Friday, April 30, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
* Over on Mergers and Acquisitions Law Prof Blog, Boston College Law Professor Brian JM Quinn has a terrific post on Stan Kroenke's bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams, a bid complicated by NFL rules that prevent cross-ownership across leagues and by attempts to buy the Arensal Football Club, which Kroenke partly owns. This is a great post on the role of corporate law in pro sports.
* Sports lawyer Jay Reisinger, who has represented Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettitte, and many other athletes, argues in his new post, "Goodell's Folly", that commissioner Roger Goodell abused his powers as commissioner in suspending Ben Roethlisberger, who was not charged with a crime. Marc blogged about this topic last week.
* Sports lawyer Howard Jacobs, who has represented Floyd Landis among other athletes, has a new blog, Howard Jacobs Athletes Lawyer Blog, with some terrific first posts, including a two-part series on improving the NFL's drug testing program.
* A reminder that this Wednesday, the Sports Lawyers Association and Sullivan and Worcester will be hosting what should be an outstanding panel on American Needle v. NFL and a sports law networking event. I look forward to being a panelist with ESPN's Wendi Nix, former New England Patriots general counsel Jack Mula, Boston attorney Ryan Marth, and Ed Weiss of New England Sports VEntures. As mentioned, in addition to the panel, there will also be a networking event. If you're in the Boston area, I hope you have a chance to attend.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Without further adieu, here is the first issue:
Peter A. Carfagna & Paul C. Weiler
Ashwin M. Krishnan
Judicial Erosion of Protection for Defendants in Obscenity Prosecutions?: When Courts Say, Literally, Enough is Enough and When Internet Availability Does Not Mean Acceptance
Clay Calvert, Wendy Brunner, Karla Kennedy & Kara Murrhee
The NBA and the Single Entity Defense: A Better Case?
Michael A. McCann
Hardball Free Agency: The Unintended Demise of Salary Arbitration in Major League Baseball
Eldon L. Ham & Jeffrey Malach
The Integrity of the Game: Professional Athletes and Domestic Violence
Bethany P. Withers
In re Dewey Ranch Hockey
First, whether the NFL Personal Conduct Policy is even part of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is not entirely clear. NFL club-owners announced the league's current Personal Conduct Policy on April 10, 2007, which postdates the most recent CBA. While the NFL Personal Conduct Policy was informally approved by a group of NFL players, the NFL Personal Conduct Policy was never written and signed into the CBA (at least not according to publicly available information). This may present a problem for Commissioner Goodell's enforcement because Article LV, Section 19 of the NFL CBA states that "[n]one of the Articles of this Agreement may be changed, altered, or amended other than by a signed written agreement."
Second, presuming the NFL Personal Conduct Policy is not deemed part of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, Commissioner Goodell may alternatively argue that Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract allows him to suspend Roethlisberger for "being deemed guilty of any other conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football." Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract is part of the CBA, as it is incorporated by reference as Appendix C. However, it is not altogether clear that Ben Roethlisberger has done anything "detrimental to the League or professional football," nor that he is in any way "guilty" as the term may be defined by that paragraph.
Finally, it is worth noting that Paragraph 11 of the NFL Player Contract grants individual club owners the power to terminate any player contract if that player "is engaged in personal conduct, reasonably judged by [the club] to adversely affect or reflect on [the club]." This clause seems to be far broader than Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract and may present grounds for the Steelers to terminate Roethlisberger's contract. However, this clause extends only to a player's team, and not to the Commissioner, who is acting on behalf of the league overall.
