Last week, the NFL issued Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott a six-game suspension for violating the NFL’s personal-conduct policy, following an investigation into domestic abuse allegations. Now the former Buckeye has filed an official appeal, hoping to discredit his accuser by highlighting a text exchange between her and a friend in which she discussed leveraging sex videos featuring her and Elliott for money from the player.

Yahoo! Sport’s Charles Robinson obtained a 160-page report prepared by NFL investigators, which reportedly contains a series of text messages between Elliott’s ex-girlfriend Tiffany Thompson and an unnamed friend that suggest the pair considered blackmailing the second-year pro for $20,000.

According to the report, here is the exact exchange between Thompson and her friend on September 21, 2016:

[Thompson]: What if I sold mine and Ezekiel’s sex videos

[Friend]: We’d all be millionaires

[Friend]: We could black mail him w that

[Thompson]: I want to bro

[Friend]: Let’s do it

[Thompson]: Scared

[Friend]: Shit

[Friend]: Id be like look give me 10k or I’ll just sell our sex videos for the same amount flat

[Friend]: Me and my friends tryna go on vacation and get boob jobs

(the report notes a pair of blank texts)

[Thompson]: 10k Bitch I want 20k

[Thompson]: Go big or go home

[Friend]: That’s fine too

“While none of this appears to be evidence that can conclusively clear Elliott of domestic violence, the NFLPA and his lawyers believe it speaks to the credibility aspect that may ultimately determine the success of his appeal,” writes Yahoo! Sports.

Elliott, 22, was accused of assaulting Thompson in Columbus, Ohio, in July 2016, after she posted images of bruises all over her body to her Instagram, tagging Elliott. In the captions, Thompson said Elliott picked her up and threw her across the room by her arms and choked her. She later called Columbus police and told officers that Elliott had been hitting her for “the past five days.”

Elliott, who was neither arrested nor charged in the case, continues to maintain his innocence.

However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Elliott after four independent advisers concluded that there was “substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016.” The league found the “photographic and medical forensic evidence corroborates many critical elements of the allegations regarding the causes of her injuries.”

Following the release of the text messages, many were accused of shaming the victim with their responses on Twitter.

Tiffany Thompson was willing to ruin @EzekielElliott career so she and her pals could get $20K worth of boob jobs. https://t.co/QEUpT1Pk6e

— mike fisher ✭ (@fishsports) August 16, 2017

This doesn’t clear Zeke. It just tears away at her credibility. Makes me wonder how unimpressed they were with Zeke’s credibility

— Mark Friedman (@friedo1033) August 16, 2017

I see we’ve reached the “trash the victim” point in Ezekiel Elliott case. Lovely. Remember victims can behave badly, still have been abused

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) August 16, 2017

Seeing people paint Ezekiel Elliott as the victim in this situation is … something.

— Scott Bell (@ScottBellDMN) August 11, 2017

Elliott’s lawyers intend to further attack Thompson’s credibility in their appeal using documents that show she allegedly lied to the Columbus Police department during its investigation, and her various threats to “ruin his career,” including one that was racially based, according to sources. In one such threat, Thompson allegedly told Elliott on July 22, “You are a black male athlete. I’m a white girl. They are not going to believe you.”

Elliott will be eligible to make his season debut October 29 against the Washington Redskins. His appeal hearing is scheduled for August 29.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ezekiel Elliott’s Accuser Admitted to Suggesting Blackmail Over Sex Tapes appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday night at FedEx Field in Washington D.C., Spanish soccer giant Barcelona played a friendly match against the English football club Manchester United. The game ended in a 1-0 victory for Barcelona, with the only goal coming from Brazilian forward Neymar, who was able to put pressure on the ball and escape multiple defenders in order to score a beautiful goal. Neymar has been a catalyst for his team since arriving in 2013, bringing nine trophies in just three years to Barcelona. But it appears that the superstar striker may be on the move.

Over the past week, there have been multiple reports that Neymar is interested in joining French football club Paris St.-Germain (PSG). The team plans on activating Barcelona’s €222 million release clause, as well as a potential transfer payment of €196 million. PSG would also pay Neymar’s wages of €30 million a year for the next five years, as well as a €40 million fee to his father, who acts as his agent. The entire deal could amount to €450 million, which would obliterate the previous transfer payment record, set by Manchester United, which payed €105 million for French midfielder Paul Pogba last summer.

However, some sources say that a decision has not been made yet because Neymar and his associates are concerned that the deal may violate the Financial Fair Play rules. Before he signs the deal with PSG, Neymar reportedly wants assurances that he will not be investigated by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), European soccer’s governing body.

Financial Fair Play is a financial reform established by former UEFA President Michel Platini in 2010, in response to the growing number of teams running huge debts and declaring bankruptcy.

The rule requires clubs to balance spending with revenue. The end goal is for a club to break even for every three-year assessment period. However, clubs are allowed to spend more than they take in if the excess expenditure “is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.” Under FFP regulations, players’ wages are not allowed to exceed 70 percent of the club’s income.

If a soccer club is found to be in violation of FFP regulations, the consequences can be severe. Teams and individual players can be banned from participating in major UEFA competitions, and the UEFA can withhold a club’s revenue. PSG was previously found to be in violation of FFP rules, and was fined €60 million.

During the 2015-16 season, PSG made €105 million, and players’ wages made up about 54 percent of the club’s income. But even if PSG absorbed Neymar’s massive contract, the club’s total wages would be 65 percent of its income, which would put them in compliance with FFP regulations.

The overall problem posed by the transfer would be the addition of €100 million in expenditures just from adding Neymar this year alone. But PSG is confident that bringing in a player of Neymar’s caliber and popularity would dramatically increase merchandising sales for the club, which would help offset his massive fee. Neymar is one of the most marketable and recognizable sports figures in the world–he has 78.6 million Instagram followers.

To make up for their Neymar-related spending, PSG can offload some of its more expensive players. But so far, according to Andrea Traverso, the head of UEFA’s club licensing committee and financial fair play, PSG has been following the FFP regulations. As long as the club is able to break even on the deal, the UEFA has no problem with it spending €450 million for one player.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Could Financial Fair Play Rules Force Neymar to Stay in Barcelona? appeared first on Law Street.

For most major sports in the United States, the offseason can feel like a dull stretch of time that leaves fans yearning for the next season. The NBA, however, is somehow able to turn its league into the most exciting thing on television without a single game playing.

Every year, a new story emerges about players changing the fortunes of a franchise with the stroke of a pen, getting traded multiple times in one day, or potentially kidnapping a teammate to get him to re-sign with a team. This year, already, All-Star Jimmy Butler gave out his phone number at a press conference encouraging critics to contact him directly with any problems.

Now, it seems like politicians are getting in on the action too. Tanner Ainge, a Republican candidate running in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, used Twitter to try and curry favor with All-Star forward Gordon Hayward–who became a free agent Thursday after spending his first seven seasons with the Utah Jazz. One of Hayward’s rumored destinations is the Boston Celtics. As a friendly reminder to the Hayward, Ainge decided to tweet at him a link to a news story about how Massachusetts is considering a “millionaire tax” that would increase the tax burden for high-earners.

@gordonhayward: something to consider over next few days… #takenote https://t.co/bqyEtXvnKO

— Tanner Ainge (@tannerainge) June 29, 2017

This story has a little more twist to it than just a politician attempting to gain voters through relevant sports commentary. Tanner Ainge’s father is the president of basketball operations for the Boston Celtics–or, the man responsible for trying to bring Gordon Hayward to Boston this summer–Danny Ainge. The Celtics do have a tempting proposition for Hayward: make as much as $127 million over four years–per ESPN–and join a team that could possibly win the Eastern Conference. However, a new state tax could actually affect his decision.

Let’s break it down. The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday passed a constitutional amendment to raise the tax rate by 4 percent on income over $1 million. Massachusetts currently has a flat tax, which means everyone pays 5.1 percent tax rate on their income. Pending a referendum vote in the next state election, the constitutional amendment would mean if someone earned $1.3 million, they would pay 5.1 percent on the first million and 9.1 percent on the remaining $300,000. As a result, that person’s state income taxes would grow from $66,300 to $78,300. The state’s department of revenue estimates this will help raise $1.9 billion for the state in 2019.

If, hypothetically, Boston and Utah were to both come to Hayward with the exact same contract–$127 million over the course of four years–the all-star would see an annual difference of over $2 million in taxes paid. If he signs with Boston, Hayward would likely pay about $11,400,000 over the course of the four years, as opposed to about $6,350,000 in Utah–which has a 5 percent state income tax–during that same period. No matter what your tax bracket is, $5 million is a lot of money.

But this is just a hypothetical and does not account for a few things. On the one hand, the current NBA collective bargaining agreement allows Utah to offer Hayward more money for a contract over a longer term. On the other hand, a dark horse candidate for Hayward from a state that has no income tax–like the Miami Heat, for instance–could swoop in and complicate the decision even further. It’s also worth noting that money isn’t always everything for some players, as many value the potential to win as much as their checks, which Tanner Ainge understands.

“Unfortunately, I’m not sure I have a lot of influence there,” Ainge told Deseret News on Thursday. “Ultimately, Gordon is going to make the decision. I hope he stays.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a “Millionaire Tax” Affect Boston’s Ability to Attract NBA Stars? appeared first on Law Street.

A 19-year-old college student just made history by becoming the first black woman to play in a top-tier polo tournament. Shariah Harris plays on Cornell’s college polo team; she and her teammates got all the way to the national semifinals this year.

But on Friday, Harris was part of the Postage Stamp Farm team in the Silver Cup tournament at Greenwich Polo Club in Connecticut.

Harris’ love for riding began when her mother got lost while they were driving 12 years ago. They ended up at a farm in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, where the nonprofit program Work to Ride happened to be based. This program lets children from low-income households learn how to ride and perform in equestrian sports. Harris very quickly became a star.

Postage Stamp Farm’s Shariah Harris is the 1st African-American to play @ 20-goal level#historyinthemaking #SilverCup @GreenwichPolo pic.twitter.com/QJcanICnTu

— US Polo Association (@PoloAssociation) June 29, 2017

As her mother was a single parent with three children, this was an awesome opportunity for Harris to learn equestrian sports. But it’s not all fun and games. To take part in the program, the kids had to muck the stables, take care of the horses, and often perform other tasks like maintaining the facilities. They also needed to keep certain grades to remain qualified for the program. Harris not only became a pro on horseback, but also received a scholarship to Cornell University.

When Harris traveled to Argentina to play polo, she met Annabelle Garrett, the owner of the Postage Stamp Farm team, as well as a player. Earlier this year, Garrett injured her back and got in touch with Harris to ask her to take her spot on the four-person team for the upcoming tournament in Greenwich. About Harris, she said, “She’s absolutely a pioneer. This is a white-male-dominated sport. This is 100 percent groundbreaking. And she can ride.”

Shariah Harris of #PostageStampFarm as seen at @GreenwichPolo for the #Silver up 2017 @SuicaClaudia for @PoloHUBsocial #media #polo pic.twitter.com/cpHPXEh2ue

— ClaudiaPoloLifestyle (@SuicaClaudia) June 30, 2017

Although what Harris is doing is groundbreaking, it hasn’t come without hurdles. Polo is traditionally a male-dominated sport, and women have only recently begun to participate. In the 1950s, Sue Sally Hale played, but she pretended to be a man and wore a fake mustache to be able to participate. Hale played in a disguise for 20 years, and in 1972, women players were finally allowed. In 2000, her daughter Sunny Hale became the first woman to compete for a winning team in the US Open.

Harris said that she has met some racism in the form of inappropriate comments, whispers, and stares. But she also said, “If me playing will mean opportunities to play for other kids like me, then I’m perfectly happy to be breaking down doors. I just keep quiet, put on my boots and go out and play.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shariah Harris Just Became the First Black Woman in a Top-Tier Polo Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

More than 28 years have passed since the worst tragedy in British sports history occurred at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. Poor logistical planning and police negligence led to an overcrowded supporters’ section that killed 96 Liverpool supporters–including 37 teenagers–and injured over 700 fans. Friends and families of the victims received the bittersweet news on Wednesday that British prosecutors have finally charged six people for the tragedy, following years of media scrutiny and victim blaming. It comes as a surprise to many that an event that supposedly rocked the world of soccer took over a quarter century to resolve. So how did we get from that terrible tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster to the prosecution today?

What Happened in Hillsborough?

