Chris Bosh wins rights to domain

Alert reader Devin Black sends along this story about Chris Bosh of the Toronto Raptors, who successfully sued to recover use of the domain chrisbosh.com from a cyber-squatter named Luis Zavala, who also held domain names of more than 800 other celebrities.

Interestingly, rather than statutory damages (Bosh was entitled to $ 12,000, which he doubted Zavala could pay), Bosh asked the court to make Zavala relinquish control of the other 800 celebrity names he had been using (I presume Bosh will simply relinquish those names and not try to sell them off). That's an interesting remedy. But I wonder if the court actually could grant this. After all, Bosh is not injured because Zavala owned britneyspears.com.

Baseball's Antitrust Exemption Highlighted in a New TV Campaign

TheHill.com reports that baseball's historic antitrust exemption has been highlighted as part of a new advertising campaign criticizing the health insurance industry. No doubt hoping to capitalize on the popularity of the baseball playoffs, the group Americans United for Change has launched the TV commercial below, noting that the baseball and health insurance industries are the only two enjoying an exemption from federal antitrust law. In the process, the ad depicts the effect of the baseball antitrust exemption as being relatively benign, a characterization I suspect many here would take issue with.

Gillispie v. U. of Kentucky Lawsuit Settled

ESPN.com is reporting that former University of Kentucky basketball coach Billy Gillispie has settled his lawsuit against the University for $2.9 million. As I have previously discussed, Gillispie sued the University for breach of contract, among other claims, following his dismissal in March of this year. The settlement agreement also resolves the countersuit that the University later filed against Gillispie in Kentucky state court.

Oliver v. NCAA Ends in Settlement

Earlier this year, an Ohio state court ruled in favor of Oklahoma State University star pitcher Andrew Oliver in his lawsuit against the NCAA. Oliver had been suspended by OSU after news emerged that, years earlier, he had met with Minnesota Twins representatives with his attorneys while contemplating whether to retain his amateur status and attend college or turn pro after high school. Oliver maintained the rule which prohibited that meeting interfered with his attorney-client relationship and was against public policy (For more background see Alan Milstein's post and posts by others, including one on the NCAA Compliance Blog, one by Dan Fitzgerald on Connecticut Sports Law, and those with competing viewpoints from Rick Karcher and Tassos Kaburakis).

The NCAA intended to appeal the decision, but the appeal won't happen as the NCAA and Oliver worked out an undisclosed $750,000 financial settlement late last week. While Oliver will receive money from the NCAA, the NCAA's rules will remain in place. Whether another player challenges those rules remains to be seen. For more, see Sports Agent Blog's Darren Heitner's The End of the Andy Oliver Affair.

Baseballs in the stands: End of the tradition?

In light of the controversy over Ryan Howard's home run ball, as well as past controversies over other record-setting and significant balls, I wonder if we are heading towards a change in how baseballs hit into the stands (at least fair balls) are treated.

It seems to me that MLB and individual teams control this. Fans keeping baseballs is a matter of tradition and historical practice, practice that is not followed in most other sports--football, basketball, tennis. The question of how a ball should be treated under state property rules depends on the teams--the owners of the stadiums--not simply declaring that all balls remaining within the stadium (or remaining within the stadium and in fair territory) remain the property of MLB and must be returned.

Such a move would not be popular, of course, as it flies in the face of the intrinsic joy of fans catching home run balls. But I wonder if teams might find it better than getting into disputes when players want important balls, not to mention having fans committing simple battery in an attempt to catch a ball.

I am not a property scholar, so I invite those more in the know to weigh in.

Weekend Reading: Kooky Ideas About Steroids

I've uploaded my new essay on steroids in professional sports, Blue Sky Steroids, from a symposium on Sports & Criminal Law published by Northwestern Law School's Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. You can download the essay free of charge here. Here's the abstract:

Performance-enhancing substance use has attracted considerable political and media attention. However, relatively little analysis of the reasons for regulating substance use in professional sports exists. Most of the ostensible reasons for regulating performance-enhancing substance use are belied by leagues’ inadequate commitment to the justifications in other contexts. Further, most of the methods of proposed regulation would be ineffective and unworkable. In place of the standard test-and-punish regime advocated by doping authorities, this Essay argues that performance-enhancing substance policy should be modeled after federal and state securities regulation. Instead of punishing use, regulators should require disclosure of all substances used, and punish only omissions and fraud of a material nature. The goals of a regulation regime would be better achieved without unintended negative consequences through a market approach based on minimum disclosure requirements.

Two thoughts on Howard's home run ball

Three thoughts on the story Mark discusses about Ryan Howard's home run ball. Because I find this story really sad.

First, this seems like a bad trade for Ms. Valdivia and her family. If the Barry Bonds home run ball fiasco taught us anything, it is that "historic" home run balls do not have nearly as much value as many fans assume. Her attorney is described as a "memorabilia enthusiast," so he probably knows something about value that I don't. But the ball is unique only because of the "fastest-to" mark that is a largely meaningless, made-up record. If Ryan Howard goes to the Hall of Fame (and I believe he will, at his current pace), will an autograph really be worth less than his 200th home run?

Second, Ms. Valdivia, her family, and her lawyer are hereby estopped from ever again complaining about greedy professional athletes who only care about money and not the game. And so is everyone else who believes the family was in the right here. Howard wanted the ball for his personal satisfaction, because it represented an accomplishment that, in the long run, is meaningful to him. He offered something of value in return. And the girl's family sued because, in crassest terms, they wanted more money (or more value).

Third, I wonder what she did with the autographed ball the Phillies originally gave her in exchange. Did she keep it? That would give her quite a windfall, to which she is not entitled. Of course, if the Phillies had asked for it back in settling a rescission claim, we would be hearing all sorts of shouts about the greedy team/player taking back what they had given this innocent fan.