for certain types of sports agency duties, this type scenario is rare, and should only be entered into cautiously and with someone trustworthy. When in doubt, the athlete should consult a sports lawyer.

Here is a public relations disaster in waiting. According to this report, the NCAA may soon be testing for sickle cell:

As part of a settlement the NCAA agreed to recommend that all universities and colleges offer athletes screening for the sickle cell trait. And Rice University will propose a bylaw at the association’s annual meeting to make that mandatory. Currently, 64 percent of colleges screen for the sickle cell trait.

This sounds like a ripe sports law action the first time an athlete is excluded from competition because of this testing, at least based on rudimentary data regarding the prevalence of the trait in African Americans over those of other races. While I will not pretend to be an expert on genetics, it seems that this potential regulation may be taking things a little too far. If anything, I think it would lead to an increase in certain types of waivers of liability. In other words, schools would probably not be able to ban athletes from competing, but if the student-athlete is identified as possessing the trait, he would have to acknowledge its existence, and hold the institution harmless.

There is also an argument about the “slippery slope” which says that once institutions start testing for one trait, what is to stop them from testing for dozens of other specific characteristics and “discriminating” on that basis? I do not envision that the sickle cell testing would lead to this slippery slope, but this is a sports law trend that is worth keeping an eye on.

When a judge in Athens-Clarke County dismissed the sports lawsuit brought by former Georgia Bulldog Decory Bryant, the matter was mostly decided on what laypersons might describe as a technicality.

The court ruled that the Georgia Athletic Association is an arm of the state and therefore entitled to protection under the sovereign immunity doctrine. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable ruling, right? Bryant sued his athletic department for failing to procure insurance, and the court ruled that the athletic department is a government entity, and therefore protected from certain types of lawsuits.

Further investigation reveals that it is not quite this simple. The GAA is a non-profit organization. This means that it is not a division of the University of Georgia in the way that, for example, the school’s physics department might be fully encompassed within the institution.

Universities generally form non-profits such as the GAA so that they can evade the usual restrictions faced by public institutions. For instance, in some states, government employees have their salaries restricted by statute. The way to get around that restriction for coaches is to make the coaches employed by the non-profit, and not the state institution.

This means that the GAA is trying to have it both ways. They want to be a separate entity from the University of Georgia with the protections of a private non-profit, but they also want sovereign immunity, which is only available to government entities. It sounds to me like Decory Bryant’s lawyers will be appealing to a higher authority.

If Gilbert Arenas had a sports agent, would his legal problems be viewed as less serious? Arenas allegedly got into it with Washington Wizards teammate Javaris Crittenton. This dispute is far more serious than the average teammate-on-teammate spat because Arenas is being investigated by police for apparently threatening Crittenton with a gun.

Mike Jones, a former Washington Times sports writer, writes in his blog that Arenas “doesn’t have an agent boldly proclaiming a positive outcome for him, partly because he has no agent.” This comes on the heels of Crittenton’s agent making this statement:

“I’m confident my client hasn’t done anything wrong,” Bartelstein said. “The fact will bear that out. It’s unfortunate that rumors get going and inaccuracies come out before the facts are known, but all we can do is wait for the investigation to conclude.… Javaris will be exonerated of any wrong doing.”

Bartelstein is doing the right thing by his client. It is his job to make such statements and to believe in his client. If Arenas had an agent, he would undoubtedly issue similar statements. Still, I have my doubts that the agent’s statements would be too helpful in the investigation by law enforcement.

For precedent, see the Plaxico Burress situation. His agent, Drew Rosenhaus, was optimistic in his predictions. Rosenhaus is as talented and aggressive a sports agent as anyone in the business, but even he could not keep his client out of prison. Sometimes the agent has to fulfill his obligation to speak positively and defend his client, even when he knows there are higher powers, such as the law, that will be the final arbiter of his client's future.

The sports media and sports business world was in a frenzy recently over the upcoming launch of TMZSports, a gossip site apparently to be devoted entirely to athletes rather than entertainers. TMZ is already an established media brand and is one of the world's most heavily trafficked web sites, and it earned $40 million in ad revenue over the past two years.

While pundits have weighed in on what this means for sports media, no one has yet discussed what this means for professional athletes and the people who help manage their careers such as sports agents and sports lawyers.

My take is that it while it seems scary - because TMZ habitually pays people for tantalizing photos - it is not something that should scare athletes. Any athlete with a brain already knows that even a minor transgression is in danger of being captured by a cell phone camera and posted online within seconds. The reason that athletes need not be worried is that as Shanoff writes in the first link that I posted above, the general public does not care about the private lives of its sports idols. There are, of course, obvious exceptions, such as the Tiger Woods story. The bottom line is that it’s one more thing for athletes and their agents to monitor, but athletes need not be worried because of a new gossip web site, even if the site is already branded as one of the world's most popular.

To think that the paparazzi will suddenly be parked outside of NFL practice facilities and following offensive linemen around town on their nights out is an over-exaggeration. The TMZ culture of celebrity worship is a phenomenon which has been ongoing for more than a century; entertainers have always been the target of obsession. Only the elite of the elite professional athletes, on the other hand, have been treated as celebrity objects. I predict TMZ's venture will be a non-factor within a year of its launch.

If you are a college football coach and you have a sports agent, you are undoubtedly hoping that college coaching salaries continue to escalate. Unfortunately for the coach and sports agent, I think too many factors are working to force salaries into a downward trend.

In major college sports, it turns out that the entire “game” is deemed a not-for-profit. A recently published report about the University of Texas explains how college sports are considered to be big business, but still remain tax free:

Over the years, the NCAA and other college sports supporters have convinced the Internal Revenue Service that athletics are a genuine part of the educational experience. Yet big college athletic programs also have become more business-minded as their costs have risen. On average, the Congressional Budget Office found that about two-thirds of the athletics revenue at large universities comes from activities such as sales of tickets, TV rights, advertising and merchandise that would be taxed if the schools were ordinary businesses.

The uproar has resulted as people have realized that college sports may be getting a free ride. While changes in this realm may not necessarily impact professional athletes right away, it could result in lesser salaries for coaches as college sports programs are forced to start paying more tax. As head coach salaries have escalated, I have always thought that the market was due for a correction at some point in the coming decade. This movement to potentially strip college sports programs of their non-profit status is yet another sign that coaching salaries will eventually come back down to earth.

As a sports lawyer, my job is to represent my athlete clients in lawsuits. However, there are times when filing a lawsuit is not in the client’s best long-term interests, and it is my job to advise the client of this.

Take the recent ruling in the Reggie Bush lawsuit. Bush was sued by a former investor, and Bush asked the court to move the case to arbitration. One reason that parties to a lawsuit often seek to avoid the court system, is that they want to avoid the publicity that comes hand-in-hand with legal matters. All court documents are considered public material, which means that anyone – blogs, reporters, fans, etc. – can get their hands on the documents. In arbitration, on the other hand, there is no particular obligation to make the material public. Arbitration pleadings are not filed at the courthouse, as arbitration is a private matter.