(Cross-posted on SportsJudge Blog)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Marc Bianchi, Comment, Guardian of amateurism or legal defiant? The dichotomous nature of NCAA men’s ice hockey regulation, 20 SETON HALL JOURNAL OF SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 165 (2010)
Rhonda B. Evans, Recent development, “Striking out”: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and Title II’s impact on professional sports employers, 11 NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 205 (2009)
Gabriel Feldman, The puzzling persistence of the single-entity argument for sports leagues: American Needle and the Supreme Court’s opportunity to reject a flawed defense, 2009 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 835-916
Megan Fuller, Note, Where’s the penalty flag? The unauthorized practice of law, the NCAA, and athletic compliance directors, 54 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW 495 (2009/10)
Christopher S. Groleau, Note, Weird science: a look at the World Anti-Doping Agency’s questionable testing methods and the need for change to protect international athletes, 13 QUINNIPIAC HEALTH LAW JOURNAL 85 (2009)
Richard T. Karcher, The coaching carousel in big-time intercollegiate athletics: economic implications and legal considerations, 20 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 1 (2009)
Victoria Langton, Note, Stop the bleeding: Title IX and the disappearance of men’s collegiate athletic teams, 12 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF ENTERTAINMENT & TECHNOLOGY LAW 183 (2009)
Brendan S. Maher, Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts, 32 HASTINGS COMMUNICATION & ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 209 (2010)
Scott R. Rosner & William T. Conroy, The impact of the flat world on player transfers in Major League Baseball, 12 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LAW 79 (2009)
David Sirotkin, Note, Disciplining the disciplinary systems in professional sports: an attempt to fix the arbitrary and overreaching disciplinary powers of sports commissioners, 11 CARDOZO JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 289 (2009)
Christine Snyder, Note, Perfect pitch: how U.S. sports financing and recruiting models can restore harmony between FIFA and the EU, 42 CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 499 (2009)
Bethany Swaton, Girls can play, too: has the lack of female leadership in NCAA athletics become an afterthought?, 20 SETON HALL JOURNAL OF SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 1 (2010)
Benjamin A. Tulis, Final-offer “baseball” arbitration: contexts, mechanics & applications, 20 SETON HALL JOURNAL OF SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 85 (2010)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
There clearly is no First Amendment problem here. The NCAA is a private organization (even if some member schools are private), so not bound by the First Amendment. And even if you could find state action, my guess is that current doctrine would treat this as employee speech (ironic, given the controversy over how student-athletes should be perceived and the issue of who should make money off college athletics); the players represent the university on the field, thus their speech may be restricted to enable the university (as "employer") to carry out its functions without interference.
At a normative level, regulations such as these raise interesting issues of how much liberty of speech players ought to have within the team concept. Everyone must wear the same uniform--but is there (and should there be) some room for individual expression, particularly on matters of public concern (depending on what a player chose to write in the eye black)?
City of Glendale Approves Reinsdorf Group’s Ownership Bid for Coyotes – But Proposed Financing Scheme Creates Possibility of Legal Challenge
On Tuesday, the Glendale City Council approved a preliminary memorandum of understanding authored by the potential ownership group known as Glendale Hockey, LLC for the purchase of the Coyotes’ assets from the National Hockey League. The group, headlined by sports magnate Jerry Reinsdorf, is supposedly viewed as the preferred ownership group to purchase the financially beleaguered franchise that the league bought out of bankruptcy in the latter part 2009. While the City Council ratified the Glendale Hockey, LLC memorandum of understanding, it rejected the proposed document submitted by Ice Edge Holdings, LLC, effectively ending the group’s ownership bid. The City Council’s approval of Glendale Hockey, LLC’s proposed memorandum clears the way for the group to negotiate with the NHL in hopes of purchasing the team.
A reading of the Reinsdorf group’s memorandum of understanding shows that Glendale Hockey, LLC plans on financing its bid through the sale of bonds and other revenue out of a newly created community-facilities district. This proposed district centers around Jobing.com Arena and the mixed use real estate development that surrounds the ice arena. The group also plans on raising funds through charging for parking, something that the previous ownership group had never done. However, this proposed method of fundraising has caught the attention of a local Arizona conservative watchdog, the Goldwater Institute. This is the same group that is considering challenging the constitutionality of a recently approved Arizona state tax that would assist in subsidizing the construction of the new Chicago Cubs spring training stadium.
The Goldwater Institute seems to believe that the Glendale Hockey, LLC bid places too much financial stress on the Glendale taxpayers and fails to put enough financial risk on the ownership group. Under the proposed financing scheme, the Goldwater Institute argues that the Reinsdorf ownership group “really seems to have insulated [itself] completely from any financial liability…” and that the brunt of the proposal’s monetary burden is placed on the taxpayers. A reading of the memorandum illustrates this point: under the proposed agreement with the City, after five years Reinsdorf’s group can sell the team or force Glendale to cover the group’s loses if the team is operating at a significant loss. This puts the new ownership group in a position to abandon its financial obligations to the Coyotes after five years and basically leaves the Glendale taxpayers holding the ball.