English soccer in the 1980s was marked by frequent hooliganism and alcoholism. In order to try to curb incidents–the key word here is “try”–the English Football Association (the FA) called for strong police presence at every match, segregated fan bases, and high steel fencing between the fans and the pitch. All of these factors came into play with this disaster.

The 1989 F.A. Cup semifinal match between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool was one of the most anticipated matches of that season. The FA selected Hillsborough Stadium as a neutral location in which to host it. One week after the host stadium was chosen, the Police Chief Superintendent–who had supervised this type of match the year before–was transferred from his division for a lack of institutional control over hazing. He was replaced by newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield who had no experience overseeing a sold out soccer match and reportedly mispronounced one of the team names repeatedly during his pre-match press conference.

The day of the match began as any other and the opposing supporters were segregated into their own respective sides of the stadium. Despite having a larger projected attendance, Liverpool supporters were given the side with less capacity and thus were relegated to a smaller entrance, less turnstiles, and fewer gate options once inside the stadium. As the size of the crowd grew, Duckenfield decided to open an exit gate to relieve pressure–and prevent a potential crush, ironically–from the turnstiles. Thousands of supporters began to spill into the stadium and into the nearest entrance which was a tunnel that led to an already overcrowded pair of sections. As a result, a bottleneck effect was created and those coming into the stadium began to crush those already in the stands against the steel fence, but they did not realize it.

Police officers showed their lack of guidance and experience from the very beginning of the match. A BBC report found that officers were not in the right locations to direct fans away from overcrowded seating areas. They also initially tried to prevent trapped fans from escaping through the fence–fearing pitch invaders. Once the match was stopped to help people escape the crush, officers began to focus more on keeping the peace than keeping people alive. They reportedly chose to not give CPR to potential crush victims and left that job to the fans so “they would not take out their frustration on the police.”

Worst of all were the actions toward the victims once emergency services began to arrive at the stadium. Forty-four ambulances arrived and police only allowed one into the stadium. Supporters took it upon themselves to bring those who needed assistance out to the vehicles, but they were only allowed to leave through the Liverpool side as officers never communicated the situation to Nottingham Forest supporters and blocked their exits from being used.

The Aftermath

As news began to spread about the tragedy that had occurred, and families began to wonder if their loved ones who left for the game would ever come home, the police–along with many media outlets–thought it would be best to immediately finding a group to blame for the incident at hand. Officials agreed that this disaster was the fault of the Liverpool fans attending the match, and disseminated that story to the press. The Daily Star, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and the Evening Standard all perpetuated the story published by The Sun’s Kelvin Mackenzie that the “unruly” Liverpool fans robbed corpses, urinated on police officers, and beat up those attempting to give CPR to victims. Duckenfield also blamed the tragedy on the fans for “forcing the gate open” that eventually led to the crush, and then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary Bernard Ingham attributed the tragedy to a “tanked-up mob of Liverpool supporters.”

This image of drunk and rowdy fans causing their own deaths seemed to affect how the coroners dealt with the bodies. In an unprecedented move, the coroner in charge decided to test the blood-alcohol level of every victim, even the underage ones, to pinpoint alcohol as the cause. They even ruled the times of death at nine minutes after the match had ended because that was when the crush had supposedly stopped, which ruled out the idea that any of the 96 could have possibly been saved. The findings that all deaths were accidental were upheld by a Divisional Court ruling.

In 1989, a report of an inquiry which was overseen by Lord Justice Taylor–known as the Taylor Inquiry–which investigated the disaster, blamed a “failure of police control” and found that the police had wrongly tried to shift blame onto the fans. But a subsequent investigation in 1997–conducted by Labour party officials–supported the conclusion that the deaths were accidental, and no criminal charges were filed.

Grieving families  left with no justice and few answers chose to respond. In 1998 they filed a civil lawsuit against the South Yorkshire Police. While the case eventually led to a deadlocked jury, it was enough to inspire those involved in the lawsuits to create a Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by a man who lost two teenage daughters in the tragedy.

Review and Justice Today

After years of fighting, the families of the 96 victims of Hillsborough received their first bit of justice in 2009–the 20th anniversary of the disaster–when the British government created a committee known as the Hillsborough Independent Panel to look into what had happened on that fateful April afternoon. In 2012, the group published its findings.

The report was rather damning. It claimed that many of the victims who were declared dead not even 20 minutes after the crushing might have survived if they had received swift medical attention. Autopsy findings showed there were 41 victims who did not have the traumatic asphyxia that caused most of the deaths, and Dr. Bill Kirkup, a physician on the panel, said they might have survived if they been taken to a hospital quickly enough.

The report also found that the police had amended 116 witness statements “to remove or alter comments unfavorable to the police,” and that officers conducted background checks on those who had died–even the children–in an attempt “to impugn the reputations of the deceased.” In addition, the report said the blood-alcohol levels that the coroner controversially measured were “unremarkable and not exceptional for a social or leisure occasion.”

These findings led to the British High Court reversing the accidental death ruling for the victims in 2012, setting the stage for a new investigation and possible criminal charges that came in 2014. In April 2016, the jury involved in the case determined that the 96 fans were unlawfully killed due to decisions made by police officers and “gross negligence” from Chief Duckenfield.

Following the April 2016 inquest, prosecutors were given the opportunity to decide whether to file criminal charges, and on Wednesday, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would.

Among those charged are David Duckenfield, who will face manslaughter by gross negligence charges; Graham Henry Mackrell, the secretary and safety officer for club that played in Hillsborough at the time, who faces charges of failing to carry out health and safety duties; Peter Metcalf, the lawyer acting for South Yorkshire Police, who is charged with perverting justice relating to changes made to witness statements; and three other former high-ranking police officers: Norman Bettison, Donald Denton, and Alan Foster.

The victims’ families expressed relief at the decision. Barry Devonside, whose 18-year-old son Christopher died, told Sky News that the families had applauded when they learned that “the most senior police officer on that particular day will have charges presented to him.”

“I was frightened, absolutely frightened, that we were going to be let down again,” he added.

The defendants, with the exception of Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington magistrates court on August 9, according to The Guardian.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Hillsborough Disaster Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the 22-member FIFA Executive Committee awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. These decisions stirred up major controversy among media commentators and government officials all over the world. As a result, allegations that the two countries bought their way into hosting the international soccer tournament during the 2009 bidding process began to spring up.

Though the accusations were serious, they were not exactly unfounded. Before the committee voted on which country to award the World Cups, two of its members were suspended due to allegations of vote corruption from their respective soccer confederation regions–Oceania and Nigeria. FIFA also branded Qatar as a “high operational risk” for hosting the tournament due to its average summer temperatures of 115 degrees Fahrenheit and challenges linked to stadium locations. Russia was the only other bid to not have a “low risk” rating.

The controversy has only grown since then. Since the 2010 vote, most members of the committee at the time have been banned for unethical conduct, indicted on corruption charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, or remain under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Switzerland–where FIFA headquarters are located–who have 25 ongoing investigations involving more than 170 bank transactions suspected as money laundering.

On Monday, a new development occurred. A German newspaper published a portion of a leaked 2014 report–which FIFA commissioned–once expected to be the explosive holy grail for FIFA critics who thought the votes that gave the World Cups to Russia and Qatar could be rerun.

According to the report in Bild, three FIFA executive members were flown to a party in Rio in a private jet belonging to the Qatari federation just before the vote for 2018 and 2022 hosting rights, and Aspire Academy–an independent Qatari government-funded agency that provides “sports training and education to students with sporting potential”–was implicated “in a decisive manner” in “the manipulation of FIFA members who had the right to vote.” It also mentioned a $2m sum allegedly paid to the 10-year-old daughter of another FIFA official just before the vote.

The report was supposed to be released in 2014 under the authorship of American lawyer Michael Garcia–known for prosecuting the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and investigating former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. FIFA hired Garcia in 2012 to investigate the World Cup bidding process. FIFA decided to release a 42-page summary that “cleared” Russia and Qatar of corruption. Garcia called the edited report “incomplete and erroneous” and subsequently resigned in protest citing “lack of leadership” at the organization, which led many to believe that the public would never see the full, unedited version.

Other critics of the redacted report include Simon Johnson, who led England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. “Now that I have seen Mr Garcia’s statement, I am absolutely convinced that the report is a politically motivated whitewash,” he told the BBC. While Qatar and Russia were vindicated by the report, England’s Football Association was accused of flouting bidding rules.

As a response to the initial leak, FIFA–in a rare sighting of transparency–released the full Garcia report on Tuesday. The message generally remained the same: there was no “evidence of any improper activity by [Qatar].” Peter Rossberg–the journalist who claims to have obtained the report–said in a Facebook post that the full report does not provide outright proof of corruption during 2018 and 2022 bidding, but more findings could arise when everything is put together “like a puzzle.”

The full report still brought other findings to light about the relationship between FIFA executives and entities connected to Qatar. South American FIFA voting member, Julio Grondona, failed to disclose meetings to the investigators as well as a discussion about Qatar potentially paying for flights before his death in 2014. An adviser to Thailand’s soccer federation, whose leader was a FIFA voter, was involved in talks between a Thai gas company and Qatar over an energy deal with Doha. Garcia referred to both of these incidents as troubling and suggested that further inquiry be made.

The report also found that the Qatari heat was never discussed in the executive committee meeting before the vote, not even by the voter who also served as FIFA medical chief, Michel D’Hooghe, who was “compromised by his actions” over Qatar, according to Garcia. D’Hooghe’s son was later employed by a Doha hospital linked to the Aspire sports academy  and the bid team was also arranging a business opportunity for a friend’s son ahead of the vote.

Whether or not this will actually result in any sort of sanctions levied against Qatar, or even an outright abdication of its position as World Cup hosts, remains to be seen. The only existing precedent of the tournament getting moved was when Colombia was supposed to host the 1986 World Cup. In that instance, a continent-wide economic collapse had inhibited the country’s ability to afford it. Colombia backed out in 1983, which gave the new host, Mexico, nearly three years to prepare.

As to what it would take for FIFA to remove Qatar as hosts, in 2015, then-FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that only an “earthquake, extremely important new elements,” could change the organization’s decision to hold the 2022 tournament in the Gulf state. At this point, any movement seems unlikely.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post German Newspaper Publishes “Suppressed” FIFA Corruption Report appeared first on Law Street.

As the star players of two of the largest clubs and fiercest rivals in European soccer, Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi are constantly pitted against one another in arguments all over the world to determine who the greater player is. Ronaldo supporters will point to his sheer power and athleticism, combined with his knack for scoring goals. Messi supporters will counter with the Argentinian’s technical abilities and unmatched eye for the game.

But the two have decided to challenge one another in a new competitive realm. On Tuesday, Ronaldo was called to appear in court on July 31 to testify in a case in which he is accused of evading taxes. The announcement came less than one year after rival Messi was found guilty of three counts of tax fraud by a Barcelona court.

Just as no two players are created equal, no two tax fraud cases are either. In order to settle the debate of who truly is the best player, we need to find out who had the better tax-related scandal. Each case will be analyzed using five different criteria: total taxes missing, the player’s excuse, their alleged reactions to the accusation, the locations where the money was hidden, and the potential prison sentence.

Total Taxes Missing

Earlier this month, the Spanish daily sports newspaper Marca reported that Ronaldo is accused of evading 14.75 million euros ($16 million) in taxes between 2011 and 2014, totaling around 3.7 million euros ($4 million) a year. Of course, that total was not reached in such a nice-and-easy manner. Spanish authorities say that the amount of taxes evaded grew over time, with 1.39 million euros in 2011, 1.66 million euros in 2012, 3.2 million euros in 2013, and 8.5 million euros in 2014.

Messi, on the other hand, was convicted of tax evasion for his unpaid dues between 2007 and 2009. Much like his Champions League campaign with Barcelona this year, Messi’s efforts to keep up with Ronaldo simply were not enough. The Argentinian forward totaled only 4 million euros in unpaid taxes (roughly $5.3 million), according to Forbes. Even on a year-by-year average, he doesn’t come close to Ronaldo, averaging only 1.3 million euros a year.

Winner: Ronaldo. Numbers don’t lie.

Excuses

Jamaican-American reggae fusion singer Shaggy said it best when he simply replied, “it wasn’t me” to admittedly legitimate accusations of adultery back in 2000. Messi decided that this was the best course of action as well.

During his trial, he admitted that he had not read many of the documents that he signed during that time period and claimed that he had no idea how the tax system operated in Spain. This tactic worked at first, as Spanish tax authorities decided to accept the superstar’s reasoning in 2013 and initially only charged Messi’s father. But in 2014, a Spanish prosecutor decided to expand charges to Messi, saying, “even 10-year-old children” know taxes must be paid.