In Bush’s case, his advisers do not want the NCAA to get their hands on deposition transcripts. If the NCAA reviews the depositions and finds grounds to bolster their already ongoing investigation, that could be bad news. The article says that Bush’s lawyers will now seek summary judgment. If they lose, you can bet that their will be a settlement so that Bush’s testimony does not see the light of day.

This case proves that there are always valid reasons not to sue, even when the athlete thinks a lawsuit is the best course of action.

A class action sports lawsuit filed against Slippery Rock University was recently settled when the school agreed to make additional improvements. The women sued three years ago after the school eliminated eight sports, including three women’s sports. The lawsuit settled in 2007, but remains in the news.

The athletes this year were forced to ask the court to reopen the lawsuit because of alleged “disparities” in women’s facilities:

"There was a huge, huge discrepancy between this amazing stadium the boys played baseball in and this rutted field the girls played softball on," said Abbe Fletman, one of the attorneys who represented the female students.

Finally, the school has relented and agreed to upgrade its facilities and make a few additional changes. In my opinion, the allegation of the school being “deeply hostile to women athletes” makes it sound like the school has a long way to go before the situation is fully and finally resolved beyond the cosmetic and tangible changes.

One of the most popular sports law questions asked by rookie pro athletes who are not used to be in the news is whether they can sue for libel? We have covered the basis for libel in a couple of previous blog posts.

While sports lawyers are not all-knowing, if an attorney advises you that you do not have a case, sometimes it is wise to take the lawyer’s advice. Consider the case of Kevin Millen, a former Georgetown basketball player who sued the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper alleging libel. He acted pro se, which means that he was his own attorney. I assume he proceeded on his own after his attorney either dropped out or after he could not find a lawyer to take his case.

Not surprisingly, his hand-written complaint was rejected. Surprisingly, he made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which recently denied certiorari:

The court said Millen had "repeatedly abused this court's process," and directed the court's clerk not to accept any further petitions from him in non-criminal matters.

People who feel that they have been unfairly criticized have a difficult time believing that certain media institutions are not actually out to get them. They also misapprehend the strength of this country’s freedom of the press, which everyone knows is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Sometimes it is best to just let things go.

Here’s a strange sports lawsuit that is sure to gain attention as the story picks up steam. A high school softball player in New York City is suing the city, her school and her coach, claiming that she injured her ankle because the coach failed to teach her how to slide.

Fifteen-year-old Alina Cerda, a freshman third baseman, alleges that she broke her ankle last season during softball practice. The basis of the lawsuit seems to be an allegation of negligent supervision:

Alina's lawyer, Clay Evall, says Brown wasn't supervising the sliding drill but had some of the team's veteran players teaching the new girls how to do it.

"He wasn't instructing them whatsoever," Evall said. "He told her to watch the older girls do it."

I can understand the plaintiff's misery here but I have to wonder about the extent of her damages. I realize she is in pain and she missed her entire freshman season and still has not fully recovered. But it’s December and she has several months until next season. Also, the school district's health insurance plan covered her medical costs, right? It’s doubtful that she is claiming damages from lost future earnings, as softball players do not have any earning prospects. I guess she may be claiming a lost chance at a college scholarship but that seems like a stretch. Without any damages to speak of, it seems unlikely to me that she will prevail even if the coach was found to have been negligent in his supervision.

The widely reported lawsuit against Hall of Famer Joe Namath in which a delivery driver alleges that the former quarterback’s dog bit him, has garnered substantial attention and is sure to snowball among the sports world.

The facts are straightforward. The driver alleges that he was attacked while making a deliver. As a result of the attack, the driver alleges substantial medical damages and in inability to work.

Just last month, his yellow Labrador retriever Leo was declared to be dangerous:

As a dangerous dog, Leo must now be muzzled and leashed even on Namath's property. It must have a microchip implanted and carry a special "dangerous" dog designation tag. Namath must also now post signs on his property warning of the dog's presence.

The alleged incident raised this week happened two years ago, before Leo was declared dangerous. In other words, the dog was not legally dangerous at the time of the bite, but was subsequently adjudicated dangerous. It remains to be seen how the later-designation as dangerous will impact this case moving forward.

If you have ever wondered whether a professional athlete’s endorsement of a product produces measurable results, check out this unusual sports law controversy in Japan. Consumers are suing a purified water company because it falsely used Seattle Mariners star Ichiro’s likeness even though Ichiro does not use the product.

One of the comments from a plaintiff is startling:

In his lawsuit, the man claims that he trusted the company because he was told that Seattle Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki regularly drinks the company's water and that it was a sponsor of the Beijing Olympics and the football World Cup."

It’s not uncommon for an athlete to sue a company which falsely uses his likeness. I have never seen a case such as this one, in which consumers believe they were duped by a false endorsement. A closer review of the article reveals that only part of the lawsuit is about Ichiro's allegedly false endorsement; a rogue investor may have hyped the company, thereby inducing investors to lose large amounts of money. Still, I think this lawsuit speaks to the power of professional athlete branding - if a business is linked with the right athlete, the public will buy the product.

When Aroldis Chapman’s former sports agent sued his new agent this week, the lawsuit threatened to put the entire system of sports law and sports agent representation on trial. I mean this in a literal and figurative sense – the unsavory practices of the business of sports agents may be brought to light publicly, as well as in the courtroom.

The facts of the lawsuit are undisputed. Chapman, a recent Cuban defector who is considered a sure-fire superstar, signed with Athletes Premier International and Edwin Mejia after his defection. He became disenchanted, and subsequently signed with a more established agency, Hendricks Sports Management. So API and Mejia sued Hendricks, alleging tortious interference with their business relationship and also unjust enrichment.

This article from the Associated Press contains a hint that if this matter goes all the way to trial and up the chain of appellate courts in Massachusetts, the entire realm of player representation could be on trial:

Stealing clients is a longtime and lucrative practice among some sports agents, who can earn up to 5 percent of salaries reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is probably an accurate statement that most people who aren’t in the sports law or sports agent business don’t understand or don’t realize. A former college baseball teammate of mine who is now a high-ranking executive in the front office of an American League team told me that it happens every day in baseball and he has never seen such a switch result in litigation. Sports law experts apparently agree, as the article notes:

"Generally speaking, players can change agents at their discretion," said Michael McCann, a sports law professor at the Vermont Law School. "There is certainly evidence of agents poaching clients (in cases) that don't result in litigation. Maybe it's unethical; maybe it's wrong; but it happens."

