Search

This study examines the remaining options for sport managers to balance the interests of college athletes and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in regulating college athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL). The paper is divided into six substantive sections. The first section, "Background: The NCAA's Defense of NIL Restrictions," provides a brief history of the NCAA's legal defense to challenges against its NIL regulations. The second section, "U.S. Congress Is Unlikely to Regulate College Athletes' NIL Rights," addresses proposed federal legislation and Congress' willingness to regulate the use of NIL by college athletes. The third section, "The Impact of O'Bannon and Alston on NCAA's NIL Restraints," examines controlling case law, specifically O'Bannon v. NCAA and NCAA v. Alston, and how current antitrust law precedent shapes the scope by which the NCAA can regulate college athletes' NIL. The fourth section, "State Laws Regulating the NIL Marketplace," addresses state legislation regulating college athlete NIL use. The fifth section, "The Applicability of Labor Law to Regulating College Athletes' NIL," discusses the current college athlete NIL marketplace and analyzes whether labor law presents an optimal way forward for the NCAA to regulate NIL post-Alston. The sixth section, "College Athletes' Employee Status as a Pathway to Redefine the NCAA's Amateurism," concludes by examining the law's role in regulating NIL and discussing stakeholder implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gambling, in particular sports gambling, is one of the most pervasive illicit activities in the United States.  In contrast to Europe and parts of Asia that have vast legal networks of both online and brick and mortar betting parlors, the United States has largely confined sports betting to the state of Nevada, while tolerating so-called daily fantasy sports in a number of additional states.  Slightly less pervasive, though equally or perhaps more often associated with illegal activity, are virtual currencies.  Indeed, the growth of the illegal gambling market is being partially fueled by virtual currencies.  While bitcoin garners most of the media attention, often associated with volatile valuations or criminal activity, a variety of smaller scale virtual currencies have also emerged.  The challenge for judges and an essential prerogative for lawmakers is to make sense of how to treat virtual currencies under antiquated statutes and interpretations of what constitutes money.Some of the high-profile cases involving bitcoin—such as United States v. Ulbricht, and theft from the Mt. GOX exchange leading to its collapse—have raised questions as to whether bitcoin is money, or even property, the loss of which is compensable.  Smaller, narrowly used, in-game virtual currencies have also emerged.  Their unique distinction from bitcoin and first generation virtual currencies is that they have value within games, but purportedly have no value external to the game per terms of service agreements offered by game makers.  No fewer than seven decisions have been issued addressing these in-game currencies, finding that despite the existence of secondary markets allowing users to transfer accounts for fiat currencies, the terms of service agreements control in determining the in-game currencies to be valueless. These federal holdings create a major problem for law enforcement and prosecutors.  By awarding prizes with zero-value currencies, virtual games, casinos and sportsbooks bypass compliance with most gambling statutes.  This problem is exacerbated by secondary markets that use market-based pricing to establish values for accounts contradicting the game makers’ valuations.  Skins gambling, a recently emerged ancillary feature of a popular video game, has already blossomed into a multi-billion-dollar industry that might be outside the reach of law enforcement, and almost no one has noticed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 73 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF SPORTS INFORMATION 77 A. Basic Scorekeeping 78 B. Early Distribution Era 81 C. Advanced Analytics 83 D. Future of Sports [...], With legal sports betting viewed as a panacea for state budget woes across the United States, the underlying data that fuels the sports betting industry has emerged as an especially valuable asset. In the hopes of capitalizing on state laws that have now legalized sports betting, United States professional sports leagues have attempted to gain exclusive ownership rights over valuable sports betting data by asking legislators to mandate that bookmakers exclusively use data sold through the league. In addition, some sports leagues have imposed policies mandating that teams bundle together their collected data for purposes of selling it exclusively through the league to third parties, and, on the league level, compiling sports data rights with other desirable league rights--all with the hopes of allowing the league to gain control over all data pertaining to their sport, and thus, indirectly, sports betting. These efforts by the United States professional sports leagues to potentially monopolize sports data markets raise novel questions both in terms of who, if anyone, owns the property rights to sports data and what efforts, if any, are needed to prevent sports leagues from improperly gaining control over sports data markets. This Article proposes that the United States professional sports leagues' recent attempts to collectivize the sale of sports game data and prevent non-league-affiliated entities from competing in the markets to collect, aggregate, and resell game data gives rise to both legal and policy concerns under federal antitrust laws. In particular, this Article analyzes whether the league-wide sale of sports game data should be viewed as a form of collusion among individual sports teams that may potentially violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, and whether league-wide efforts to secure exclusive rights to sell sports game data should constitute a potential form of exclusionary conduct under section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Abstract: Legalized sports gambling has become one of the hottest topics in state legislatures ever since the United States Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n [...]