Ronaldo’s defense focused on the technical details of the charges, as well as intent. His legal team argued that the Spanish government is overstepping their bounds by taxing income that he earned abroad. They’ve also said that he paid tax to the Spanish treasury on 20 percent of his total image rights when, in fact, more than 90 percent of these are generated outside Spain. “There is no tax evasion scheme… There has never been any hiding nor any intention to hide anything,” Ronaldo’s representatives said.

Winner: Ronaldo. His legal team basically said, “it’s not his fault he’s so popular.” That’s bold.

Initial Reactions

It seemed like the story of the summer for many. After the accusations against Ronaldo came to light, numerous media outlets–including the BBC–reported that the Portuguese superstar wanted to leave Spain to get away from the legal mess. Naturally, Manchester United, the club where he grew to international fame, was one of the first listed as a likely destination, exciting fans everywhere.

But at the time of the initial accusations against him, it seemed like Messi was keeping calm, cool, and collected. However, it was reported that he also wanted out of Spain to join his former Barcelona manager Pep Guardiola at Manchester City after the 21-month jail sentence was handed down to him and his father.

Winner: Messi. Ronaldo’s tantrum was reported by all major European news outlets. The most reputable source for Messi’s was the Daily Mail.

Where they Stashed the Money

Messi’s money was reportedly embezzled through offshore accounts in the U.K., Switzerland, Uruguay, and Belize. Ronaldo’s only made it to a shell company in the British Virgin Islands.

Winner: Messi. He clearly tried harder.

Prison Sentences

Spain has an unwritten rule that any sentence less than two years does not actually have to be served in prison and can be substituted with probation. Messi made it just under that bar with his 21-month sentence, though at one point it could have been as high as five years along with millions in fines.

Ronaldo’s situation might be a bit more difficult to overcome. The BBC reported that three of the four accusations of tax fraud are considered by prosecutors to be “aggravated,” which means they carry a minimum sentence of two years each, and if all four are met with guilty verdicts, he could face up to seven years. In order to slip under the two-year maximum, Ronaldo would have to admit guilt and pay taxes and fines in advance to get his sentence suspended.

Winner: Messi. Sentenced to less than two years and not actually having to serve them.

The debate over who is the best on the pitch will rage on well after both have retired, but the question of who is better at defrauding the Spanish government of taxes has well been decided.

Overall Winner: Messi 3/5

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ronaldo Versus Messi: Spanish Tax Fraud Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few years ago, it seemed like you couldn’t watch a sporting event without seeing advertisements for daily fantasy sports leagues like Draft Kings or Fan Duel. Before the 2015 NFL season these companies spent nearly $500 million on advertisements, but after consumer concerns arose, they cut their advertising budgets.

After multiple lawsuits against the industry, the companies are fighting for their existence amid accusations that they fall under the same legal category as traditional online gambling.

A new study from Rutgers University on gambling in New Jersey concludes that daily fantasy sports (DFS) users exhibit highly similar habits as those who engage in traditional forms of gambling. It also finds that there is a high crossover between the two activities. This is bad news for an industry that has tried to distance itself from gambling in order to win lawsuits and continue operation. The study’s authors wrote:

A majority of activities listed in this study are historically classified and widely accepted as ‘gambling,’ because they involve spending money on activities with an uncertain outcome and the possibility of winning or losing that can result in harm. However, other activities elude precise classification and are largely context and jurisdiction‐dependent.

The key distinction for these companies is whether their games are based on skill, not chance. This stems from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed by Congress in 2006, which makes a distinction between the two forms of gambling and outlawed only games that require no skill.

Fan Duel, which opened in 2009, was the first major daily fantasy sports company before Draft Kings, its main competitor, opened in 2011. First, they experienced massive growth and profits before running into legal problems.

To learn more about daily fantasy sports check out Law Street’s Explainer.

These companies, and their users, must prove to the courts that they are winning massive amounts because of skill and hard work, not pure luck like traditional gambling games.

Those who argue that DFS is skill-based believe it’s clear the games aren’t random because of the overwhelming success of experienced players. While normal gambling games such as roulette or slots don’t favor someone with experience, these games show that the most winners have dedicated themselves to the craft.

While many users casually play the games, others have dedicated themselves to the game, and some manage to earn six-figure payouts in just one month.

In fact, 1 percent of players win around 91 percent of the profits from DFS  sites, according to a study by gambling expert Ed Miller. Miller argues this is evidence of a surplus of skill exhibited by the top bettors, whom he refers to as “sharks,” who feast on the “minnows,” which are novice gamblers who lose over 50 percent of their investments.

On the other hand, those who argue the game is just gambling cite evidence that knowledge of the actual sports doesn’t help win the game. Instead, it’s just about algorithms, gaming the system, and luck, they argue.

Even former Florida governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush called it, “day trading without any of the regulation” during one debate in the 2016 campaign. The lack of oversight is yet another reason many hope for government intervention in the industry.

In recent years, the industry has faced lawsuits across America while states such as Nevada and New York barred them and defined them as gambling. In 2015 both states booted daily fantasy sports companies from their states.

But in late 2016, New York and Nevada compromised with the companies.

New York’s ban was particularly impactful because the Fan Duel headquarters is located in the Big Apple. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo later signed a law in classifying DFS as a “game of skill,” which allowed them to continue business in the state.

Meanwhile, Nevada decided that the companies need a gambling license to operate, but only one company–USFantasy–has applied and received a license as of last November, according to the Legal Sports Report. The policy means that daily fantasy sports is considered gambling in the state, allowing DFS companies to operate under the same regulation as traditional gambling. However, given the industry’s efforts to identify itself as a game of skill, many DFS companies have been unwilling to participate with a gambling classification.

In Texas, state Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion last year equating DFS with illegal gambling, which prompted lawmakers to craft a bill formally classifying DFS as games of skill. State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a fantasy football lover himself, decided to sign onto the bill after speaking with constituents who worried about government interference, he told the Texas Tribune.

So while the Rutgers study finds that DFS users also tend to engage in traditional gambling–and are susceptible to similar gambling and drug-related problems–many states are working with these companies to continue operation.

The new study doesn’t necessarily mean that legal changes are coming down the road, but it furthers research that will help inform future decisions. The legality of DFS is a complex issue that must weigh the economic benefits of gambling for local taxes and the negative impact that it can have on individuals and their families.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Daily Fantasy Sports a Form of Online Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

The recent history of Croatian soccer has forced its supporters to go from dreams of glory to heads hung in shame. Between its creation in 1991 to its third place World Cup finish in 1998, the country experienced the most extreme jump in FIFA rankings history–going from 125th in the world to third. In the following years, the country produced top level talent that has shined for some of the largest clubs in Europe, like Barcelona and Juventus, and showcased their abilities for the national team. But the underlying corruption that has plagued the country’s soccer scene on an international and domestic level has prevented Croatia from reaching the heights it did in the late nineties, and has allowed for homegrown players to only find real success in other countries.

It appeared as though one of the heads of Croatia’s corruption problems was about to be cut off when national team captain Luka Modrić appeared as the key witness at the corruption trial of a former director of one of the Croatian clubs, Dinamo Zagreb. The former director, Zdravko Mamić, is accused of embezzlement and tax evasion. When prosecutors presented, and repeated, a statement Modrić had made to them earlier in the court proceedings that would have closed the case, he nervously distanced himself from his words.

“That… That I’ve never said… that it… that… that it was drawn up afterwards,” he told prosecutors. “I told you then that I couldn’t remember when it had been done.”

Just 10 days earlier, Modrić was celebrating Real Madrid’s 12th Champions League title in Cardiff following a 4-1 victory over Juventus. The moment should have been a source of pride for his home country as one of their most successful exports had ascended to the summit of European soccer for a third time. Yet, within hours of his testimony, he was greeted with chants of “Luka Modrić, you little sh*t” from Croatian soccer supporters. The hotel where his family lived when they were war refugees in the 1990s was even defaced with graffiti that translates to “Luka, you’ll remember this one day,” and other murals dedicated to him had also been vandalized.

Mural for Luka Modric in Mostar defaced after he changed his testimony in favour of Zdravko Mamic at the latter’s corruption trial. pic.twitter.com/xTbRRygzYP

— Rusty Woodger (@rustywoodger) June 14, 2017

In order to explain why the weight of Modrić’s comments resulted in such a vulgar backlash, it is important to understand who Zdravko Mamić is, what he means to Croatian soccer, and how he relates back to Luka Modrić.

Zdravko Mamić: A Rise and Pending Fall

Zdravko Mamić is the former executive director and a current adviser to Dinamo Zagreb, the winningest team in Croatia this century. Since his friendship with a former manager got him a job with Dinamo back in 1980, Mamić has had a range of influence over the club. As an adviser to the club’s board in the early 2000s, he was able to dictate which players the club should sign. Over time, Mamić grew to become the executive president of Dinamo and first vice-president of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF), the governing body of all soccer-related activities in the country, ensuring his influence would be as strong as it could possibly be.

As his power grew, however, the number of controversies he became involved with increased as well. Mamić’s history includes abusing reporters, general homophobia, and inciting violence following racist remarks he made toward a Serbian official. He also financially controls two of the 10 clubs in the Croatian first division and has been accused of forcing the national team to showcase players from Dinamo so he can sell them for exorbitant amounts of money to larger European clubs.

This history has led to various protests coming Dinamo fans, fans of other Croatian clubs, and even fans of other European clubs.

Mamić and five other people were arrested in 2015 for embezzling the equivalent of $17.3 million of the club’s money since 2008 and not paying $1.8 million in state taxes. Prosecutors claim that this was done through illegal contracts made with some of Dinamo’s most famous former players including Modrić and Mario Mandžukić, a striker for the Italian team Juventus.

Method to the Madness

Here’s how Mamić was able to supposedly get away with this money: unlike in most American professional sports, players are not usually swapped for one another in trades if they are still under contract to a team. FIFA rules state that a club interested in a player has to buy out that player’s contract from the club they currently play on with a “transfer fee.” Once the transfer fee is agreed upon by both clubs, the buying club can enter contract negotiations with the player, and the selling club keeps the transfer fee as revenue.

What Mamić was allegedly doing was taking the transfer fees that were supposed to go to investing in the club and its players, and funneling them into his own bank account. Dinamo has earned nearly €150 million from transfers in the past 10 years. Much of it has disappeared into concealed channels, although the exact number is not known. Additionally, players abroad were required to pay some of their wages back to Mamić as a sign of goodwill for the “good” he had done for them.

The Modrić Connection

One of Mamić’s biggest cash machines was Modrić, who was sold to the Tottenham Hotspurs in 2008 for €21 million, a club record for the English side at the time. Half of that transfer fee went to Modrić. Further investigation, and testimony by Modrić, showed that he would go to a bank accompanied by Mamić’s son or brother, withdraw funds from his personal account and hand the cash to either of the two men. Of the €10.5 million, Modrić kept €1.7 million and the rest went to the Mamić family.

The defense argues that this was  an expected relationship between the two groups because Mamić was a benefactor to Modrić during the midfielder’s youth career and helped him reach his full potential as a professional. The agreement was one of many that Mamić created with promising young players that obliged them to pay him back with their future earnings.

What is currently being disputed, and why Modrić has been such a key witness in this case, involves the date of the contract that allowed the midfielder to keep 50 percent of his transfer fee. Prosecutors argue that that portion of the contract was signed and backdated after the player had already been sold, making the transfer illegal. Modrić supposedly confirmed this in questioning last year, but denied it in court on Tuesday, claiming he was confused.

“When speaking about that, I was talking about a personal contract between Mamic and me, which regulated the split of the transfer fee,” he said in his testimony. But as if that were not enough, Modrić also forgot key portions of his playing career that ended up helping the defense’s case, including the year when he debuted for the national team.

Before his comments in court, Modrić was seen as the victim in this scenario. He was the poor kid from Zadar whose ignorance and naivety was exploited by the “big bad wolf”–Mamić. After his testimony, however, it will be hard to shake his association with someone often referred to as the number one enemy of soccer in the country.

No one is quite sure why Modrić changed his testimony. One theory is that he was scared of crossing such a powerful individual. Mamić’s political influence is so wide,  that the location of this trial had to be moved from the capital Zagreb to Osijek–nearly 175 miles away–because of his close ties with some of the Zagreb judges.

What Comes Next?