In most industries, if you sign a contract, you are bound by the contract. As we blogged earlier, it’s not always that way among college coaches. Still, that does not mean that an athlete, coach or even an agent should give up his right to pursue justice because standard business practice in his industry involves breaching contract. While the industry may view contracts as not worth the paper they are printed on, courts will often see things differently. Anyone who thinks he has suffered damages from a breached contract or because a competitor has interfered with his work should consult a qualified sports lawyer for legal advice.

When a Hennepin County judge threw out all but one of the claims against Minnesota basketball coach Tubby Smith in the lawsuit brought by a former assistant coach, it seemed as though two worlds collided.

In one universe, we have head coaches who regularly break existing contracts to jump from one school to the next. As Dan Fitzgerald wrote recently in his comprehensive roundup of the issue on the blog Connecticut Sports Law, college football effectively has a free agent system for head coaches, in which coaches can come and go as they please.

In the other world, we have assistant coaches, who have to make life-altering decisions based on the word of head coaches. In the Smith lawsuit, former assistant coach Jimmy Williams sued because he thought Smith had offered him a job coaching the Gophers. Smith left his job at Oklahoma State and sold his Oklahoma home in what he says was reliance on Smith’s verbal statements. Smith did not get the job at Minnesota because Smith’s boss nixed the decision. The reasons for the veto remain unclear. Williams, a former Gophers player, was apparently thought to be contaminated by his association with scandal-plagued Gophers teams of the 1970s and 80s.

So college head coaches can come and go as they please. College assistant coaches have to rely on promises made by head coaches and by no means can they come and go as they please. In fact, the judge held that Williams intentionally breached his own contract when he left Oklahoma State in reliance on Smith’s alleged promise:

The judge wrote that she granted dismissal on the count of interference with contract because Williams consciously and voluntarily breached his contract with Oklahoma State. She wrote that she dismissed the claim of withdrawn promise -- a legal theory called ``promissory estoppel" -- because the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of that identical claim against the university and Maturi on the grounds that litigating that claim would illegally intrude on the university's hiring decisions.

The only remaining claims against Smith are negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The judge was wise to strike the punitive damages claim because there does not seem to be the required element of malice for such a claim.

When Congress convened a hearing this week to consider whether the BCS National Championship game is a legitimate determination of the college football national championship, fans’ collective eyes must have rolled.

While the BCS is biased, this quote sums up my reaction:

"With everything going on in the country, I can't believe that Congress is wasting time and spending taxpayers' money on football," Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, said in a phone interview with The Associated Press. "We feel strongly that managing of college sports is best left to the people in higher education."

The committee did not see things my way. The bill passed the committee, although this is the type of dog and pony show that will never see passage by he full House. In the unlikely event of passage, the bill is guaranteed to trigger a major legal challenge.

If a sports agent gets into trouble, rest assured that his alleged sports agent problems will follow him for the rest of his life.

For instance, consider the case of Robert Caron, an Illinois lawyer who was formerly a sports agent. Almost 15 years ago, several USC football players were suspended for taking gifts from Caron’s sports agency. Now, Caron is in legal trouble (and has terminal brain cancer), and is facing even more charges.

What this illustrates to me is that sports agents, many of whom are governed by no code of ethics or morals, can be held accountable for their actions even when said actions happened in what appears to be another era. I think this is a good thing. Without a code of conduct for sports agents, such as the Rules of Professional Responsibility, which lawyers are required to adhere to, if the Internet is the only thing that holds people accountable – when reporters drag up old ethical violations – maybe more sports agents will think twice before undertaking ethical problems.

Here is a roundup of recent developments regarding concussions in football.

First, La Salle University settled a concussion brain injury lawsuit for $7.5 million with former football player Preston Pelvretes, who was allegedly injured in a 2005 game. As usual with these types of lawsuits, the in-game concussion was apparently the second concussion that Pelvretes suffered in a month. Everyone knows that concussions have a cumulative impact on the brain, making it critical for coaches and trainers to do the right thing when the player suffers the first concussion.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Only in the past one to two years has there been the kind of attention placed on this matter necessary to force schools, colleges and the NFL to actually adhere to the well-promulgated and common-sense standards of the medical profession,” Shanin Specter, a lawyer for the Plevretes family, told The Associated Press.

Continue reading "Sports Law and Concussion Roundup" »

If college football players are paid, as some hope will happen eventually, surely they will need sports agents, right?

This article notes that famed athlete-broker Sonny Vaccaro is traveling the nation trying to convince the future generation of American leaders that college athletes should be paid.

Unfortunately, as with most schemes dreamed up by Vaccaro, the concept may be sound in theory, but sorely lacking in details and in practicality.

Here are two of the biggest problems with the scheme. First, you would not know how to choose which players get paid and it would be impossible to create an equitable system. Second, when some players are paid, the ones who don’t get paid will inevitably fall by the wayside, leading to dramatically scaled back athletic departments and lost sports:

How do you choose how players are paid? Are they all paid the same?” McCann said. “Do you have a tiered system based sort of like a market? Then you can be creating stars who get paid a lot of money. I could see why some people find that inconsistent with college model of amateurism.

“(If revenue-producing athletes were paid) colleges would start cutting sports considerably. You would start seeing reduction in the size of athletic departments…. Particularly male team sports that are expensive and don’t generate a lot of revenue.”

The residual economy which would inevitably emerge if high schoolers could be sold to the highest bidders as free agents might sound like a good business practice for sports agents looking to expand their clientele, but in the big picture, this seems like a sure-fire disaster. Can you imagine the chaos which would emerge if high school athletes planning on attending college needed agents? The only benefit that I see is that this may force the federal government to step in and create a uniform agent registration process so that agents need not face the same process in all 50 states.

We just wanted to pass along this brief recap of the sports law settlement reached between Marquette University Basketball Coach Buzz Williams and his former employer, the University of New Orleans.

Williams left UNO after only one season so he could become an assistant at Marquette. His lawsuit provided an extremely critical narrative of basketball conditions at UNO:

Williams said in his suit against the school that he "quickly learned that UNO was either unwilling or unable to provide even the basic necessities for a competitive men's collegiate basketball program."

The allegations included charges that players were not given meal money on a timely basis, or "there was insufficient meal money to cover the players for the entire first semester," the suit said.

Now that the lawsuit has settled, the matter is closed, and neither side will apparently divulge the terms of the deal. The unfortunate aspect of settling this case from a public policy standpoint is that we will never know whether Williams made these allegations in a self-serving effort to evade his contract or whether they are truthful.

Sports Agent Lawyer Blog was recently quoted in an article in San Diego City Beat about the energy drink sports endorsement market.

While I have no knowledge of any of the principals involved in the story or the legal proceedings, I was asked to comment by the reporter about the agent’s purported practice of taking a direct commission from the energy drink company when he linked his athletes to the company.

The article calls it a “questionable double-dipping practice.” Here is how it works: The agent has a business relationship with a sponsor. The agent also has athlete clients who need sports endorsements. Naturally, the agent links the athlete and sponsor together and everyone is happy. The questionable practice is that the agent not only takes a commission from the athlete – all marketing agents take a commission when they procure endorsements – but he is also paid by the company.