A racial priming article claimed that, relative to a controlcondition, an exotic variety of variability, called 1/ƒ noise, isaltered when stereotypes impact participants’ judgments in animplicit prejudice task (Correll, 2008). However, Madurskiand LeBel (2014) recently described two powerful, faithfullycloned, and apparently decisive studies that each failed toreturn a successful literal replication of Correll’s report.Madurski and LeBel outlined and subsequently eliminatedseveral potential extraneous reasons for their replicationfailures, such as different participant demographics,participant non-compliance, poor psychometrics, andhardware discrepancies. By contrast, this article reports asuccessful conceptual replication of the pattern reported byCorrell (cf. Schmidt, 2009). Notably, this conceptualreplication required adjustments to Correll’s original methodand statistical analyses. All the changes were dictated by asystems theory of 1/ƒ noise that was largely in place prior toCorrell’s report (Kello, Beltz, Holden, & Van Orden, 2007;Van Orden, Holden, & Turvey, 2003; 2005). Implications forthe replication debate are discussed, with emphasis oncontextualizing implicit cues.

Sport governance has become one of the most prominent subjects in the field of sport management research. Nevertheless, a dearth of understanding and consensus still exists in terms of the paradigmatic orientation, conceptual classification, and taxonomy in the field, resulting in limited and vague theoretical contributions and practical implications of sport governance literature. This article is an attempt to explore the area of sport governance practice and research by focusing on the regulatory schemes and the legal aspects of the system. Pursuant to previous studies, a theoretical framework and elements of sport governance practice are identified, and as a result, a working definition of sport governance is proposed. The studies published in this special issue are introduced in the context of the conceptual framework and the identified elements while their implications are noted and possible inquiries for future research are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction, such as orthostatic hypotension consequent to baroreflex failure and cardiac sympathetic denervation, is frequently observed in the synucleinopathy Parkinson's disease (PD). In the present study, the baroreceptor reflex was assessed in mice overexpressing human wildtype alpha-synuclein (Thy1-aSyn), a genetic mouse model of synucleinopathy. The beat-to-beat change in heart rate (HR), computed from R-R interval, in relation to blood pressure was measured in anesthetized and conscious mice equipped with arterial blood pressure telemetry transducers during transient bouts of hypertension and hypotension. Compared to wildtype, tachycardia following nitroprusside-induced hypotension was significantly reduced in Thy1-aSyn mice. Thy1-aSyn mice also showed an abnormal cardiovascular response (i.e., diminished tachycardia) to muscarinic blockade with atropine. We conclude that Thy1-aSyn mice have impaired basal and dynamic range of sympathetic and parasympathetic-mediated changes in HR and will be a useful model for long-term study of cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction associated with PD.

For more than one hundred years, professional baseball has enjoyed a form of exemption from federal antitrust laws. Arising from a statement made by the game's first commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis that organized baseball is a national institution and not labor--and later enshrined into common law by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's adoption of a now-outdated definition of interstate commerce--baseball's antitrust exemption endures as "an exception, an anomaly and an aberration." Relying on an exemption from antitrust law, owners of Major League Baseball have become exceedingly wealthy based on their carte blanche freedom to act in their collective best interests--sometimes to the detriment of players, rival sports leagues, and fans. Even though the original basis for baseball's antitrust exemption has long since faded, courts and Congress, fearing political backlash or perhaps enjoying the perks of aggressive lobbyists seeking to curry favor, have been loath to lift the exemption. This Article calls for reform to the treatment of professional baseball under federal antitrust laws and suggests that baseball, like all other organized sports, be held subject to competitive scrutiny. Drawing on a careful study of baseball history, legal precedent, and public policy, the Article concludes that even if organized baseball is a national institution, much like its historic use of amateur players, unbalanced schedules, and segregated leagues, the time has come to put baseball's historic antitrust exemption behind us. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the implications of Grant of Rights (GOR) agreements in college football and their influence on conference realignment. Topics include an overview of GOR agreements and their effects on media rights, a discussion of current GOR contracts used by Power Five conferences, and recommendations for structuring future GOR agreements.

The past two years have brought important legal changes to the intercollegiate sports industry, with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down aspects of the NCAA's bylaws that prevented colleges from providing unlimited educational benefits to their athletes and state legislatures passing new laws to ensure that college athletes enjoy the legal right to endorse products for money. These recent changes to the economic system of college sports have now heralded broader change in legal policy pertaining to the classification of college athletes. At present, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is reviewing, on interlocutory appeal, the question of whether certain NCAA Division I college athletes may constitute employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition, on December 15, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board instructed its Los Angeles branch to move forward in pursuing an unfair labor practice charge against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA for engaging in the ongoing misclassification of their college football and basketball players as mere "student-athletes." This Article provides an in-depth and contemporary analysis of college athletes' employment status under both federal labor and employment law. It concludes by asserting that while the NCAA and its member institutions may be correct that certain college athletes fail to fall within the legal definition of employees, other college athletes, especially those in revenuegenerating sports, fall clearly within the legal definition. The Article further provides guidance as to determining what types of college athletes constitute bona fide employees, as well as what entity, or entities, would constitute the employers of these employee-athletes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]