Recent Arizona court decisions state that a beneficiary of a governmental gift must provide back some sort of comparable benefit that is clear and reasonable. It is difficult to construe Glendale Hockey, LLC’s currently written proposed memorandum of understanding as exhibiting a reasonable benefit to the taxpayers. What exactly is Glendale Hockey, LLC offering in exchange for public support? Perhaps the ownership group would argue that the benefit is keeping the Coyotes in Glendale. However it is unclear whether such an argument qualifies as benefit that meets the necessary threshold to entitle Glendale Hockey, LLC to receive such support. Until further demonstrated, this lack of a clear and reasonable benefit may lead to another lawsuit in the near future; more litigation for a hockey club that has seen its fair share of courtroom action over the last year.
You can read more about the Goldwater Institute, by clicking here.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
For the full article, please go to: http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/2476/2010-04-09.html.
The "Fighting Sioux" nickname/moniker has engendered deeply divided and passionate debate in North Dakota and amongst the two primary Sioux tribes in the area, the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Standing Rock Tribe. Under the NCAA's policy that outlaws hostile and offensive mascots, University leadership can, despite the policy, still secure approval from local tribes and continue to use American Indian mascots. Florida State University has secured approval from the Florida Seminole Tribe and continues to use "Seminoles" and "Chief Osceola" as its mascot and nickname. The University of Utah has secured approval from the local Ute Tribe and continues to use "Runnin' Utes" as its nickname.
Under a settlement reached nearly three years ago, the University of North Dakota was given three years by the NCAA to secure approval of both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in order to continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" as its logo and nickname. UND was successful in gaining the approval of the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe but had not been able to gain support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe although it had until November 2010 to do so. Notwithstanding, the Board of Higher Education has ended the controversy simply by voting to retire the controversial mascot. This decision was motivated in part by UND's desire to join the Summit League for purposes of basketball league play and the Conference's refusal to admit UND until it had settled its mascot issues.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Several recent events have placed the Pittsburgh Steelers’ upcoming season in serious peril. Before even a single down of football is played, the Steelers, one of the NFL’s most storied franchises, is facing the potential loss of two impact players: franchise quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and Super Bowl XLIII MVP Santonio Holmes.
Roethlisberger, who last year was accused of sexually assaulting an employee at a Nevada resort as part of a civil complaint, is now facing similar allegations stemming from a recent alleged restroom altercation with a 20-year-old college student in a Georgia nightclub. Holmes, who has established a well-documented arrest record since he entered the league in 2006, is currently linked to an alleged assault of a woman at an Orlando nightclub. While the Steelers will have to deal with the reality of both Roethlisberger and Holmes potentially facing some type of discipline from the Commissioner’s Office and the resulting fan backlash, the franchise is lucky that the Steelers as an organization will not be subject to punishment as well.
One of the hallmarks of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s tenure is the high priority he places on protecting the league’s public reputation. Goodell assumed the NFL’s top position during a time when many of its players were constantly portraying the league in a negative light. To help change the public’s perception of the NFL, Goodell spearheaded the creation of the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy.
The currently implemented Personal Conduct Policy explicitly applies to players, coaches and “all others privileged to work in the National Football League.” Pursuant to this policy, “[a]ll persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” The policy allows for Commissioner Goodell to discipline both Roethlisberger and Holmes even if neither is found guilty of their respective allegations. Both can be disciplined even if there are no convictions because, as Goodell asserts, playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right; therefore anyone subject to the policy may face serious consequences if he or she engages in conduct that is perceived to be detrimental to the integrity of the league.