Here is my quote about the practice:

Attorney Jason Wolf, who blogs about these issues at Sportsagentlawer.com, said this double-dipping isn’t illegal.

“It’s not common, but it’s also not uncommon,” Wolf said. “It’s not unethical, but it raises some questions as to whether the agent is in it for himself or has his clients’ best interest in mind. It makes me raise maybe one eyebrow instead of two.”

The reason this raises questions is that the agent is supposed to have his client’s best interests in mind. This practice is not proof that the agent is failing to meet his fiduciary duty, but it definitely raises questions. I also suggested that perhaps one reason that the practice is not unethical is that there is no uniform code of ethics governing sports agents, and no enforcement of such regulations. Without a code of ethics, how can conduct be deemed to be in violation of the ethical regulations?

Track superstar Sanya Richards has weighed in with her take on sports agents, and she does not portray sports agents in a flattering light.

Richards notes that she is being sued by her own agent, although she provides no details on the lawsuit:

I am currently being sued by an agent, someone I once had a great deal of respect for. I speak out not just for myself but for so many athletes, in track and field, that have been in similar situations and for the athletes to come!!!

She also makes a crucial point about the USATF agent certification process, namely referring to the lack of regulation by the sport’s governing body. She apparently had a negative experience with her agent:

Now why would someone that got me a deal, that I would have gotten with or without them, believe that they should be paid beyond the time they worked for me?

It blows my mind that these kinds of people exist. People that want to watch you work as hard as you can and then take it away.

In my opinion, the USATF agent certification process leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason that track athletes and track agents are on the verge of war with one another. The athletes come and go, but the agents are always there. As a result, they wield an extraordinary amount of power in the sports. I hope that someone such as Sanya Richards, who had the courage to put her name out there with this blog post, can start a drive to revamp the process and reform the sport.

Here is a story which is important for sports lawyers to monitor in light of the recent Louisville Slugger baseball bat verdict. A Massachusetts youth baseball league has decided to return to using metal bats after an eight-year run of using only wood bats.

The father of the child who was severely injured by a ball hit off a metal bat was shocked and angered by the move:

“[Aluminum] bats hit the ball harder, so those kids are in greater peril,’’ said Richard Hughto, an environmental consultant from Wellesley. “They’re deciding to put some kids in danger so some kids can get more hits . . . [With aluminum bats,] players will hit the ball more often and the good hitters will hit it that much harder’’ toward the pitcher’s mound, which is 46 feet from home plate as opposed to 60.5 feet from home in professional baseball.

The safety of baseball equipment is an issue which Sports Agent Lawyer Blog will continue to monitor, as it heavily impacts the field of sports law.

Many people, including professional athletes, believe that sports law is a glamorous field in which sports lawyers work side-by-side with professional athletes. While this can be true, sports law more often involves lawyers representing athletes in run-of-the-mill practice areas.

The legal proceedings of NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield are a prime example. Mayfield, who allegedly had drug problems which led to his suspension, is in the midst of a heavy court battle. Mayfield is trying to obtain data from the former wife of NASCAR’s chairman Brian France. Now NASCAR has interjected itself to try and stop the disclosure.

While this article does not provide extensive detail, it sums up the situation concisely:

The Frances were divorced in April 2008, and Brian France sued his ex-wife in North Carolina Superior Court in September of that year. All documents relating to that case were sealed in December.

"They are attempting to improperly bring private, irrelevant information concerning Mr. France's domestic relations into this litigation as a means of retaliation," NASCAR claimed in its filing.

Following up on our recent blog post about sports libel lawsuits, we have news of a libel lawsuit filed by sprinter Donovan Bailey against a Swedish newspaper.

As a disclaimer, I have to tell you that I have no particular knowledge of Swedish libel law. The article does not go into detail regarding the standard that must be shown to win a libel case, which is critical to understand in a libel lawsuit. In other words, we do not know whether Bailey has to prove “actual malice” by the newspaper in order to bring his claim. We do know that Bailey’s primary goal is to salvage his reputation and image:

"Financial damages is last on our list. First... would preferably be the source of what we think is a mischievous rumour that was given; the second is to repair the image damage that has been done to Mr Bailey. I mean, it was more psychological than anything else done to him," Seegobin said.

"It prevented him from further competing for the rest of the year (because), he was so distraught over this whole situation," he posited.

As sports agents, sports lawyers and pro athletes enjoy Turkey Day, I just wanted to pass on this brief food for thought.

The recent sale of the Pontiac Silverdome for $583,000 has been the subject of extensive ridicule in the media.

"An 80,000-seat domed arena and its 127-acre site sold for less than a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan," Jon Stewart marveled on "The Daily Show." Not just any apartment — one "with a rodent problem, above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley."

I think it is also a good opportunity for municipalities to wake up and realize that they need to be less short-sighted, and smarter, when they build stadiums using public money. This facility cost the equivalent of $220 million in today’s dollars. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money and resources.

Here are a couple of lawsuits which have been spurred by the upcoming winter Olympics.

First, We have news of a bizarre sports lawsuit in Canada regarding women's ski jumping. From the article:

Forget all of that and consider that a judge ruled that the International Olympic Committee effectively has legal jurisdiction over the Canadian Government. The logic of this decision continues a process where the people of Vancouver have been smashed by the stateless, mobile dictatorship of the IOC.

Here is the bottom line: The court ruled that the International Olympic Committee is in violation of Canadian law by excluding women's ski jumping from the 2010 Winter Olympics, which will take place in Vancouver. However, the court apparently also rules that the IOC's regulations are superior to Canadian law, which has enraged an activist group (and the reporter who wrote this article).

Next, we have news that Vancouver plans to reform its sign ban after a civil rights group sued claiming it infringes on free speech:

The Vancouver-based British Columbia Civil Liberties Association accuses the city of stalling on the changes and says it will press ahead with the suit to prevent enforcement of the law. The ordinance prohibits the posting of signs that aren’t approved by the city, except for those celebrating the 2010 Winter Olympics. The law applies in a 40-block area downtown.

Sports lawyers in Taiwan must be having a field day with the most recent allegations of game-fixing and gambling. According to the article, a team has cut two players, and now plans to sue them for their role in the baseball game-fixing scam.

Apparently, this is not just an instance of a few rogue players going too far with a gambling scheme. The saga gets even murkier, according to the article:

Prosecutors yesterday summoned three additional Bears players — pitcher Hsu Wen-hsiung and outfielders Huang Hsiao-wei and Chiang Chih-tsung — as defendants for playing fake games for money.

