15th Annual University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Symposium

The sports law conference season is in full swing. The University of Miami School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society has organized the 15th Annual Entertainment & Sports Law Symposium. The April 14, 2012 event is co-hosted by the Miami Marlins and held at the team's new stadium. Full details about the conference can be found here. A summary of the schedule is below.

SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE

BREAKFAST, REGISTRATION, AND OPENING REMARKS: 8:00AM – 8:40AM
Breakfast, registration, and opening remarks will occur before the start of the symposium.

PANEL I: 8:40AM – 9:40AM
Protecting Your Client's Image: The Use of Intellectual Property Law to Represent a Client's Business and Personal Interests

PANEL II: 9:50AM – 10:50AM
Leveraging Social Media: Best Social Media Practices for the Entertainment and Sports Industries

PANELS III: 11:00AM – 12:00PM
The Year of Copyright Recapture: Analyzing the Music Industry's Response to a Change of Control in Ownership Rights

PANELS IV: 11:00AM – 12:00PM
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Professional and International Sports: The Role of Mediation, Arbitration, and Negotiation in Labor Issues

LUNCH AND KEYNOTE PANEL: 12:00PM – 2:00PM
The Stadium as a Center for Entertainment and Sports: An Overview of the Business and Legal Issues That Arise in Event Planning at the Modern Stadium

PANEL V: 2:00PM – 3:00PM
From the Television Screen to the Computer Screen: Distributing Entertainment and Sports Content in Today's Digital Age

TOUR OF THE BALLPARK: 3:00PM – 3:45PM

GAME VERSUS THE HOUSTON ASTROS: 7:10PM

The Following Speakers Are Confirmed

Jeff Gewirtz: Executive Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment – Brooklyn, NY
Michael Yormark: President and Chief Executive Officer, Florida Panthers – South Florida
Derek Jackson: Vice President and General Counsel, Miami Marlins
Kathleen Carignan: Executive Director, LegalArt
Brad Rose: Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP
Steven Olenick: Associate, Davis & Gilbert LLP
Jaime Vining: Partner, Friedland Vining P.A.
Darren Heitner: Associate, Wolfe Law Miami, P.A.
Alan Fertel: Partner, Boyd & Jenerette
David Canter: President and Chief Executive Officer, DEC Management
Billy Corben: Director, Producer, and Founder of rakontur
Andrew Fine: Managing Director of Sports Media Consulting, RLR Associates
David Bercuson: Law Offices of David Bercuson, P.A.
Leslie Zigel: Partner, ZIGLAW
Stephen Carlisle: Stephen M. Carlisle, P.A.
Serona Elton: Assistant Professor of Music Business & Entertainment Industries, University of Miami
Dennis Curran: Senior Vice President & General Counsel, National Football League
Stephen Starks: Legal Affairs Director, United States Anti-Doping Agency
Scott Shapiro: Praver Shapiro Sports Management, Founder
Mike Santos: Assistant General Manager, Florida Panthers
Tony Agnone: Owner, Eastern Athletic Services
Jan Paulsson: Professor, University of Miami School of Law
Yaphett Powell: Director, Business & Legal Affairs, International & Emerging TV Networks, FOX – Los Angeles
David Schwartz: Vice President & Counsel, The Walt Disney Company
Karyn Smith-Forge: Vice President of Programming, FOX Television Studios
Fred Goldring: Founder, Goldring Strategies
Jose Sariego: Senior Vice President of Business & Legal Affairs, HBO Latin America Group

The Irony That is March Madness

Now that “March Madness” is underway, two important articles this weekend highlight the irony that is big time college athletics in 2012. The first article, “Everybody Wants a Piece of Nerlens Noel” written by Pete Thamel in The New York Times, highlights the recruiting efforts by colleges for the services of a standout high school basketball player. This piece illustrates, in remarkable clarity, the fact that schools view athletes as commodities rather than potential student-athletes.

As a result, can it really be any surprise that advocates again discuss forming a union on behalf of these student-athletes? An article on Salon.com by Josh Eidelson entitled “Madness of March: NCAA Gets Paid, Players Don’t,” raises the concept of student-athletes unionizing. Rather than just arguing it’s a concept worth debating, Eidelson actually pushes the discussion by addressing the legal framework that so far has stifled this effort and offers some solutions.

Make no mistake, college athletics is an extremely lucrative business. Chasing revenue places pressure on schools to recruit elite student-athletes. Unfortunately, those same student-athletes have virtually no formal say in either their governing body (NCAA) or as an a collective body (union). Change is necessary.

If Only Gregg Williams Were a Boxing Promoter

Why the Brewing Scandal Involving the St. Louis Rams’ Defensive Coordinator Would be a Non-Starter in Professional Boxing

 

Just a week or two ago, it was professional boxing’s turn again to come under international scrutiny following Dereck (Del Boy) Chisora’s antics both before and after his WBC Heavyweight Title bout with Vitali Klitschko. This week, however, it was the NFL taking the heat following the revelation that Gregg Williams, the new defensive coordinator for the St. Louis Rams, instituted a “bounty program” while in the employ of the Washington Redskins, the New Orleans Saints, and possibly others which involved financially rewarding defensive players for particularly damaging defensive plays. 