As the policy is now written, Goodell cannot discipline individual franchises for allowing its players to engage in impermissible conduct. This is because the policy on its face does not explicitly empower Goodell to penalize a franchise. However, directly punishing a team is not unprecedented, as the Commissioner disciplined both head coach Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots in 2007 for spying on an opponent in an attempt to learn their signals. However the Patriots situation did not involve player discipline issues. Instead, the infraction committed by the Patriots was interfering with NFL rules; if the Commissioner attempted to take action against the Steelers, it would be punishment for the franchise’s inability to control its players’ off the field conduct, something that was never an issue when Dan Rooney oversaw the team. One characteristic that these situations do share, however, is that both deal with issues that perceivably impact the integrity of the game, something that the policy was implemented to protect.
While the current policy as written does not allow the Commissioner to discipline a franchise, implementing a new version that subjects franchises to the Personal Conduct Policy would easily fix this problem. If the league chooses to adopt such a new rule, the NFL will be empowering Goodell with sweeping authority similar to the power that was given to Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Major League Baseball’s first commissioner. However, such authority was only granted to Landis when baseball was marred in the Black Sox scandal, arguably baseball’s darkest days. The only issue with providing Goodell this power is persuading franchises to go along with such a rule, and avoiding a challenge from the NFLPA through labor law and relevant provisions of the CBA.
Although it is highly unlikely that franchises would allow the Commissioner to possess such expansive power, this type of development would force franchises to become vastly more proactive and vigilant in keeping players out of troublesome situations. Franchises, now with more of a vested interest in supervising its players, would most likely step up preventive measures to avoid being subject to league discipline. Such measures may include routinely providing players with a personal security detail or heavily fining players for conduct that is adverse to the policy. However all of this must be done in the context of the current CBA to prevent a union challenge. While placing a responsibility on the franchise may sound like a good idea, Goodell most likely does not want to disturb league-owner solidarity with such a rule as the NFL prepares for a potentially prolonged negotiation with the NFLPA.
At this point most of Goodell’s attention is probably focused on negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players association. However, this emerging trend of Steelers players garnering negative headlines may merit his concern, as player discipline issues seem to be a persisting problem in the NFL despite the Commissioner’s best efforts.
At this point local authorities have turned over their evidence against Big Ben to the District Attorney’s Office and Holmes’ attorney maintains that the wide receiver will be exonerated. Goodell has already made it clear that he is dissatisfied with Roethlisberger's conduct and would meet with the star quarterback at a later time. Given Goodell’s comment, one would not be surprised if the Commissioner punishes both Roethlisberger and Holmes under the policy. What is not clear is whether Goodell plans on attempting to also directly discipline the Steelers. Again, a reading of the policy does not lend itself to penalizing organizations, so it may be a stretch to punish an entire team. However Goodell prides himself on safeguarding the integrity of the NFL, so the notion of the league amending the Personal Conduct Policy to allow for team discipline may not be as farfetched a prediction as it sounds.
Another reason why the MLBPA may be concerned about collusion is that MLB club-owners have a long history of colluding in the free-agent player market. For example, in my 2008 Wayne Law Review article, "Moving Past Collusion in Major League Baseball: Healing Old Wounds and Preventing New Ones," I discuss how three arbitration decisions from the 1980s found MLB club-owners to have colluded against players' rights. One esteemed labor arbitrator, George Nicolau, even found Commissioner Bud Selig to have been directly involved in collusion during the 1986-87 off-season (see pages 619-20).
- First, there are this week's collusion allegations, over which MLBPA leader Michael Weiner has stated "in one fashion or another we will respond."
- Then, there are similar allegations from the 2008-09 off-season, over which the MLBPA, one year after announcing its concerns, still has not filed a grievance.
- Finally, there are even allegations of collusion dating back to the 2007-08 season that involve the market for now-retired outfielder Barry Bonds. In October 2008, the MLBPA announced that it had made a preliminary finding of collusion against MLB club-owners in the market for Bonds's services; however, the union thus has neither filed a grievance nor publicly settled this matter with baseball's club-owners.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The panel will take place from 6:10 to 8:00 p.m. and is open to any student (please note: a student ID, from any school, is required; the event is off-the-record and closed to non-participating media).
Here are the details:
Yale Entertainment and Sports Law Association hosts a Panel Discussion on Sports and the Law: Current Issues
April 13 2010 6:10 to 8:00 p.m.