Playing fake games for money? I’m curious as to what exactly constitutes a “fake game”? This is an intriguing legal saga that bears watching, not only for the fact that it sounds like something out of a bad movie. It's also important for sports agents in this country to monitor stories like this. The last thing an agent wants to do is send his client overseas to play in Taiwan only to find out that the entire league is embroiled in a massive scandal which makes it a miserable place to play baseball.

We have blogged about it before, and we’ll blog about it again. The NFL concussion problem is not going away.

Leonard Shapiro, a retired sports writer who is in the NFL Hall of Fame, recently put together a chilling story about a retired player who is taking medication to stave off Alzheimer’s. Shapiro’s article does a stellar job of encapsulating the entire NFL debate about concussions when he summarizes the NFL’s response to a study released earlier this fall about concussions. The study revealed that former football players have increased dementia and memory problems. Surely, this caused the NFL to mobilize its vast resources and spring into action, right? Not quite:

Strangely, the NFL's initial response was that the study was scientifically flawed, and that further work needed to be done before a definitive link between on-field hits and dementia can be made.

In many instances, the right thing can be accomplished by utilizing safer equipment. Shapiro’s article references a special helmet, the Xenith X1, which is designed to soften and moderate blows to the head. The helmet is pictured at right.

I hope you understand the reason we continue to blog about this subject. An agent is a fiduciary who is charged with looking out for the best interests of his client. To be sure, football players are grown men who are responsible for their actions and choices, but sports lawyers and sports agents need to get involved to help pressure the league to do the right thing. If nothing else, agents and lawyers should at least make their pro athlete clients aware of the options such as the new and reportedly safer equipment options.

Earlier we blogged about concussions in the NFL and the lasting damage they can cause football players. We just wanted to point out an outstanding, if painful, article about former 49ers lineman George Visger, who is afflicted with hydrocepahlus, or "water on the brain." He even has a shunt in his brain as a result of one too many hits to the brain.

Here is a chilling excerpt from the article:

Here’s the score. Visger’s head got knocked around so much playing football, scar tissue formed over the ducts in the brain that supply fluid to the spine. When the fluid builds up enough pressure, it crushes Visger’s brain from the inside out, against the hard, bony skull. If the pressure is not alleviated, his brain will hemorrhage, he’ll go into a coma and die. That’s what the shunt surgically installed in his brain is for, to relieve the pressure. If the shunt should clog—which it has done often in the past, thus the multiple brain surgeries—the pressure builds up inside his skull, causing an intense headache and nausea. If the pressure doesn’t subside, then Visger is supposed to jam the needle in the side of his head and drain off the excess fluid.

I am not suggesting that football players from the old days need to start suing leagues because of the damage previously suffered. At some point, however, the NFL needs to wake up and institute major reform. How anyone can ignore the mounting evidence and argue that football at high levels is not potentially life-threatening is beyond me. This is a topic that Sports Agent and Sports Lawyer Blog won't stop covering until the league makes substantial changes in its policies.

Have you heard about the sports agent who obtained an endorsement for his pro athlete client, but the athlete had to pay money for the privilege of doing the endorsement, instead of the other way around?

A new mouth guard on the market, which retails for up to $800, is being presented as a performance boosting mouthguard. Among the endorsers of this product are All-Pro RB Adrian Peterson and NHL Hall of Famer Brett Hull. They not only endorse the product, they have invested in the company, Bite Tech, which manufactures the special mouthpiece.

The article raises two interesting points. First, should agents advise their clients to try new products if they are alleged to improve performance? (We will cover this in a future blog post; for now, consider whether a sports agent would be wise to recommend that his client try one of the new and improved hockey helmets)

Second, and more importantly, is this a good endorsement if the athlete is not paid anything? The article makes it sound like Hull, Peterson and the others who are involved aren't necessarily endorsing the product as much as investing in a business in which they believe. However, the article also contains this excerpt, which makes me think there is a little bit of a smoke-and-mirrors situation going on here:

But Bite Tech's biggest boost has come from its litany of athlete investors and users, a testament to Kittelsen's prodigious ability to work the room. For instance, Kittelsen first met Hull at Michael Jordan's golf tournament and later cornered him at a restaurant. Hull says it was his idea to invest in Bite Tech, which is precisely what Kittelsen wanted the hockey star to think.

"It has to be their idea," Kittelsen said. "If it's their idea, then they really believe" in the company.

So in other words, the founders of this company have essentially found a way to promote their product that is virtually revolutionary. Not only do they pay nothing to big-time athletes in exchange for an endorsement, they actually have convinced the athlete to pay the company for the privilege of endorsing! Brilliant marketing for the company, but for the agent and athlete, it may not be the smartest move. To be sure, if the product works and the business takes off, the athlete has made a good investment. But at what cost? A superstar such as Adrian Peterson has a brand to protect; he cannot be involved in just any random product. Now he is not only receiving nothing for an endorsement, he is actually paying this company for the privilege of serving as a spokesperson.

We recently blogged about pro athletes suing reporters. Now comes word that the Major League Baseball Player’s Association is closely monitoring baseball team media comments for signs of a collusive-type effort to artificially limit baseball salaries.

Michael Weiner, MLBPA’s new leader, says the union is worried about the “predictions” that a glut of players who are not tendered contracts by their teams will result in lower salaries for free agents:

"I don't think it's an accident that in recent weeks, management officials, without attribution, have been making predictions about what's going to happen in this year's free-agent market," Weiner said. "There have been predictions about the [money] players will get, what players will be offered [salary] arbitration and what players will be non-tendered [contracts].

As an agent, I think this behavior, if true, is deplorable. However, as a sports agency that counsels its clients on how athletes should utilize the media to deliver the right message, a subject which we have blogged about on several occasions here, this is a situation to monitor. It shows that even when you hear something as seemingly innocuous as sweeping predictions about the market, there is a method to the communication.

The National Football Post has an excellent article on what it calls a recent trend of increased firings among football coaches “for cause.” The article insists that the “for cause” concept is not uniformly defined, and essentially provides too much leeway for the employer to fire a coach for almost any reason. (With that said, I have a difficult time agreeing with the article's premise that Raiders coach Tom Cable is about to be unfairly railroaded by his employer).

Here is an excerpt:

Legally speaking, coaching and front office contracts in the NFL are guaranteed, unlike player contracts. This recognizes the traditional rule of contracts that mutuality is assured and the real world notion that Lou Holtz is famous for saying: “There are only two kinds of coaches, those who have been fired and those who are going to be.” Owners have carved out a narrow list of circumstances that would relieve them from having to pay a coach or executive who is fired for really detrimental conduct. This list constitutes “for cause” termination.

If you are a coach who thinks he has been the victim of an unjust firing, contact the sports lawyers at Koch & Trushin, P.A., for more information.

Typically when a baseball agent is released from prison, it is not necessarily a time to celebrate. The case of Juan Ignacio Hernandez Nodar, a sports agent imprisoned in Cuba for the past 13 ½ years, is different. I am not sure that we can lump Nodar into the category of disgraced sports agents.