Whatever the reason, prosecutors will have some time to sit on this new revelation as Mamić made a big scene in the courtroom on Wednesday morning, and fired his whole legal team before saying he’ll defend himself. The judge ordered a recess until further notice.

Despite the self-sabotaging move, a seemingly-unavoidable Mamić conviction would not even result in much change happening, according to fervent Croatian soccer critic Anthony Zoric.

“Zdravko Mamić cannot simply be replaced,” Zoric said. “For things to improve at the current federation the entire HNS board must resign. The system has been manipulated to serve the interests of Mamić and his friends.”

But a change on that scale could be unrealistic and generally unattainable. Outside pressure from corruption trials might be the closest opportunity Croatian fans will get to relieve some of the issues and turn a new chapter in the soccer history of their country.  The national team has been marked by controversy while the domestic league, filled with its own set of talented players, is making more news for corruption than soccer itself. Any change might be welcome at this point.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Corruption Trial Have the Possibility to Transform Croatian Soccer? appeared first on Law Street.

While it’s been more than 20 years since a major Washington, D.C. sports team has been invited to the White House, two faces of Washington sports are getting political this summer.

Last week Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins played a round of golf with President Donald Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Meanwhile, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin attended an annual event for President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader answered questions from a studio audience and civilians across the nation.

Neither has made any specific political statements, but the actions of both stars raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Some fans expressed frustration on social media, but others accepted that each athlete has their own personal lives and they can do what they choose.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–which comprise the main fan base for both teams–all voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Cousins said that Eric Shuster, the director of strategic partnerships at CSN Mid-Atlantic, helped put the duo together. The opportunity was too much to pass on. Cousins said the round was a great experience, adding:

I didn’t ever think that would happen. Had a good enough time that if there’s any former presidents in the D.C. area that want to give me a call, I’d love to meet them at one of the courses around here. I know lots of them are members at these courses and I’m not, so I’d love to get on and get to meet them. Republican, Democrat, left, right, I’d love an invite.

Meanwhile, Alex Ovechkin explained his rationale to Sovetsky Sport, a Russian outlet. Ovechkin said he was making a plea to Putin to help save the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) from its massive financial troubles.

Alex Ovechkin goes to Vladimir Putin town hall meeting to lobby for struggling Dynamo… https://t.co/6iA87Fdy62 pic.twitter.com/1SmEDqe9tw

— Zesty NHL News (@nhl_zesty) June 16, 2017

The KHL, Europe’s premier hockey league, is in serious debt, with teams owing their players more than $17 million, according to the Associate Press. Some players haven’t received a salary payment in over six months.

Ovechkin’s former team, Dynamo Moscow, is in about $35 million in debt and in danger of shutting down. The future Hall of Famer wants to do all he can to avoid that situation.

“It’s a great pity that such things are happening in our sport,” Ovechkin said. “I hope the teams experiencing difficulties will overcome them.”

So both Washington sports stars had their own rationale for spending time with these world leaders. Ovechkin had a goal in mind while Cousins simply jumped at the opportunity to meet the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Neither meeting means much in the grand scheme of global politics, but it does add intrigue and anguish to the beginning of summer for many Washington sports fans.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Sports Stars Spend Time with Trump and Putin appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer, according to FIFA, is a “beautiful game” meant to “inspire the world and increase international cooperation.” However, for Qatar–FIFA’s 2022 World Cup host country–it may actually be causing unrest in the Middle East.

Qatar is in jeopardy of having its World Cup plans derailed, after some of the most powerful nations in the Arab world broke diplomatic ties with the Gulf state Monday.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accused Qatar’s government of sponsoring terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, to provoke violence in the Middle East.

The diplomatic crisis may be the final straw in a flood of controversies plaguing the world’s richest country since it was formally elected by FIFA to host the World Cup soccer tournament back in 2010.

Qatari sports officials have been accused of giving bribes to members of FIFA in exchange for their vote for the World Cup, and there has been backlash over whether or not hosting a Winter World Cup will disrupt club soccer league seasons throughout the world.

It’s also unclear if Qatar will be open to the LGBTQ community–Qatar has strict laws against homosexuality (former FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s solution to this problem was for gays to simply not have sex while in Qatar).

Furthermore, there have been multiple news investigations into the alleged abuse of migrant workers from Nepal and India, who were brought in to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate millions traveling to Qatar for the World Cup. These workers are said to live in horrendous conditions, have slave-like wages, and have had their passports illegally taken from them.

But these are just a handful of the dozens of accusations against the Qatar government, and FIFA as well.

Qatar relies heavily on the use of its neighbors airspace; therefore, the end of diplomatic relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE will make travel in and out of the country extremely difficult. Qatar’s singular land border with Saudi Arabia will also hinder the country’s ability to bring in materials needed for major infrastructure projects.

No decisions have been made by FIFA, but officials are said to be “in regular contact” with Qatar’s government. But with Qatar spending an estimated $220 billion toward the soccer tournament (10 times what Brazil spent on the 2014 World Cup), don’t expect the country to fold easily on its investment.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Qatar at Risk of Losing 2022 World Cup Due to Gulf Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

An 8-year-old girl from Omaha, Nebraska and her soccer team were disqualified from the championship round of a tournament this weekend after officials told her team that “she looks like a boy.”

Milagros “Mili” Hernandez was mistakenly identified as a boy on a Nebraska soccer tournament registration form. Officials then ignored the reality that another form listed her as a girl and that she was on an all-girls team, according to The Washington Post.

Her father, Gerardo Hernandez, then attempted to show tournament officials Mili’s insurance card to prove she was a girl, according to ESPN. The Nebraska soccer officials ignored the pleas and cited Hernandez’s short hair as evidence.

So, despite winning two of their three games on Saturday, which guaranteed them a chance to earn a trophy, the entire Azzurri Achurros team was disqualified just hours before their 2 p.m. kick off, according to The Washington Post. 

Mili burst into tears when she heard the decision.

‘I was mad; I never had that problem before. She’s been playing so long in different tournaments,’ her father told The Washington Post. ‘I don’t want no problems with nobody, but that wasn’t the right way to treat people. Why they want to tell my girl looks like a boy?’

Mili plays on the local 11-year-old team after she dominated the league for her age group. The talented youngster dreams of extending her soccer career into middle and high school before advancing to college and, hopefully, the professional leagues, according to her brother.

She has worn her hair short since she was young, her father said, and as she’s grown older she has decided to keep it that way. That spurred USA soccer star Abby Wambach, who also has short hair, to offer support to Mili in the aftermath.

Dear Mili Hernandez, you are amazing in every way. Thank you for teaching us how to be brave and shining a light on something so hurtful. If you don't know, she is my new hero. Her team was disqualified from a tourney cause they thought she was a boy because of a clerical error that wasn't handled properly. Let's meet soon sister.

A post shared by Mary Wambach (@abbywambach) on Jun 5, 2017 at 8:59pm PDT

While the Nebraska soccer tournament has concluded, organizers told the Hernandez family that they could appeal the decision with the Nebraska State Soccer Association, according to local NBC affiliate WOWT News.

But even if she can’t play in future tournaments like this one, another soccer star is here to help out. Mia Hamm, one of the most notable female American soccer players, also offered support.

Hey Mili, we would love to host you at one of our camps @TeamFirstSA . Be you!

— Mia Hamm (@MiaHamm) June 5, 2017

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eight-Year-Old Girl Who “Looks Like a Boy” Disqualified from Nebraska Soccer Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

For the past eighteen years, the Titans of Mavericks surf competition in California has pitted talented surfers from across the world against massive swells that are considered some of the most challenging to surf on the planet. For every one of those eighteen years, the competitors have all been male. Female surfers have been taking on Mavericks for almost as long as the competition has been running, and in recent years it has been increasingly clear that there are qualified female surfers who are ready to join the Titans competition.

In 2015, Sabrina Brennan, a member of the local harbor commission, noticed that the Titans of Mavericks’ five year permit was up for review and that the California Coastal Commission was also reviewing it. Brennan went to work presenting the case that the competition was excluding women; as a result, the commission agreed to adopt a women’s inclusion provision as a requirement for future permits, as well as give Titans a year to create a plan to include more women in the competition.

Despite Titans’ co-founder Jeff Clark arguing that women were already included (as judges and water rescue staff) and that women’s exclusion in the main event was “a performance thing…women just aren’t there yet,” female surfers organized and founded a lobbying group called the Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing. They partnered with Brennan to draft a demand for a women’s heat at Titans, and the commission unanimously voted to enact it in November 2016.

The women’s heat was structured very differently than the men’s, with only $30,000 in prize money compared to $120,000 for men, and only six surfers competing rather than 24. Nevertheless, the heat was ready to go and female surfers stood on the cusp of competing at a level they had been shut out of for almost two decades–that is, until the organizers of Titans of Mavericks declared bankruptcy in February and the competition was shelved. Female surfers can still surf the waves at Mavericks this year, but they won’t benefit from the publicity, cash prizes, and bragging rights that would have come with a formal competition.

The Titans victory may have been short-lived, but it has set an important precedent for women in surfing and other extreme sports across the world. Women’s sports are underfunded across the board–just think about how the U.S. women’s soccer team has had to sue U.S. soccer for wages equivalent to their male counterparts, despite the fact that they generated nearly $20 million more in revenue than the male team. More than 750 million viewers tuned in to the Women’s World Cup in 2015, yet these athletes still have to go to court to be paid what they’re worth.

Consider how difficult it is to compete as a woman in nontraditional or extreme sports, where even male competitors struggle to establish themselves as serious athletes. Women’s prize are consistently a fraction of men’s, and women rarely receive enough sponsorship to allow them to compete as a full-time career. With glaring inequality in organized women’s sports at multiple levels, from the high school level all the way to professional teams, lobbying individual cities and tournaments may be the future of gender parity in sport.

The Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing should be used as a template for female athletes both in extreme and traditional sports: if the organizers tell you “no,” go over their heads.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Surf Equity: Titans of Mavericks and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Right in the middle of March Madness, the NCAA has taken another stance against North Carolina’s HB2 law. In a statement released through Twitter by the association on Friday, which coincided with the one-year anniversary of HB2’s passage, the NCAA offered somewhat of an ultimatum and stated that, if North Carolina does not make changes or repeal its controversial transgender bathroom law, it will exclude the state from its process for deciding where to locate its championship games from 2018 to 2022.

NCAA reaffirms North Carolina championship stance. pic.twitter.com/2XqPodlQUP

— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) March 23, 2017

This is not the first time the NCAA has taken action against North Carolina in response to HB2. Last fall, the NCAA pulled its seven planned championship tournament games out of North Carolina because of the association’s “commitment to fairness and inclusion.” This move has taken on brand new significance recently as Duke was knocked out of the second round of the NCAA championship after losing to South Carolina in a game that was originally slated to be played in Greensboro, North Carolina but was moved to Greenville, South Carolina. Many saw the game’s location as a factor in Duke’s performance. In a post-game interview, Duke Coach Mike Kryzewski said in response to whether he was frustrated about the game’s location that if he were president or governor, he would “get rid of it.”

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper tweeted out a statement Friday calling for the state’s Republican lawmakers to “step up, meet halfway, and repeal HB2.” He also called March 24 a “dark anniversary” for the state, referring to the one-year anniversary of the law’s passage.

According to Forbes, the NCAA tournament has a significant economic impact for host cities, as a diverse set of industries benefit from the massive influx of fans coming to watch games.

The NCAA is not the first sports association to pull its events out of North Carolina. This year’s NBA All-Star weekend was slated to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina; however, in response to HB2, the NBA decided to relocate its All-Star festivities to New Orleans.

HB2 is one of, if not the most, salient topic in North Carolina politics right now, and the political back and forth is beginning to turn heads around the country. However, that is apparently not stopping other state legislatures from drafting HB2-type laws, as a transgender bathroom bill in Texas, Senate Bill 6, passed through Texas’s Senate State Affairs Committee and will by voted on by the full Senate. According the The Hill, the law is expected to pass through the full Senate, but will have a shakier path in the House.

HB2 remains deeply unpopular in North Carolina, as a recent poll from Public Policy Polling revealed that 50 percent of those surveyed in the state are opposed to it, and 58 percent of those surveyed think that it’s hurting the state. Things don’t seem to be looking up politically in the state, and repealing HB2 looks like it will be a long, uphill battle, seeing as how on Friday the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature overrode Gov. Cooper’s first veto as governor.