MICHAEL MCCANN (Professor at Vermont Law School; Legal Analyst at Sports Illustrated)
HENRY ABBOTT (Senior Writer, ESPN.com; Founder of TrueHoop, a blog dissecting the people, statistics, business, and bric-a-brac of the NBA)
KEN GORDON (Counsel, ESPN, Disney, and ESPN Media Networks)
JASON LEVIEN (General Counsel and Assistant General Manager, Sacramento Kings; Adjunct Professor of Sports Law, UC Berkeley Law School; former NBA and NFL agent)
TIFFANY MORRIS (Legal Counsel, The Kraft Group, New England Patriots, New England Revolution, Gillette Stadium, and Patriot Place)
CHRIS PARK (Vice President of Labor Economics and Labor Counsel, Major League Baseball)
Special thanks to Alex Kardon, Co-Chair of the Yale Sports and Entertainment Law Association, for putting this event together. For information on attending, please contact Alex at alex.kardon[at]yale.edu. For information on nearby public parking and how to get to Yale Law School, click here.
The Court narrowed the availability of primary assumption of risk significantly, suggesting that, in the aftermath of the state's move to comparative fault, it should only be available in athletic injury claims. According to the Court,
The doctrine of assumption of risk does not, and cannot, sit comfortably with comparative causation. In the end, its retention is most persuasively justified not on the ground of doctrinal or practical compatibility, but simply for its utility in "facilitat[ing] free and vigorous participation in athletic activities" ...
We have recognized that athletic and recreative activities possess enormous social value, even while they involve significantly heightened risks, and have employed the notion that these risks may be voluntarily assumed to preserve these beneficial pursuits as against the prohibitive liability to which they would otherwise give rise. We have not applied the doctrine outside of this limited context and it is clear that its application must be closely circumscribed if it is not seriously to undermine and displace the principles of comparative causation...
No suitably compelling policy justification has been advanced to permit an assertion of assumption of risk in the present circumstances. The injury-producing activity here at issue, referred to by the parties as "horseplay," is not one that recommends itself as worthy of protection, particularly not in its "free and vigorous" incarnation...
This decision brings New York law in line with developments in other jurisdictions limiting the availability of primary assumption of risk in non-contact sport situations. See my post, "Is Potato Sack Racing a Contact Sport?", for further discussion.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The University of Baltimore School of Law and its Center for Sport and the Law is pleased to present Traumatic Brain Injury: Implications for Sport and Health on Thursday, April 22. This half-day event will examine the effect of traumatic brain injuries on athletes at all levels, from youth through professional. Dr. Ann McKee, noted expert on the issue of traumatic brain injury, will deliver a lunchtime keynote address. A tentative agenda is below.
There is no charge to attend the symposium, but pre-registration is suggested as seating is limited. Online registration is now available! Information about parking at the University of Baltimore is available on the University's Web site.
10-10:30 a.m. Welcome and Overview Student Athletes and Brain Injuries: The Legal Perspective
Phillip J. Closius
Dean, University of Baltimore School of Law
Assistant professor and director, Center for Sport and the Law
University of Baltimore School of Law
10:30 – 11:45 a.m. A Medical Perspective on Traumatic Brain Injury in Contact Sports
Dr. Leigh Ann Curl (invited)
Head orthopedic surgeon, Baltimore Ravens
Dr. Kenneth Fine
Team physician, The George Washington University varsity sports teams and
District of Columbia Public Schools
Dr. Thom Mayer
Medical director, NFL Players’ Association
Dr. Yvette L. Rooks
Team physician, University of Maryland Terrapins
11:45 a.m. – 12 p.m. Lunch
12 – 1 p.m.Afternoon keynote remarks: The Data on Football
Dr. Ann McKee
Boston University School of Medicine
1 – 1:15 p.m. Break
1:15 – 2:30 p.m. Protecting Current and Former Athletes
Assistant athletic director for sports medicine, University of Maryland College Park
Namanny, Byrne & Owens
Former linebacker, University of Michigan and Los Angeles Rams
Assistant football coach, Gilman High School
Former linebacker, Ohio State University and Baltimore Colts
Monday, April 5, 2010
I have a new column up in the Huffington Post that takes a closer look at the possible antitrust implications of a 96-team tournament. Here's an excerpt:
Judicial deference to the NCAA is not unconditional. While some commentators have been screaming for years that the NCAA cares about money, not amateurism, courts have continued to defer to the NCAA in antitrust cases when the NCAA makes rules governing student-athletes that are arguably related to maintaining amateurism and furthering academic ideals. That deference could fade if the NCAA makes decisions--like expanding the tournament-- that seem to put the "athlete" ahead of the "student" in student-athlete. At a minimum, it will give ammunition for plaintiffs to use in antitrust cases--and their quest to obtain treble damages-- and give judges and juries a reason to more strictly scrutinize NCAA rules.