The fact that he was imprisoned in after a trial in Cuba which does raises some doubts as to his actual guilt. He allegedly helped Cuban baseball players defect to the United States. Another noted sports agent, Joe Cubas, said that Nodar was made an example by the Cuban government.

``We had half the Cuban Olympic team ready to defect at a tournament in Mexico'' in 1996, Cronin told El Nuevo Herald in a telephone chat as he boarded a plane for Miami so that he could meet Hernández Nodar upon his arrival. ``But the government made a lesson out of Juan Ignacio and El Duque, and everything went cool.''

I personally do not know whether Nodar would have been convicted in an American court, although it seems doubtful.

News that the pending baseball card lawsuit between Topps and Upper Deck was settled recently came as no surprise to us here at Sports Agent Lawyer Blog.

According to published reports, the baseball copyright infringement lawsuit settled in mediation in New York. Topps sued Upper Deck alleging that the latter’s 2009 cards too closely mimicked the former’s 1970s card designs. (For the avid card collectors out there, this link provides a detailed review of the baseball card lawsuit). Topps was seeking monetary damages and specific performance, including the destruction of Upper Deck’s allegedly infringing cards.

We were not surprised to see that the lawsuit settled because Upper Deck is apparently now out of the licensed baseball card game because Topps now has a multi-year deal with MLB to be the exclusive provider of baseball cards.

The recent news that baseball legend Curt Flood put his World Series ring and Gold Glove award up for auction is noteworthy because it comes on the eve of the latest round of free agency (as we discussed in the blog a few days ago).

For those who don't remember, Flood is credited with essentially being the father of baseball free agency. Before he filed his famous baseball lawsuit, which went to the United States Supreme Court, baseball players were extremely limited in where they could play; they essentially had no choice. Flood fought the owners, and the result was the most powerful union in sports, and the best free agency scheme in any of the major pro sports.

Here is a quote which sums up Flood's influence. Few could disagree with Flood's influence on the game of baseball and his role in shaping the game into what we know today:

"Needless to say, the significance of Curt Flood in baseball history is pretty well versed," said David Hunt the president of Hunt Auctions. "Whether people agree with his stance or not, he changed the way baseball operated. His effect on history shouldn't be understated."

The recent tragedy of former Titans quarterback Steve McNair, who was allegedly murdered by his girlfriend last summer should illustrate why all professional athletes need a will.

According to published reports, McNair was an athlete who died without a will. He left an estate of approximately $19 million, and the family members have begun fighting about who is entitled to what monies.

The tragedy of this entire situation speaks for itself. That he died without a will, leaving his family member to engage in a costly legal battle to distribute his estate, just makes this tragedy even more senseless and sad. Any athlete, coach or sports executive should consult an attorney or investment adviser to draft a comprehensive estate plan.

For more information, contact the sports lawyers at Koch & Trushin, P.A.

If your name is on the birth certificate, do you have parental rights? In Florida, the law differentiates between paternity and parental rights—signing a birth certificate may establish paternity and the obligation to pay child support, but unmarried fathers must establish their parental rights by obtaining an adjudication of paternity from the courts.

If a father is not married to the child’s mother at the time of the child’s birth or conception, he must petition the court for an order granting parental rights. Establishing parental rights gives an unmarried father the legal right to: (1) seek a court order for visitation rights, (2) request a change or modification in custody, (3) request child support if he has custody of the child, and (4) be involved with important decisions that concern his child, including choices regarding their schooling, medical treatment and religious upbringing.

Continue reading "Athletes and Paternity or Parental Rights" »

Can you remember the first time you read or watched someone publicly criticize you? Professional athletes are criticized all the time; it's part of the territory. As your career progresses, you learn to tune out the media as background noise which has no viable impact on your performance.

However, every now and again, especially if you hear something particularly vicious in a gossip web site or blog, you think about suing for libel. To say the least, suing for libel is an uphill battle - especially if you are a professional athlete, and therefore considered a public figure who is open to criticism and commentary. Under Florida law, in addition to proving the falsity of the statement, you also have to prove that the person who published the falsehood did so with "actual malice" - meaning that he wanted to harm you.

Next, you have to show that you suffered actual damages from the falsehood. Did a meet director read or hear the statement, and then decide not to invite you to the meet? Did a general manager see the statement on TV, and then decide not to make you an offer?

If you think you have proof of the "actual malice" and "actual damages" necessary to maintain a libel lawsuit, consult a qualified attorney before taking any action. Many states, including Florida, have specific conditions precedent necessary to follow before filing suit, such as giving the newspaper an opportunity to retract the statement.

The recent defamation lawsuit filed by former NFL quarterback Sean Salisbury provides some guidance on when to sue for defamation. Salisbury alleges that the blog which wrote about his alleged exploits intentionally tried to harm his reputation. This lawsuit also demonstrates the distinction between so-called mainstream media and blogs. While the demarcation line between what is, and what is not, a legitimate news site has been blurred, it may be easier to prove defamation against a blog than against a newspaper. It will be interesting to see what happens as Salisbury's lawsuit progresses. (The Wall Street Journal offers its take on defamation lawsuits by sports personalities here).

Another option is to simply stop talking to the press, but that strategy rarely benefits the athlete; instead it only makes the athlete (or coach) look like a bully.

Does the baseball bat verdict alter the way pro and amateur baseball is played?

When a jury in Helena, Montana ruled in favor of the estate of a baseball player killed when he was hit by a line drive from a metal bat, the entire baseball community took notice. Immediately, one had to wonder about the future of metal bats in amateur baseball. Almost all amateur teams use metal bats for the simple reason that they do not break, which means that they are more cost effective than wood bats.

It has always been common knowledge that balls hit off metal bats travel significantly faster than balls hit of wood bats. The Helena case did not necessarily signify the final out for metal bats; the actual verdict showed that the bat maker was negligent for its failure to properly warn that its bats were dangerous. So what are the implications of this ruling? If bat makers imprint a warning on each bat, would that be significant to evade any future adverse verdicts?

Only time will tell. It is important to note that change may be a virtual certainty, at least at some point down the road, because this is not a new problem. According to this entry in the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper, people inside Louisville Slugger were aware of the problem going back more than a decade, and probably longer.

As an attorney who handles lawsuits exactly like this one, in which there is a terrible tragedy which was a rare occurrence (in the substantial majority of the other people engaging in this activity do not suffer in this way), I think this lawsuit had merit, and this is not an instance of a runaway jury or an absurd verdict which highlights the problems with our judicial system. The fact that the jury did not find the bat defective probably meant that the impact of this verdict will be somewhat limited, in that it will not force the entire amateur baseball world to switch back to wood bats.

For more information on sports or baseball lawsuits, contact sports law firm Koch & Trushin, P.A.