While the fall-out from the Williams scandal will inevitably lead to certain reforms being instituted within the NFL, such rewards are routine in professional boxing. Indeed, it is not unusual to see a promotional agreement which provides for additional compensation in the event that the boxer scores a knockout in a given bout. In two sports with rich histories of brutality, why is one under a potentially policy changing assault while the other continues on unscathed with its own bounty programs? 

Read on at this link.

The A's-Giants Dispute Over San Jose Continues

The on-going dispute between the Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants regarding the A's proposed relocation to San Jose (territory claimed by the Giants) is once again heating up this week (click here for an earlier 2009 post on the dispute). After patiently waiting three years for an MLB panel to resolve the matter, A's owner Lew Wolff went public Wednesday questioning the Giants' supposed claim to San Jose. The Giants franchise alleges that it controls the San Jose territory under a 1990 agreement in which the A's voluntarily relinquished their rights to Santa Clara County (which includes San Jose) so that the Giants could themselves relocate to the area.

However, Wolff issued a statement on Wednesday referencing the minutes of the relevant 1990 owners meeting, which he says clearly provide that the Giants' claim to Santa Clara County was contingent upon the team actually moving to the area. Because the Giants never left San Francisco, Wolff asserts that the Giants have no rightful claim to San Jose. The Giants disagree with Wolff's interpretation, issuing a statement arguing that the franchise's claim to Santa Clara County has been ratified in the MLB Constitution on multiple occasions since 1990. Indeed, if the Giants' claim to San Jose was as flimsy as the A's now allege, then MLB would likely have settled this dispute a couple years ago.

Frustrated by the delay, San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo suggested on Wednesday that a reconsideration of baseball's antitrust exemption might be in order if the A's are unable to move to the city. The suggestion that the government should reevaluate baseball's antitrust exemption in light of the A's-Giants dispute is not unexpected, as the exemption has historically helped shield MLB's territorial restrictions from antitrust scrutiny. As I detailed in a recent paper, Congress has frequently threatened to revoke baseball's exemption in order to motivate MLB to make a variety of concessions. Liccardo's threat alone is unlikely to force MLB to allow the A's to move to San Jose, but that could change if a sufficient number of Congressional representatives become interested in the A's plight.

Cardozo Law Symposium: Amateur Athletics, Professional IP: Sponsorship, Surveillance, and the London 2012 Olympics

A reminder for those in the NYC area: The Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law is hosting a symposium tomorrow from 8:30 am to 1:30 pm on the law and business of the London 2012 Olympic Games. I'm honored to be one of the speakers. Other speakers include Harvey Schiller (former CEO of Turner Sports and later CEO and Chairman of YankeesNets) and attorneys from NBC Sports and Latham & Watkins. It should be a great event - hope to see you there.

ESPN Radio/True Hoop on Rationality, Race Sensitivity and Legality of NBA Age Limit

During last week's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference -- which was truly amazing -- ESPN's Henry Abbott interviewed for me for 21 minutes on the NBA age limit (more technically called the league's "eligibility restriction").  The rule requires that players be 19-years-old plus one year removed from high school.

We talk about why the rule exists, how it relates to the commercialization of college basketball, whether it, along with the NFL and WNBA's age limits, could be deemed racist in light of the absence of such restrictions in other sports and forms of entertainment, and its vulnerability to legal challenge.  I also accepted Henry's challenge to impersonate Tom Cruise from the movies The Firm and Jerry Maguire.

Hope you can listen to the interview.  For a related piece, be sure to check out SI's Zach Lowe's excellent analysis and summary of the age limit issue.

Update: Henry also interviews Sonny Vaccaro and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on this topic and related issues.

New Sports Illustrated column: Legal Fallout of Saints Bounty Scandal

Is it a crime or tort to pay someone to injure another person? Sure. But how about if it the crime/tort happens on a football field? Check out my column for Sports Illustrated | SI.com on the Saints bounty system.

Here's an excerpt:

* * *

The bounty system implicates at least two types of criminal charges: battery and conspiracy. Battery, which under Louisiana law is punishable by up to six months in jail, refers to the intentional use of force upon another person without that person's consent. Here, a Saints player who intentionally tried to injure another team's player could have battered that player. In response, a Saints player might argue that offensive players assume the risk of serious injury on every play, especially since defensive players are rewarded for stopping the advancement of the ball. That rationale would be deeply flawed, however, because while offensive players assume the risk of injury on a tackle, they do not assume the tackle is intended to injure them. The Saints' "pay for injury" model is clearly outside the boundaries of the game and an assumption of risk defense holds little weight. ...

***

While the above provides a road map to criminal prosecutions of Saints players, coaches and front office personnel, prosecutors seldom seek charges for incidents that occur on the field. This is true even for on-field incidents that would clearly be crimes if they occurred on a public street. Prosecutors and judges generally defer to leagues to enforce their own rules and assign their own penalties. While this deference makes sense on some levels, one may wonder whether an NFL penalty provides adequate deterrence for preventing future bounty systems: even the most serious NFL fine -- banishment from the game -- could never come close to the threat of a judge sentencing someone to jail or prison. Besides, in the rare instances when criminal charges are brought by authorities, they are often brought outside of the U.S. (such as when Vancouver authorities charged Boston Bruins defenseman Marty McSorley for his vicious slash of Vancouver Canucks forward Donald Brashear).

* * * 

To read the rest, click here.