You can find the full column here. You can follow me on twitter here.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
For more details, click here or see Geoff's earlier post on abstract submissions for the conference.
Update: My bad: there are two conferences, not one. Here's Tassos Kaburakis:
Hi Mike and everyone. Quick clarification, as there's a lot going on in our field and in Istanbul this year:
Matt Mitten, Jim Nafziger, and other good colleagues will be speaking in the May 13-14 international sports law symposium hosted by the Istanbul University Comparative Law Center and the Turkish National Committee of the International Association of Legal Science. For convenience, here is the May program: http://www.kaburakis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/program-1.pdf
The broader scope and more involved/open to participation International Sport Law & Business Conference (ISLBC) we are organizing with our Turkish colleagues is set for September, and a new Call is available through the website: http://istanbul2010.islbc.org/
I have been truly amazed by the interest and the quality level as the weeks evolve, and so far we have had many esteemed colleagues from the US, Europe, and beyond submit abstracts and express their desire to attend. Over April and May we will progressively announce conference presenters and keynote panelists. The sneak preview is that the latter have been key in ADR, CAS, US/International sport governance, and shaping legal theory, research, and strategy over the past 30+ years. With everything Istanbul offers this year and especially in September, one needs to seriously consider this opportunity. Keep checking the website for more ISLBC updates and September events news. More soon. Keep enjoying good work and a fantastic spring season.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Based in part on my interest in speech at sporting events, the connection between politics and sports (and sports fans) is of interest to me. The (likely) political make-up of the fan base at a game says a lot about what sorts of speech fans will tolerate from other fans at the game.
But I admit to being a bit surprised by the results, particularly the breakdown by individual sport. Although I probably should not be. Presumably white men make-up a big portion of sports fans and that group now tends to lean Republican. Conversely, perhaps women are more likely to self-identify as Democrats but less likely to be die-hard sports fans? There are presumptive geographic lines with some of the strongly GOP sports (NASCAR, bull riding) that map political lines. The college football and basketball numbers also are interesting. If (as I believe polling shows--I could be wrong) people with college degrees (or higher) lean Democrat, this poll suggests the people watching and rooting in those sports did not attend the colleges they are rooting for. Again, not a surprise, since the fan base for, say, Duke basketball or Florida football is broader than Duke student/alumni base. And a sport like college football again has geographic lines--it is probably most popular in the South and non-urban Midwest)--that map political lines. Finally, the size of the gap is surprising; if you look at the breakdown, Republicans enjoy a double-digit advantage among fans of most major sports (except baseball and pro basketball).
Maybe I just need a bigger circle. My closest friends and family all tend to be liberal Democrats who love sports.
According to the Tampa Bay Online, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig might involve himself in the stadium negotiations between Rays ownership and their municipality. (Geoffrey Rapp, Michael McCann and I were cited in this article).
This would be nothing new for Selig, who just last year helped Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Luria to obtain a new publicly funded stadium.
I have written extensively about how professional sports leagues maintain an under-supply of teams to ensure public stadium financing. For example, in my law review article Sports and the City: How to Curb Sports Teams' Demands for Free Public Stadiums, I explain how the Florida Marlins pressured their municipality into providing huge subsidies by threatening to otherwise move to Las Vegas.
It will be interesting to see what develops in Tampa Bay. Until now, Rays owner Stuart Sternberg has not threatened franchise relocation. It is not clear, however, that Selig would follow the same classy approach.
(Cross-posted on SportsJudge Blog)