Will amateur football players sue their leagues? The recent Congressional hearings about the issue of concussions in the NFL were interesting. To me, I think there is an inevitable wave of litigation which is sure to follow as this issue continues to be mainstreamed.

The bottom line is that it’s becoming a virtual certainty in the medical community that football can result in brain injuries, even to athletes who play in college and never experience the intensity of an NFL collision. Logically this seems to mean that the injuries are also present in high school and youth league players, right?

So when will we see the first high-profile civil lawsuit against a high school, amateur governing association or youth league? There are several legal causes of action that could be brought by or on behalf of a player who suffers injury, ranging from simple negligence to more complex “failure to warn” torts.

Continue reading "Football Lawsuits Against Leagues, Teams and Schools" »

Baseball scouting in the Dominican Republic is a well-documented problem these days, as a few high profile players have been caught misleading their teams about their age. Now, a Dominican Republic court has ordered the Washington Nationals to pay about $75,000 in damages to former scout Jose Baez who was fired after signing a Dominican prospect who lied about his age.

As usual, ESPN The Magazine’s Jorge Arangure Jr., is all over the story (he is one of the only top-level American journalists covering the inner workings of baseball in Latin America). Based on Arangure’s summary of the testimony, the reason Baez was fired was because he was believed to have participated in the player’s scheme to lie about his age.

Bottom line here: This is just another sordid chapter in MLB’s decades-long mismanagement of baseball in the Dominican Republic. Change is inevitable, but there is no agreement on the best way to reform the system. While some people call for a global draft as the panacea to solve these problems, there are numerous reasons not to have a worldwide draft, such as the inevitable destruction of local baseball (see Puerto Rico for an example). My proposed solution is for MLB teams to invent a new classification, which would be below the current “Rookie League” level, and play two or three teams in established leagues. Those who succeed would eventually be promoted to Rookie League or low Class-A teams in the U.S. As they would be taking kids as young as 16, the teams would be charged with educating the kids and keeping them until they age out of the system a couple of years later.

Just wanted to follow up on this week’s recent blog post about high school basketball players and the problems with the NBA’s “one-and-done” rule.

First, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Buzz Bissinger weighs in on all the problems with the NBA's age limit restriction that he has observed in the years since its implementation. From the article:

But the right decision would be to abolish the N.B.A. age limit. Equally important, professional sports leagues and the N.C.A.A. should stop jumping into the same Jacuzzi together, turning the idea of “student-athletes” into a farce, padding university coffers and keeping the pro owners from having to pay for the grooming of young talent

Sports Law Blog provides it usual cogent analysis of the legal ramifications of the situation.

Second, Darren Heitner of Sports Agent Blog, which is a must-read for anyone interested in learning how sports agents do business, weighs in on a new NCAA proposal regarding amateurism and opportunities for student athletes to play professional sports overseas upon graduating from high school. Jeremy Tyler did not graduate from high school, so this rule would not have affected him had it been in place at present. Still, the fact that the NCAA is even considering changing this paradigm is newsworthy in and of itself.

Should you start you pro sports career now, or should you go to college instead? Before long, that choice may be made for you. If collegiate sports spending is unsustainable, what does that mean for future professional athletes?

The Knight Commission recently held its annual gripe session in Miami and more than 75 percent of college presidents believe that the level of college athletic spending is too high, and that something must be done to reign in scholarship costs. That sounds to me like the presidents plan to cut scholarship costs as soon as they can.

What does it mean for kids hoping to pursue professional sports careers if there are fewer scholarships? Only time will tell, but one would think a natural and inevitable consequence is that the level of competition will be diluted at the collegiate level.

If collegiate competition is watered down, what happens to pro sports? Let’s consider a non-revenue sport like collegiate tennis, which has a vibrant professional tour. If scholarships are cut, more high school tennis kids will try to make it on the professional tour. Would that add to the quality of pro tennis? If colleges nationwide eliminate 500 tennis scholarships over the next decade, then how many of those kids will turn pro? More importantly, how many of the few remaining athletes will forgo collegiate tennis entirely, as the entire game is less meaningful? I predict that this is an opportunity for many sports such as tennis to capitalize and launch more professional leagues, teams and organizations, and differentiate their levels of competition. Consider what would happen if the majority of college golf scholarships were eliminated. We already have several “minor league” golf tours, but wouldn’t you expect to see a few more?

The amateur-professional sports distinction, and the blurred line between the two worlds, is a well-documented discussion. I think the line could eventually become more solidified as colleges continue to cut back, which means that college sports’ loss will be pro sports’ gain.

If you are interested in sports law related issues, please contact the sports law firm of Koch & Trushin, P.A.

Stop me if you have heard this one before: A successful professional athlete did a poor job managing his finances, and he is now in serious debt.

Professional athletes need to maintain strict control over their finances. They also need someone who assesses their risk and manages their varied investments. I am not talking about a financial adviser, but I am referring to a person who keeps track of everything for the busy athlete who cannot handle his own personal dealings.

The recent fiascos involving former Mets pitcher Livan Hernandez and Celtics forward Antoine Walter are instructive. Hernandez is being sued by his lender for his home in Miami and he is subject to liens from two neighborhood associations, the pool guy and the state of California. This article breaks down Hernandez's financial problems.

As for Walker, he has debts of more than $4 million according to a Boston Globe article. What's most incredible is that Walker has earned about $110 million in his NBA career. Walker has deeper problems as well - he's facing multiple felony counts for passing bad checks.

Continue reading "Who Manages Risk for Athletes?" »

Our friends at the Connecticut Sports Law blog have done a terrific job of covering the tragic story of Jasper Howard, the UConn football player originally from Miami who was murdered on October 19 on campus.

Today, CT Sports Law blogs about a company that is selling unauthorized likenesses of Howard on a t-shirt. The company allegedly states that profits will go to Howard's unborn child, but that claim was deemed sufficiently dubious that the Connecticut Attorney General demanded that the company stop selling the merchandise and threatened a lawsuit.

It's an interesting, although sordid, legal problem. As CT Sports points out, there is already an authorized dealer of licensed Howard merchandise with proceeds to benefit the unborn child. The Connecticut AG said in his press release that the unauthorized shirts are "in violation of state charity and copyright laws."

I can't claim to be an expert on Connecticut charity laws, but the problem is fairly obvious. The seller did not register as a charity, which is probably as easy as filling out a few forms on a web site. As for copyright violations, the press release was too vague to give any insight into which specific copyright laws may have been violated.

With that said, whether a business deal is legal is one question, but whether it is ethical is another matter entirely. The AG himself put it best:

Any attempt to exploit Howard's tragic death is despicable and unconscionable. I will fight anyone seeking to exploit Howard's heartrending tragedy, as well as pursue civil penalties and forfeitures.

Tough to disagree with that sentiment, right? The seller denies that he is exploiting the situation, but he probably could have benefited from consulting legal counsel before moving forward with this plan.