The NCAA will decide on host cities for its championship games by April 18.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The NCAA Offers Politically Divided North Carolina an Ultimatum appeared first on Law Street.

Misogyny in Brazil is in the spotlight after soccer club Boa Esporte rushed to sign 32-year old goalie Bruno Fernandes de Souza, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend in 2010. De Souza, widely known as just Bruno, only served seven years out of a 22-year sentence, and reportedly other clubs also tried to sign him as soon as he was released. Bruno was convicted of ordering the torture and dismembering of his former girlfriend, 25-year old model Eliza Samudio, and then having his friends feed her body parts to his dogs.

Samudio was also the mother of Bruno’s child, and he ordered the murder after she demanded that he pay child support. Violence against women is a big problem in Brazil, and the announcement of Boa Esporte’s two-year contract with Bruno sparked outrage from Samudio’s family and others. “Women are outraged and so are the general public. It is as if he had gone unpunished,” wrote Brazilian feminist activist Djamila Ribeiro.

Bruno had his ex-girlfriend murdered, dismembered & fed to dogs.

After just 7 years of a 22-year sentence, he’s got a new club. Revolting. https://t.co/zsDuLQi4HZ

— Joe Crann (@YesWeCrann) March 13, 2017

At least three sponsors have withdrawn their support of Boa Esporte in the wake of this news, but the city of Varghina still backs the club. Samudio’s mother filed an unsuccessful lawsuit asking for Bruno to be sent back to prison, as he might be posing a threat to her grandson. But Boa Esporte’s president Rone Moraes da Costa defended the decision to sign Bruno, saying that he has served his sentence and that Boa Esporte is helping him get back on track, through the “dignity of work.”

This explanation was not enough for protesters, especially after video clips emerged of Bruno celebrating his release from prison with champagne, and  outrage has continued both nationally and from overseas. A demonstration is planned outside the club’s stadium and some fans have pledged to not watch the team play as long as Bruno is a part of it. Recently a group of feminists hacked the club’s website.

ESPORTE INTERATIVO:

Boa Esporte’s official site has been hacked by feminists, after announcing the signing of Bruno who had killed his GF. pic.twitter.com/IpVD5sSkrY

— Seleção Brasileira (@BrazilStat) March 13, 2017

Violence against women and girls in Brazil increased by 24 percent over the previous decade according to Amnesty International, and the government cut the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Racial Equality, and Human Rights last May. Brazil was named one of the worst countries in South America for young women. And as long as powerful organizations care more about publicity and money than standing up for victims of violence, change seems far off. But at least there are feminist movements on the rise. The Popular Feminist Front of Varginha, the group that plans the demonstration at the stadium, wrote in a Facebook post:

We protest both against this contract and against the willingness of the team and its sponsors to have their images linked to feminicide. A woman-killer must not be allowed a life acclaimed by the media. Bruno is no longer just a goalkeeper; his notoriety reflects the ease with which a woman’s life is forgotten in the interests of a sporting career.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Outrage in Brazil After Team Signs Soccer Player Who Murdered His Girlfriend appeared first on Law Street.

Sportswear brand Nike has announced that it will launch a high performance hijab, to help female Muslim athletes perform at their best. Muslim women who wear a hijab will now have an actual item of sportswear that represents them and doesn’t make them choose between function and their beliefs. The new product goes under the name Nike Pro Hijab and is designed to better deal with problems that traditional hijabs could pose when used in a sports setting, such as being too heavy, too sweaty, or easily coming loose.

Nike said in a statement that the hijab has been officially in the making for a year, but really for much longer than that if you consider Nike’s mantra that, “if you have a body, you’re an athlete.” The statement added that Nike started discussing the matter seriously in 2012, when runner Sarah Attar became the first female track athlete to compete for Saudi Arabia in the London Olympics and did so in her hijab. She finished the 800 meter race almost 45 seconds after the other runners, and the audience gave her a standing ovation. A few days earlier her teammate Wojdan Shaherkani, who competed in Judo, became the very first Saudi woman to compete in the Olympics.

As a hijab wearing athlete, I’m stoked for @nike‘s pro hijab line. Moreso I love that its approved/featured by ACUTAL hijab wearing athletes pic.twitter.com/qzIRtQcQ9Y

— Rowaida Abdelaziz (@Rowaida_Abdel) March 7, 2017

Nike said that it started to work on the hijab when Muslim female weightlifter Amna Al Haddad visited Nike’s sports research lab in Oregon to discuss problems she had with her own hijabs. She said that she only had one that worked to exercise in, and that she had to wash it by hand every night. After that, the Nike team collaborated with athletes to develop a more breathable and lightweight garment.

Many women see Nike’s announcement as a victory for Muslim female athletes all over the world.

This is the most amazing thing!! Imagine how comfy it’s gonna be – better than those other scarf things hijabis have to wear now. https://t.co/QqPfR1FlUF

— Aisha Baker Parnell (@bakedtheblog) March 7, 2017

But on the other hand, some people on social media pointed out that smaller and less influential sports brands have been making athletic hijabs for several years.

Most patronising. I’ve been wearing a scarf and exercising fine for years, just as small businesses have BEEN making scarves for activewear. https://t.co/BFpjn8jdCR

— Aaisha Dadi Patel (@aaishadadipatel) March 7, 2017

Some people also levied complaints, saying that Nike “sides with the oppression of women,” or that Nike is taking advantage of religious concerns to make money. But in general, the new product seems to have garnered plenty of applause. The discussion about hijabs in sports has been controversial and FIFA, the international football association, banned hijabs for soccer players until as recently as 2014. The international basketball federation, FIBA, still has a ban in place.

That a world-renowned sports brand such as Nike started producing an activewear hijab is seen as a big step in the right direction. “For a brand like Nike to come out and say that these people exist and are inclusive of hijabis is a big deal,” said Manal Rostom, an Egyptian athlete, to Al Arabiya English.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nike Launches High Performance Hijab For Muslim Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

The Pittsburgh Penguins seemingly thought it was a fun idea to add real, live penguins to the pre-game celebration of a recent hockey game. But animal rights activists disagreed. The penguins–the human team–played the Philadelphia Flyers in Pittsburgh last Saturday. The local zoo pitched in by delivering some penguins to play on the ice, but the pre-game show also included fireworks and pyrotechnics.

A video clip from the event shows the penguins reacting to the explosion and flapping their wings in alarm. This caused PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to send a letter to the CEO of the Pittsburgh Penguins in which it states that it is obvious that the penguins are “scrambling in terror.”

Everything about this is terrible. pic.twitter.com/RRYJSDaCeh

— m g (@kikkerlaika) February 26, 2017

The PETA letter continued:

It’s inherently stressful for wild animals–who naturally shun contact with humans and are extremely sensitive to environmental changes–to be hauled around, used as props, and exposed to noisy crowds.

PETA also criticized the Pittsburgh Zoo for allowing its animals to be treated like this. The zoo replied in a statement of its own, saying:

The penguins who attended the Winter Classic are some of the same penguins that participate in our weekend Penguins on Parade event. They are very comfortable around people and noises.

ACTUAL PENGUINS! #StadiumSeries pic.twitter.com/7VA5o9NKCR

— NHL (@NHL) February 26, 2017

The statement from the zoo said that the penguins’ reaction to the fireworks is similar to that of humans’ when they are startled and that it only took a few seconds before they were playing again. It also said that it was a “great enrichment opportunity for our penguins to be introduced to new sounds, sights and smells.”

PETA asked the Pittsburgh Penguins not to use live animals for promotion of its team in the future, but a spokesman for the team and one for the NHL said they didn’t have anything to add to the zoo’s statement. PETA has long campaigned for sports teams to stop using live animals as mascots at events, but it doesn’t seem like the sports world is ready to give that tradition up just yet.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Pittsburgh Penguins Borrowed Live Penguins, PETA is Not Happy appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot going on last night during the Super Bowl. But caught up in the hysteria–somewhere between people pointing out the game’s eery similarities to this past year’s election, the Tom Brady roasting, the Tom Brady adoration, the Lady Gaga jumping gifs, and the commercials that every American loves to hate or hates to love–a ton of people donated a ton of money to various organizations and charities around the country.

Using the hashtag #AGoodGame, people took to Twitter to pledge to donate a certain amount of money every time their team scored a touchdown or a field goal.

Watching #SuperBowl w/ democracy, civil rights, & environment in mind. #AGoodGame for @ACLU @PPact @splcenter @AWIOnline @NatlParkService pic.twitter.com/SZBYScSnah

— Amber Baillon (@Vambaillon) February 5, 2017

$100 to ACLU, $50 to Planned Parenthood and $50 to Standing Rock Sioux. #AGoodGame #SuperBowl @joshgondelman Thanks for the inspiration!

— Kristen Callisto (@HaleiwaHoney) February 6, 2017

5 Brady sacks = $100 to @splcenter, & $100 to @AlbanySAFEProj to help support survivors of sexual assault and DV #AGoodGame @joshgondelman https://t.co/9Ud0OdEtAn

— Bear Brian (@Brian___H) February 6, 2017

I have paid off my #AGoodGame promise to @SavetheChildren. My math looks like this: pic.twitter.com/komMvvdQ3h

— Owen King (@OwenKingwriter) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame Donating to Boston area women’s shelter @RosiesPlace pic.twitter.com/09WfXr8T94

— Estelle Nickleby (@estenickleby) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame was started by comedian Josh Gondelman, a writer for “Last Week Tonight” and a lifelong Patriots fan, who, on Thursday, tweeted his intention to support his team while rejecting the politics of some of the organization’s members.

I’ve been a Patriots fan for my whole life but I am way off on the political spectrum from much of the organization. https://t.co/3p3oVKzwkW

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

I’d like to be able to cheer for the team I grew up loving without cheerleading the Trump administration. Is this anyone else?

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

My friend @emma_sandoe and I thought that maybe people who feel ambivalent could donate to a good cause for every Pats FG or TD.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

It seems like a practical way to do a little good without staging a (small and ineffective) boycott of the Super Bowl.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

If you have political Patriots fan ambivalence, maybe pledge a little money to a good cause when they score using the hashtag: #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

Because of Tom Brady’s garbage politics, I’m donating $100 for every Patriots TD and $50 for every FG to the @NAACP_LDF. #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

The politics of some of the members of the Patriots organization has been a running sub-plot in the NFL this season. In September, a “Make America Great Again” hat was seen in the Patriots’ superstar quarterback Tom Brady’s locker. Brady has also made comments that have quietly alluded to his support of  President Donald Trump.

In November, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized for sending a letter to Trump congratulating him on a “tremendous campaign” and touting him “the ultimate competitor and fighter.”  Additionally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft has described Trump as a “a very close friend” and was seen at Trump Tower a week after the election ended.

In an interview with Esquire, Gondelman said he would have felt “weird” not acknowledging the relationship these members of the Patriots have with Trump. “I have this large social media reach, and fortunately a little money I could donate to a good cause,” Gondelman said, “So it just felt like to do that would be putting my money where my mouth is.”

While donation totals from #AGoodGame have not been collected yet, last night’s surge of generosity follows a trend that has sprung up in response to some of Trump’s policies. At the end of the weekend Trump’s polarizing travel ban took effect, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that the ACLU had received 356,306 donations totaling over $24.1 million–five times more than the organization usually receives in a whole year. Planned Parenthood also has seen a rise in donations. According to The Atlantic, Planned Parenthood received 80,000 donations in the three days after the election.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anti-Trump Super Bowl Donation Campaign Raises Money for Various Organizations appeared first on Law Street.

The Canadian lawyer whose investigation into Russia’s state-sponsored doping program resulted in over 100 Russian athletes being barred from the 2016 Rio Olympics struck again on Friday. Richard McLaren released a 151-page report, published by the World Anti-Doping Agency, implicating 1,000 Russian athletes, participating in 30 different sports, in the Kremlin’s doping schemes.

McLaren spent months combing through emails, documents, scientific, and forensic evidence from Russian officials and athletes, and published his findings in a tirelessly thorough account. He found guilty athletes who participated in Olympic Games and world championships. In the 2012 Summer Olympics in London alone, McLaren found, 15 medalists violated doping rules; ten have since been stripped of their medals.

“It is impossible to know just how deep and how far back this conspiracy goes,” McLaren said on Friday. “For years, international sports competitions have unknowingly been hijacked by the Russians.” In one of the most recent examples, McLaren documented the case of two female hockey players who participated in the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Their urine samples contained male DNA.

Another technique the Russians employed in their urine tampering practices was mixing salt and coffee grains to dilute tainted samples. McLaren’s report examined 100 urine samples belonging to Russian athletes from the Sochi games. All had been tampered with, including four from gold medalists.

I want to compete in a World Champs that’s drug free and safe. Sochi,Russia is not an option. Move it @IBSFsliding
https://t.co/xIq69Lkfff

— Lolo Jones (@lolojones) December 9, 2016

In response to McLaren’s report, Russia said it is “denying the existence of any state-sponsored doping programs in sports and will continue the fight against doping from the positions of ‘zero tolerance,'” according to a statement from its sports ministry. However, the statement continued, Russia “is ready to cooperate with international organizations in improving the Russian and world antidoping program.”

Many athletes are upset about the overwhelming evidence concerning Russia’s doping program. In two months, Sochi is set to host the bobsledding and skeleton championships. American athletes have discussed boycotting the event. International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach said the report’s contents detailed a “fundamental attack on the integrity of sport,” in a statement.

Participating athletes “should be excluded for life from any participation from the Olympic Games in whatever capacity,” Bach continued. He said the IOC will inspect 150 urine samples from the Sochi Olympic Games that have yet to be examined.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Report: 1,000 Russian Athletes from 30 Sports Guilty of Doping appeared first on Law Street.

When NFL player Joe McKnight was shot to death in an apparent case of road rage last Thursday, the suspect was not charged immediately, despite reportedly telling the police officers that he was the shooter. The incident caused an uproar; many drew parallels between McKnight’s shooter–a white man–and the numerous instances of white police officers or individuals killing black people. On Tuesday, almost a week later, Sheriff Newell Normand announced that he had charged Ronald Gasser with with manslaughter. He also defended the delayed arrest, explaining that the police wanted to wait until they found reliable witnesses before moving forward.

Sheriff Normand held a news conference on Tuesday in Louisiana to explain the circumstances of Gasser’s arrest. Gasser is a 54-year-old white man who had an altercation with McKnight on a bridge while they were both driving. The two men kept racing each other and shouting, driving into a New Orleans suburb, until they both came to a stop. McKnight allegedly exited his car and walked up to Gasser, who took out his gun and shot the 28-year-old football player three times. He confessed immediately when police arrived at the scene, but initially told officers that he feared for his life and that the shooting was an act of self defense. Gasser was taken into custody but released after hours of questioning.

the craziest thing about the mcknight case is it’s being treated as if the outcome should be in any sort of doubt.

— El Flaco (@bomani_jones) December 6, 2016

When he announced the arrest at the news conference on Tuesday, Sheriff Normand seemed agitated and defensive, slamming his fists on the podium repeatedly and emphasizing that the department had done nothing wrong. “This isn’t about race. Not a single witness has said… a single racial slur was uttered,” he said. Despite the lack of racial slurs, the incident could have easily been about race. But at this point, the evidence does point to a case of plain road rage.

Says they didn’t charge Gasser Thursday night bc not enough evidence & he was cooperating without atty. Got consent to search Gasser’s home.

— T.J. Quinn (@TJQuinnESPN) December 6, 2016

The sheriff read aloud some of the racist and foul-mouthed verbal attacks that he, other officers, and lawmakers have received on social media and via email for not dealing with the case fast enough. He read a few out loud that were offensive enough that MSNBC cut away from the live broadcast and apologized for the language. The sheriff said that had they made an arrest right away, witnesses might have been hesitant to come forward. They’ve now found 250 possible witnesses based on license plates placed in the surrounding area.

Gasser’s temperament is certainly at issue–he had a similar fight with another man ten years ago at the exact same intersection. In 2006, he was driving a truck, when a fellow motorist called a number printed on the side of the truck to say that the driver was driving erratically. The number actually went to Gasser’s phone. The two men got into a fight over the phone and Gasser followed the man to a gas station where he confronted him and beat him up. The only consequence for Gasser was a misdemeanor summons that was later dismissed.

McKnight played three seasons for the New York Jets and one for the Kansas City Chiefs. The Jets held a moment of silence in his honor on Monday night before playing a game in New York.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Allegedly Killed NFL Player Joe McKnight Charged with Manslaughter appeared first on Law Street.

The Chicago Cubs broke a 108-year dry spell on Wednesday night when they won the World Series for the first time since 1908, beating the Cleveland Indians in a 10-inning thriller 8-7. It was an epic end to a long drought. When the Cubs last won the World Series, a Hershey’s chocolate bar cost two cents (51 cents when adjusting for inflation), Franz Ferdinand was alive and presumably well, women in the U.S. were barred from voting, and Wilbur Wright brought the first manned aircraft to France.

Today, a Hershey’s chocolate bar is more than $1.50, World War I is a century old, the U.S. might elect its first female president, and over 100,000 aircrafts fly through the skies every day. What else was happening the last time the Cubbies won it all, and how are things different in the law and policy world 108 years later?

For one, just a few weeks after the Cubs beat the Detroit Tigers on October 14, William Howard Taft was elected the 27th president of the U.S. on November 3. The New York Times lede the following morning read: “William H. Taft will be the twenty-seventh President of the United States, having swept the country by a vote which will give him 314 ballots in the Electoral College against Mr. Bryan’s 169, or only 22 less than Mr. Roosevelt had in 1904. His majority will be 145.” Also on the front page that day was a crudely drawn map showing how the U.S. voted. The paper cost one cent.

Seventeen presidents later, the U.S. will be voting for its 45th commander in chief next Tuesday. While Taft beat his opponent, Democrat William Jennings Bryan in a landslide, the 2016 election is primed to be a much tighter race. Thursday’s front-page consists of a glossy photo of the Cubs whooping in victory, the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the brutal murder of two police officers in Iowa. The paper costs $2.50.

Away from politics and the baseball diamond, another momentous occasion took place in 1908: Henry Ford’s first Model T was completed, sparking an automobile (and supply line) revolution, making them more accessible, and lifting cars from an elite luxury to a mainstream necessity. Before the Model T, there were less than 200,000 cars on America’s roads. Between 1908 and 1927, nearly 15 million cars crept along the country’s throughways and city streets. As of 2014, there were over 250 million cars in America.

And then there is this: not only were there no black (or Latino) baseball players in the MLB in 1908 (including the World Series champion Cubs), Jackie Robinson, the first black player to play in the modern configuration of the MLB, had not even been born. In contrast, according to a census taken by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 8.3 percent of the league is black (62 players), and 28.5 percent is Latino (214 players). The demographic shifts in the MLB largely mirror the shifts in America’s population as a whole.

In 1910, the nearest census to 1908, there were over 92 million people living in America, with African-Americans making up less than ten percent of the population (or a bit less than eight million). As of 2010, the latest census, there were more than 300 million people in America. More than 12 percent (or over 37.5 million) registered as “Non-Hispanic Black,” and 16.3 percent (or nearly 50.5 million) registered as “Hispanic or Latino.”

So what will the world look like in 2124, when, if history is any indication, the Cubs are slated to win their next World Series? Will our cars hover above the pavement? Will the White House have a gilded “Trump” sign plastered to its Northern facade? It’s impossible to forecast that far in advance. Then again, there’s always the chance the Cubs repeat in 2017. Stay tuned.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What was America Like the Last Time the Cubs Won the World Series? appeared first on Law Street.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Conclude Denver Broncos Player Aqib Talib Shot Himself in the Leg appeared first on Law Street.

Players on the Miami Dolphins are the latest athletes to protest police brutality by not rising during the national anthem. Last week during the season opener against the Seattle Seahawks, Arian Foster, linebacker Jelani Jenkins, receiver Kenny Stills and safety Michael Thomas knelt when the anthem was played; Foster, Stills, and Thomas also knelt today before playing the New England Patriots.

The Dolphins players were continuing a protest started by Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers. Both Kaepernick and his teammate Eric Reid took a knee during the anthem at their game earlier today. Kaepernick has discussed his inspiration for the protests a few different times, including making the following statement to NFL Media in late August:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

Other athletes who have joined in on Kaepernick’s protest include Brandon Marshall of the Denver Broncos, and soccer player Megan Rapinoe. Rapinoe has knelt during the anthem while wearing her U.S. uniform; she is believed to be the first player in international soccer history to not stand for her nation’s anthem.

These protests haven’t come without a cost. The Dolphins will have their first home game of the year next week, and the head of the local police union has asked the police to withdraw their detail until the players stand for the anthem. Local union president Jeffery Bell told the press:

We’ve asked the deputies and the Broward Sheriff’s Office not to do the details anymore.

I respect their right to have freedom of speech. However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech temporary while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game.

As the football season continues, supporters and critics alike will surely keep a close eye on which players protest the national anthem.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Athletes Take a Knee During the National Anthem: Who Will be Next? appeared first on Law Street.

When Colin Kaepernick defended his decision to remain seated during the national anthem in order to protest widespread racial injustice, people quickly villainized the 49ers QB, labeling him ungrateful and unpatriotic. However, many military members are interpreting his First Amendment expression differently.

Kaepernick has received an outpouring of support on social media from veterans using the trending hashtag #VeteransForKaepernick to combat critics speaking on their behalf. Not only are these men and women in uniform speaking out in support of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and Kaepernick’s right to protest, but they’re also helping to show everyday Americans that being anti-racism doesn’t mean you’re anti-America.

Read some of the veterans’ tweets below:

Don’t use my service–or that of any veteran–to justify the silencing of black Americans. Not on my watch. #VeteransForKaepernick

— Charles Clymer (@cmclymer) August 31, 2016

I served this country honorably for his right to protest the way he saw fit. #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/b2LiyAXa2q

— Miss B. (@brittneeraebaby) August 31, 2016

8 Years Active Duty. Twice in the sandbox. He can sit or stand as long as the waves. #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/95yx9lUPZN

— McAnthony Brisco (@Bcounty510) August 31, 2016

A picture that sums up a thousand tweets in #VeteransForKaepernick thread pic.twitter.com/ljL6yNVikH

— Michele Norris (@michele_norris) August 31, 2016

Because I’m a black woman in and out of uniform #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/sBIhPQvmiB

— Liberation Brown (@LiberationBrown) August 31, 2016

#VeteransForKaepernick I am a disabled veteran & haven’t stood for the Anthem since I separated. We are not free! pic.twitter.com/4RO4qGdKul

— Kristen Meghan (@KristenMeghan) August 31, 2016

#VeteransForKaepernick because I didn’t volunteer to defend a country where police brutality is swept under the rug. pic.twitter.com/LtBkTvHHAn

— Baltic Avenue (@Baltic_Avenue) August 31, 2016

#VeteransForKaepernick Because we’re actually not all self-centered racists. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/VHnW5Pbxav

— Ed Beck (@DEdwardBeck) August 31, 2016

@Kaepernick7 I served 25yrs in the AF to protect everyone’s 1st Amend rights. I support you #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/Q7r7PfvryA

— Nicole (@dcmbrdiva) August 31, 2016

I don’t agree with all of his points, but I’ll fight to the death for his right to say it. #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/0jeFlIv5RX

— Isaac wright (@I_Zac33) August 31, 2016

I was a Black man before my service and will still be a Black man when I’m done #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/Sjm8Laq9fB

— Dominique Thorpe (@GenuinelySpoken) August 31, 2016

I serve for his right to protest.. I don’t serve for Police Brutality.. #VeteransForKaepernick pic.twitter.com/Q6GUNTwHDO

— Airbnb Papi (@JoeOnDemand) August 31, 2016

You can love your country and ask your country to do better at the same time. #VeteransForKaepernick

— Black Jesus Barbie ™ (@RihTweetMe) August 30, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Millitary Veterans Support 49ers QB With #VeteransForKaepernick appeared first on Law Street.

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick isn’t apologizing for refusing to stand for the national anthem during last Friday’s NFL preseason game against the Green Bay Packers. Following a team practice Sunday, Kaepernick defended his actions, telling reporters he’ll continue to remain seated during the song in order to bring awareness to racial injustice and police brutality.

“This country stands for freedom, liberty, justice for all–and it’s not happening for all right now,” said Kaepernick.

Watch part of Colin Kaepernick’s explanation below

He said, “there’s people being murdered unjustly and [people are] not being held accountable. Cops are getting  paid leave for killing people. That’s not right. That’s not right by anyone’s standards.”

Many critics who see the flag as a symbol of the military viewed the protest as an insult to the men and women who serve in the armed forces. In his defense, Kaepernick said he has “great respect for men and women that have fought for this country.” He explained,

I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. They fight for freedom. They fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice for everyone. And that’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody. It’s something that’s not happening. I’ve seen videos. I’ve seen circumstances where men and women that have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought for and have been murdered by the country they fought for, on our land. That’s not right.