Athletes seeking legal representation often think they need a large law firm, or a former athlete to do their legal work. That's not always the case. Here is a wide-ranging interview about sports law, agents, and pro athletes with former NBA star Len Elmore, who is now a lawyer.

Lenmore does not have high praise for large law firms. Although to be fair, Elmore's experience is unique because he ended up working for a law firm in which the managing partner was sent to prison for misusing money to support his lavish lifestyle. Another telling quote is about whether he believes his status as a former pro athlete offers an advantage as an attorney:

I don’t perceive my status as a former college/pro athlete as a particular edge or hindrance. Sure, from a business development perspective, being a former athlete and current TV analyst might offer name recognition and open doors, but I don’t believe I am that intimidating. Maybe my size has an initial intimidating impact on some. Maybe my voice (when I choose to use it that way) and some mannerisms give me a slight advantage, but they also bring out the lawyer competitiveness in adversaries, particularly in trial work.

Elmore clearly has a strong sense of ethics. He says that he gave up his career as a sports agent after five years because "the environment was becoming toxic to my ethics and scruples." He does not elaborate on the specifics of the unethical tactics, but everyone has heard stories of agents with questionable ethics.

Probably the best thing we can glean from this interview is that an athlete seeking representation - either with an attorney for legal matters, or with an agent for contract negotiation and endorsement procurement - should carefully scrutinize the person and firms before entering into a business deal.

If you have questions about how to properly investigate your sports agent, or if you're an athlete looking for a lawyer, feel free to contact sports lawyer Jason B. Wolf at Koch & Trushin, P.A., for more information and a free consultation.

If you're a professional athlete and someone else owns your domain name, you should thank Toronto Raptors player Chris Bosh for getting it back to you. Bosh recently won a case in federal court in which the court ordered that domain names with no connection to the athlete should be returned to the athlete.

Actually, the court ordered about 800 names to specifically be awarded to Bosh and his company. Bosh has agreed to give the names back to the person named. Here is a complete list of the misappropriated athlete domain names.

This is a major victory for pro athletes under the relatively new Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. If someone is holding your domain name as hostage, have your sports attorney contact them and you should get it back in no time.

Remember when former Minnesota Vikings coach Mike Tice got in hot water for ticket scalping? It's a temptation most pro athletes (other than the top earners) have probably thought about every now and then: Sure, you make a nice salary, but wouldn't it be nice to put a few hundred bucks in your pocket by scalping your free ticket allotment?

Recent media reports have listed tickets for the Vikings-Packers Nov. 1 showdown at Lambeau Field at $364, which vastly exceeds face value. Would it be tempting for the players on either team to scalp their tickets? Perhaps it would be a temptation, as the value of these ticket will only increase, unless Brett Favre gets hurt. Pro football players have enough to worry about without trying to pick up extra cash by scalping tickets.

It's every agent's and athlete's worst-case scenario: You find what seems like a plum spot for your client overseas, but the team fails to pay up. Because the team is not subject to jurisdiction of the courts in the United States, there isn't much the agent or athlete can do to obtain the money which is duly owed.

Attorney and agent Tom McLaughlin has been chasing Greek basketball team Olympiakos for about five years now, and he finally has the chance to get paid. He sued because a couple of his players were not paid by the basketball team, and he did not receive his agent's commission.

He proposed having the federal marshals seize all of the team's assets, but instead it looks as though he will need to settle for a deposition of the team's billionaire owner. Here's hoping he gets paid, and that Olympiakos honors its debt.

Continue reading "Agent Sues Overseas Basketball Team" »

An age-old conundrum for professional athletes is the potential for an inherent conflict of interest between the athlete's health and the team's interest. Quite simply, the conflict goes like this: Your long-term health would be better if you sat out for a while after a certain type of injury. The team, on the other hand, may be better off by rushing you back into action.

The recent lawsuit filed by former receiver David Givens against the Tennesse Titans sheds new light on the discussion. Givens alleges that he was kept in the dark about results of a test. He does not allege that he returned to action too soon, but that this lack of information ruined his career.

A potential problem with this lawsuit from the athlete's perspective is that he was signed to a large-dollar contract immediately after the injury. So this story does not quite fit neatly into the standard conflict of interest we mentioned above. It also may become moot if it's determined that Givens should have filed a grievance through the player's association.

Unfortunately, there is no ideal solution for how to avoid this type of thing. As an athlete, you want to prolong your career for as long as possible. Management in theory should want the same thing, but the team generally has a more short-term focus - this year and the next couple of years instead of the 10 years that you're thinking about. The best approach is for the athlete and team to fully disclose any and all results, and discuss a short- and long-term strategy. Only if both sides trust one another can conflicts be avoided.

When the NCAA settled the Andy Oliver dispute about whether high school baseball players were barred from consulting a lawyer in negotiations with professional teams, Oliver's life got a little bit easier, but the problems for high school baseball players may be just beginning.

The NCAA declared Oliver ineligible because when he was a high school senior, his adviser was present during negotiations with the Minnesota Twins. The NCAA has a rule banning high school kids from consulting with agents, attorneys or advisers. Earlier this year, the judge ordered the NCAA to stop enforcing the rule. Now that the case has settled, the order was vacated, which means that the rule can still be enforced. That does not mean the issue is dead.

However, as Baseball America points out in this analysis, the fact that nothing has changed is not a positive development. Think about the logic of this policy: A 17- or 18-year-old high school baseball player needs to make the most important decision of his life, whether to go to college on a baseball scholarship or whether to sign with the professional organization that drafted him. Logic says that he would need qualified legal advice from an expert. All sorts of questions would be going through the family's mind - Is the team's offer fair? How can I get more money from the team? What's best for my baseball career? What's the best financial opportunity? Am I being taken advantage of?

The baseball player is being compelled by the NCAA to make a life-changing decision without being educated about the options. If that's not restraint of trade, I don't know what is.

Continue reading "High School Baseball Players Still Cannot Consult Advisers" »

Let’s say you are a youth sports coach who volunteers hundreds of hours of your time each year to help the kids in your community. Unfortunately, someone sues you. It can happen, and in fact happens all the time.

The recent settlement in the lawsuit filed by Jean Gonzalez in Staten Island, New York, over her son’s alleged injury when he was sliding into second base provides guidance for coaches thinking about protecting themselves from lawsuits. The lawsuit, which settled over the summer for $125,000, alleged negligent coaching because of the use of a stationary base.

The legal basis for the lawsuit appeared to be dubious at the time. The “assumption of risk” doctrine – which essentially means that one assumes the risk of the activity if one enters into said activity knowingly – looked like it would be a solid defense. We do not know exactly what led to the settlement because any settlement negotiations are confidential, but the youth baseball officials must have felt that they had significant legal exposure if they were willing to settle for such a large amount.

Continue reading "Sports Law Trends - Youth Sports Coaches can be Sued" »