When it came to the election, the 29-year-old showed disdain for both presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, saying they both represent “the issue we have in this country.” Kaepernick explained:

I mean, you have Hillary [Clinton] who’s called black teens or black kids super-predators. You have Donald Trump who’s openly racist. I mean, we have a presidential candidate who’s deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn’t make sense to me, because if that was any other person, you’d be in prison. So what is this country really standing for?

This isn’t the first time the quarterback has remained seated during the patriotic anthem. He also sat for the “Star Spangled Banner” at two previous preseason games, although the silent protest went relatively unnoticed until recently.

It’s unclear if his continued protest will result in him getting cut from the team, but that’s a risk he’s willing to take. “If I do, I know I did what’s right and I can live with that at the end of the day,” said the QB. For now it appears that at least his teammates respect his decision.

And just by listening to his teammates, I think they respect his commitment to this, too. It’s not comfortable, but it’s real.

— Tim Kawakami (@timkawakami) August 28, 2016

#49ers Torrey Smith: “It takes a strong individual to stand up like that. That’s a right that we have.”

— Eric Branch (@Eric_Branch) August 28, 2016

Fans, however, are a different story. One fan filmed a viral video of himself burning a Colin Kaepernick jersey while playing the national anthem in the background.

49ers fans burning Kaepernick’s jersey to the National Anthem pic.twitter.com/MILA3AxNld

— BLACK ADAM SCHEFTER (@B1ackSchefter) August 28, 2016

There’s even a petition floating around by fans asking the NFL to fire him for “continuing to cause division and encourage racial separation using his sports platform and social media.” At the time of this post, the petition currently has about 400 signatures out of its desired goal of 1,000.

The NFL released a statement Saturday that said, “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the National Anthem.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colin Kaepernick Will Continue to Sit During the National Anthem appeared first on Law Street.

Swimwear brand Speedo decided to drop its sponsorship of U.S. swimmer Ryan Lochte after the scandal surrounding his robbery claim in Rio came to light. The company said that it can’t condone behavior that contradicts its values.

Last week, Lochte and three teammates claimed they were robbed at gunpoint at a gas station after a night out in Rio. But when police followed up with the swimmers, their statements differed from each other and Lochte’s nonchalant reaction to being threatened with a gun to his head, to which he responded by saying, “whatever,” also called his account into question.

By Thursday, it became clear that their reports of a robbery were embellished and possibly fictitious. Rio police said Lochte and friends had vandalized the gas station by tearing off the bathroom door and urinating on a wall. They then got out of the situation by paying the gas station owner for the damage. While questions about the Rio police’s handling of the incident came to light after USA Today reconstructed the events, it is clear that significant aspects of the original robbery story were fabricated.

On Friday, Lochte released a statement with an apology, saying he regretted not being more careful and candid in his description of the events. But for people in Rio, the damage to their city’s image is not yet fixed.

Speedo tweeted its formal statement on Monday:

The official response regarding our sponsorship of Ryan Lochte. pic.twitter.com/0DdP2RyceD

— Speedo USA (@SpeedoUSA) August 22, 2016

Other brands that have sponsorship deals with Lochte include Ralph Lauren and Japanese mattress company Airweave. Ralph Lauren said that it will not be renewing its contract with Lochte while Airweave told Bloomberg that it intends to maintain its partnership with the swimmer.

The spokesperson of the International Olympic Committee, Mario Andrada, made headlines when he defended the swimmers’ behavior on Thursday saying, “Let’s give these kids a break. Sometimes you take actions that you later regret. They are magnificent athletes.”

Considering Lochte is 32, that defense seems out of place, especially after social media users bullied U.S. gymnast Gabby Douglas, who is only 20, for being “unpatriotic” during the Olympics.

The bizarre situation led to many reactions on social media, a pattern that continued in light of Speedo’s decision to drop its sponsorship on Monday:

Speedo publicly drops Ryan Lochte. I always assumed it would be the other way around.

— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) August 22, 2016

Hard to believe a guy with bleached hair in 2016 would turn out to be a total douche. #LochteMessMonster

— KevinDillon (@Dillonopolous) August 18, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Speedo Drops Sponsorship of Ryan Lochte After Robbery Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Ryan Lochte has since issued an apology for his behavior:

https://t.co/n82dZH2gfl pic.twitter.com/rGp1nmA94G

— Ryan Lochte (@RyanLochte) August 19, 2016

---

A bizarre story just got a whole lot messier. Earlier this week, it was reported that Ryan Lochte, along with three other U.S. swimmers, were robbed at gunpoint while returning home from a party in Rio. The news seemed to affirm worries that the country was not in great shape to hold the 2016 Games, which so far had seemed to be incident-free, and the robbery of a high-profile athlete such as Lochte didn’t bode well for the country’s image. However, Brazilian police are now alleging that the swimmers’ accounts of the robbery are not adding up, and a judge has ordered that the passports of Lochte and swimmer Jimmy Feigen be seized so that they can conduct an investigation into the claims. Last night, officials pulled Jack Conger and Gunnar Bentz, the other two swimmers involved, off their plane back to the U.S. and detained them.

Lochte has reportedly already left Rio, while Feigen’s location hasn’t been disclosed. Since the news broke, there has been a lot of uncertainty surrounding the details of what occurred late Saturday night. While the International Olympic Committee originally vehemently denied that the robbery took place, it quickly doubled back and confirmed the claims. On Tuesday, Lochte told USA Today that the incident was not originally reported because “we were afraid to get in trouble.”

Now, recent video footage has shed light on inconsistencies in the athletes’ accounts of that night. Footage released by The Daily Mail allegedly shows the athletes returning to the Olympic Village early Sunday morning and going through the x-ray machines with items they claimed were stolen in the incident. The actual timing of the return did not match up with the time that the swimmers claimed to have returned. Additionally, the owner of the gas station where the robbery was said to have occurred also told the Daily Mail that, in the surveillance video he turned over to the police, there was proof that the athletes were never there that night.

It is this video in particular that allegedly prompted the judge to order the passport seizure. Filing a false police report is a punishable offense in Brazil that can lead to jail time.

Fortunately for Lochte, he is back home safe and sound: if he was still hanging around Rio, the judge’s order would prohibit him from leaving the country while the incident was being investigated. His lawyer told CNN that even if an arrest warrant was issued by Brazilian authorities, Lochte would not be turning himself in.

Lochte, the 11-time Olympic medalist, responded to the accusations in a conversation with Matt Lauer. He reportedly told Lauer that Brazilian authorities had not asked him to stay in the country, which is why he left on schedule. He also claimed that he  “wouldn’t make this up,” although there were slight inconsistencies with the account he told Lauer from what he originally told the Today Show’s Billy Bush.

Lochte and the other swimmers better get ready: until and unless their claims are corroborated, they will definitely face anger from the Brazilian people for maligning their country. While there’s a lot of speculation surrounding what exactly happened, one thing’s for certain: an already-unpredictable Olympic Games just got weirder.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Was Ryan Lochte Lying About the Rio Robbery? Brazilian Investigation Gets Messy appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of doping scandals rocking the Russian Olympic and Paralympic Team in the lead-up to the Rio Games, Russian athletes have been painted as the villains of the summer for breaking basic tenets of sportsmanship. However, there has been virtually no outcry over another common violation in Olympic competitions this year: lying about athlete’s ages.

At the Beijing Games in 2008, the Chinese women’s gymnastics teams made waves after accusations that they were younger than 16 years old, the threshold for competing in gymnastics events. Online records revealed that He Kexin was too young to compete but Chinese officials stood by the birthdate on her passport, which made her eligible (although it is relatively easy to obtain a doctored passport). There was “strong circumstantial evidence” that members of the Chinese team were underage but the International Gymnastics Federation cleared the team of any wrongdoing. In 2010, bronze medalist Dong Fangxiao lost her medal from the 2000 Sydney Games after it was revealed that she had been only 14 at the time.  Yang Yun, who competed with Dong Fangxiao, admitted in a television interview that they were only 14 during the Games. Beyond the Chinese team, North Korean gymnasts allegedly have misrepresented their ages in the past. This year’s Chinese gymnastics squad has stayed away from age related scandals as team manager Ye Zhennan reported all of his athletes are of age. However, with their track record of fabricating documents and misrepresenting ages, some observers in the gymnastics world still have their doubts.

It is difficult to gauge an athlete’s age just by looking at them, and we should by all means give the Chinese gymnastics team the benefit of the doubt, but it is fascinating to see how quick the public is to crucify Russian athletes for violating Olympic rules in 2016 whereas the Chinese athletes accused of being underage in the past received relatively little attention this year.

Letting younger athletes compete is not always a guaranteed positive–athletes with more physical training and experience on the Olympic stage can perform better under the immense pressure placed on them during the Games. However, in certain sports, it is the youngest competitors who are in the best shape–consider the number of teenagers from multiple countries who have medaled in swimming in Rio and, of course, the Final Five in gymnastics, who are all incredibly young (at least compared to Olympians in other sports). Younger athletes usually have fewer injuries and have greater stamina. What if Nastia Liukin had been able to compete in Athens? Age restrictions kept her out of those Games, even though she was already becoming dominant in the gymnastics world.

Athletes lying about their ages is not limited to the Chinese national team nor to the sport of gymnastics, but in a sport that rewards youth and, in terms of aerodynamics, small bodies, younger athletes have a clear advantage. Famous gymnastics coach Belya Karoli has argued that the age limit should be done away with, as it robs athletes in peak shape of their chance to compete and encourages cheating. Before the age limit was enacted in 1997, multiple American gymnasts set impressive records while only 14 years of age, which is often considered the height of a gymnastic career. While there are gymnasts who compete into their twenties and beyond, most will retire after competing at only one or two Olympic Games. Athletes who lie about their age can get to three or even four Olympics before they lose sight of making the podium.

The age limit exists to protect young athletes from abuse and the physical and mental pressures of competing with the world’s eyes upon them at such a young age. However, if these athletes are forced to fabricate documents and lie for months or years on end to coaches, officials and their peers, the stress of competition can only be compounded. Is it better to miss an Olympics and have the moral high ground or to compete and win, knowing that you will live in constant fear of being stripped of your medal? At the moment, the age limit is not protecting young athletes, it is merely setting them up for an entirely different rash of problems.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Forgotten Controversy? Age and the Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

Concerns about violence in Rio in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 Olympic Games were certainly present–and they seem to have been at least somewhat founded, given that there have already been quite a few incidents. But one of the most well known American stars of the Games, swimmer Ryan Lochte, was robbed at gunpoint last night (along with three other American swimmers), in what may end up being one of the more high profile crime stories of the Rio Olympics.

Lochte was with other Team USA swimmers Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger, and Jimmy Feigen. They all left a party together at “Club France,” hosted by the French Hospitality Club, around 3 AM and got in a cab. Lochte described the mugging to NBCNews, saying:

We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over. They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground — they got down on the ground. I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so — I’m not getting down on the ground.

And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said, ‘Get down,’ and I put my hands up, I was like ‘whatever.’ He took our money, he took my wallet — he left my cell phone, he left my credentials.

The incident was confirmed by the U.S. Olympic Committee, but a spokesperson also said that they athletes “are safe and cooperating with authorities.”

Bentz, one of the swimmers who was mugged, also tweeted:

@TheGunnyBunny P.s. the gold medal is safe

— Gunnar Bentz (@TheGunnyBunny) August 14, 2016

With all the safety concerns associated with the Rio Games, a high profile incident like this seemed almost inevitable. While thankfully only possessions were lost, it’s expected that security could continue to be ramped up as the Games continue this week.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ryan Lochte, Other Team USA Swimmers, Victims of Armed Robbery in Rio appeared first on Law Street.

A second Olympic boxer has been arrested in Rio on allegations of sexually assaulting a housekeeper. Jonas Junius, a 22-year-old Namibian boxer who was scheduled to compete in the welter weight division Thursday, is said to have allegedly grabbed and kissed a maid before offering her money to have sex with him.

BREAKING: Boxer Jonas Junius has been arrested for an attempted sexual assault of an Olympic Village housekeeper. pic.twitter.com/aj4XEDw8WZ

— Namibian Sun (@namibiansun) August 8, 2016

Junius’ case was preceded last week by the Friday arrest of Moroccan boxer Hassan Saada, 22, who is being detained in a Rio jail for 15 days for allegedly sexually assaulting two Brazilian maids in the Olympic Village.

Chief investigator Carolina Salomao told CBS New, “They were cleaning the room right across his, and he assaulted them. He groped the breast of one of them and touched the other woman’s thigh. They were able to get out.”

Under Brazilian law suspects can be held for long periods of time while police gather evidence. He was scheduled to fight Saturday against Turkish boxer Nadir Mehmet Unal in the light heavyweight division. Saada’s lawyers attempted to obtain a special release to allow him to compete, but it was denied.

Moroccan boxer Hassan Saada has been arrested for sexually assaulting two female cleaners in Rio. #Starrfmsports pic.twitter.com/4VdePeekLt

— Starr 103.5FM Sports (@Starrfmsports) August 5, 2016

Junius, who was the honored flag bearer for Namibia during the Olympic Opening Ceremony, will also be held for 15 days while Rio police investigate the assault claim.

There’s something eerie about the similarities of the two cases–both suspects are 22-year-old boxers accused by housekeepers. Still, with details at a minimum and investigations underway, it’s impossible to speculate if the cases have a connection, or are unfortunate coincidence..

Click Here to Read About the Sexual Abuse Coverup Claims Rocking the Gymnastics World Before Rio

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Second Olympic Boxer Accused of Sexual Assault in Rio appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics’ opening ceremony last night, you probably noticed something very different about the traditional procession of athletes from each country. For the first time in history, ten athletes competing without a country walked out under the Olympic flag for the Refugee Olympic Team (ROT), drawing attention to the world’s refugee crisis. Here’s what you need to know:

Who Are They?

The ten athletes consist of five runners from South Sudan, two swimmers from Syria, two judokas from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a marathon runner from Ethiopia. Their host countries include Kenya, Luxembourg, Brazil, Belgium, and Germany.

Each one of them was forced to flee their countries to avoid violence and persecution. One name you might recognize is Yusra Mardini, an 18-year-old swimmer from Syria. She gained worldwide notoriety after she was forced to swim more than three hours in the sea to get to Greece after the motor in a dinghy carrying 20 people suddenly stopped. Mardini, her sister, and two other swimmers jumped in the water and pushed the boat to shore, saving everyone’s lives.

For more biographies on each of the athletes click here.

Why is this important?

This is the first time ever a team comprised of refugees has been permitted to compete in an Olympics. After identifying 43 athletes that could potentially qualify for the history-making team, the IOC created a fund of $2 million to pay for athlete training.

Symbol of Hope

After fleeing their homelands due to violence and political strife, many of these athletes weren’t sure if their Olympic dreams would come true, but luckily they were able to find a new home and family while in Rio. In a statement on the Olympic website, International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach said,

These refugees have no home, no team, no flag, no national anthem. We will offer them a home in the Olympic Village together with all the athletes of the word. The Olympic anthem will be played in their [honor] and the Olympic flag will lead them into the Olympic Stadium.

Bach also spoke of the global impact of ROT stating,

This will be a symbol of hope for all the refugees in our world, and will make the world better aware of the magnitude of this crisis. It is also a signal to the international community that refugees are our fellow human beings and are an enrichment to society. These refugee athletes will show the world that despite the unimaginable tragedies that they have faced, anyone can contribute to society through their talent, skills and strength of the human spirit.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 3 Things You Need To Know About the Olympics First Refugee Team appeared first on Law Street.

Hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Rio, the International Olympics Committee announced that 271 Russian athletes were cleared to compete after a doping scandal disqualified nearly one-third of the country’s team.

The committee denied 118 athletes that Russia hoped to send after a report from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last year revealed some of the team members’ involvement in a government-sanctioned doping system.

Russia’s depleted Olympic team heads for Rio De Janeiro amid doping scandal. https://t.co/dEOrdJFFLH pic.twitter.com/W6lWHa2YoZ

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

271 may sound like a lot, but the Russian Federation sent 436 athletes to the London Games in 2012, and those lucky 271 make up only about 70 percent of the 389 athletes the country hoped to send.

For many Russians, this is a preferable alternative to a blanket ban on the whole team, but Russia isn’t completely in the clear. The scandal has raised doubts about Russia’s integrity and WADA found Russian athletics to have a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels.”

Integrity of Olympics in tatters as two-thirds of Russians given all-clear to compete: https://t.co/Hit2s1zPou@Rio2016_en

— Ben Rumsby (@ben_rumsby) August 4, 2016

You can find a list of which Russian athletes are and are not allowed to compete in Rio here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 271 Russian Athletes Cleared for Rio appeared first on Law Street.

A recently-released investigation by IndyStar claims that many allegations of sexual abuse of children were mishandled by USA Gymnastics–the governing body for the sport in the United States. As the ramp up to the Rio Games continues, this sheds a negative light on one of the Olympics’ most beloved sports, given that USA Gymnastics is responsible for the development of the official U.S. team.

The controversy appears to stem from the concern that officials at USA Gymnastics didn’t investigate claims  of abuse unless they came directly from a parent or from a child who was being abused, allegedly in an attempt to protect the reputations of the coaches the complaints were levied against. According to the investigation, any other claims were dismissed as rumors or “hearsay.” In addition to problematic policies, USA Gymnastics may have acted illegally when it didn’t report certain complaints to the authorities.

According to IndyStar:

USA Gymnastics would not disclose the total number of sexual misconduct allegations it receives each year. But records show the organization compiled complaint dossiers on more than 50 coaches and filed them in a drawer in its executive office in Indianapolis. The contents of those files remain secret, hidden under seal in the case filed by Ganser’s daughter. IndyStar, as part of the USA TODAY Network, filed a motion seeking to make the files public. The judge in that case has not yet ruled.

USA Gymnastics obviously disagrees with the classifications of its conduct, and put out the following statement after IndyStar’s claims surfaced:

Addressing issues of sexual misconduct has been important to USA Gymnastics for many years, and the organization is committed to promoting a safe environment for its athletes. We find it appalling that anyone would exploit a young athlete or child in this manner, and recognize the effect this behavior can have on a person’s life. USA Gymnastics has been proactive in helping to educate the gymnastics community over the years, and will continue to take every punitive action available within our jurisdiction, and cooperate fully with law enforcement.

The Rio Olympics are about to officially kick off (although some sports are already underway) and they’ve certainly been full of controversy. From the threat of Zika, to upsetting unsanitary conditions, to concerns about crime and safety, the powerhouse U.S. gymnastics team has been one of the bright spots for Americans watching the games. But with concerns about the coverup of child sexual abuse, questioning USA Gymnastic’s record on the issue may dominate the news cycle this week.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Abuse Coverup Claims Rock the Gymnastics World Before Rio appeared first on Law Street.

This week, NBC made the controversial decision not to air the opening ceremonies of the Rio Summer Olympics live. For many fans of the Olympics, this decision was a shock, letting down viewers who had hoped to see the spectacle in real time. As of now, the news network is planning on showing the ceremonies at 8 PM Eastern time, an hour after they actually begin in Rio, on the east coast. The Mountain and Pacific timezones of the U.S., however, could see even later coverage than that.

While it may make sense to air a ceremony from the other side of the planet at a delay, for the convenience of viewers, Rio is only an hour ahead of the east coast. Many disgruntled viewers are frustrated to have to watch the ceremonies behind schedule when it could be broadcast live relatively easily. Several people have expressed their opinions that, with today’s technology, we should watch historic moments like these in real time.

BREAKING: NBC still doesn’t understand how the internet works. https://t.co/5iFAHHVWhO

— Matt Haze (@MattHaze) July 12, 2016

Decision by @NBCOlympics not to broadcast Rio’s opening ceremony live ridiculous. Do they think it’s 1996?https://t.co/JfubCgZ09O

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) July 12, 2016

The reasoning NBC gave for this upsetting delay was stated by several executives in the company. NBC Sports Group Chairman Mark Lazarus had the following to say about the company’s decision to delay the ceremonies by an hour:

We are not going to stream the Opening Ceremonies live. Those will be curated and will air one hour after they occur, as will take place with us on NBC broadcast network as well. We think it’s important to give the context to the show. These Opening Ceremonies will be a celebration of Brazilian culture, of Rio, of the pageantry, of the excitement, of the flair that this beautiful nation has. We think it’s important that we’re able to put that in context for the viewer so that it’s not just a flash of color. So we will air that on a one-hour delay…

They will both [television and online] be on a simultaneous hour delay. That’s consistent with what we did in London [at the 2012 Summer Olympics] and what we did in Sochi [at the 2014 Winter Olympics]…

The question, I would say, is: If we were to air it live, and we were going to put commercials in the Games – because we are a public company and have duties to our shareholders – which parts would they like us to cut out?

The 2010 ceremonies for the Winter Games in Vancouver were the last opening ceremonies that were live streamed. However, the company hasn’t shown a live opening ceremonies during the summer Olympics since the 1996 games in Atlanta. While some people are enraged that they can’t watch along with the fans in the stands, NBC does have some pretty sound reasoning for delaying the coverage. It could be unfair to cut out bits and pieces of the ceremony for commercials–that could damage the cultural significance of the event or leave countries out of the coverage. There’s really no pleasing everybody in this situation, so the company made its own judgment call.

Fortunately, all other Olympic happenings should be streamed live throughout the games. So, for all you diehard Olympics fans out there, even if you won’t be seeing the opening festivities in Rio live, the rest of the games should be just the way you want them. Though, if we’re being totally honest, there are probably more pertinent concerns than the timeliness of NBC’s coverage when it comes to the Rio Olympics.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post NBC Refuses to Air Olympic Opening Ceremonies Live appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer star Lionel Messi has been sentenced to 21 months in prison, after he was found guilty of three counts of tax fraud in a Spanish court. But legal experts have cautioned that given the nature of his crimes and the length of his sentence, the Barcelona player probably won’t serve any time actually behind bars.

Messi’s father was also sentenced to 21 months in jail for tax fraud but he too probably won’t serve time. The two defrauded Spain of $4.5 in between 2007 and 2009. According to BBC they were found guilty of “using tax havens in Belize and Uruguay to conceal earnings from image rights.” In Spain, those found guilty of financial crimes and sentenced to under two years in jail are able to serve that time on probation. This will require them to stay out of legal trouble while they are on probation, as well as meet other requirements. They both could be facing hefty fines, as well, but given Messi’s enormous net worth, even hefty fines shouldn’t be a big burden for the star.

Messi’s team, Barcelona, has issued a statement of support for their player and his father, saying:

The club, in agreement with the government prosecution service, considers that the player, who has corrected his position with the Spanish Tax Office, is in no way criminally responsible.

At this point, Barcelona is the only team that Messi plays for, given that he recently announced his retirement from the Argentine national team and international soccer.

Both Messis are expected to appeal their cases. Here’s a press release explaining the appeal:

The Messi press release in English where it confirms he will appeal to the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/v6QLS8xadG

— Guillem Balague (@GuillemBalague) July 6, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lionel Messi Sentenced for Tax Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Murphy’s Law states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and never has that seemed truer than in Rio as the Brazilian government struggles to keep the 2016 Olympics afloat.

The Rio Olympics took another hit last week, after scientists found dangerous strains of drug-resistant bacteria along the beaches that will host swimming, rowing, and canoeing events during this summer’s Games. Two as-yet-unpublished studies found microbes of “super bacteria” along beaches in San Diego, Ipanema, Leblon, Botafogo and Flamengo. The bacteria, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC), can lie dormant in the human body for months, only emerging when the body is attacked by an illness. Not only is KPC is antibiotic resistant, but it also has the ability to infect other bacteria and make it resistant as well, making it even more frightening. KPC entered the water system from hospitals, households, and businesses that release waste largely without regulation, bringing bacteria that never should have made it to open water into lagoons and the ocean itself.

Water has already been a concern for the Games, as large bodies of standing water are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that spread the Zika virus. But the idea that the ocean itself could be contaminated along the shoreline is more than a threat to Brazil–the bacteria could spread to the beaches of other nations and begin to infect other strains of bacteria across Latin America’s Eastern coast.

In 2014, journalists documented ridiculous conditions in Sochi, Russia during the Winter Olympics. Lack of potable and running water, half-built hotel rooms and manholes without covers were all staples of the Sochi experience. While Sochi was far from ideal, journalists and athletes were not at risk of serious health impairments due to their accommodations. In Rio, athletes, trainers, journalists, and visitors to the Games could be exposing themselves to dangerous illnesses if they attend.

For athletes who have worked all their lives to qualify for the Olympic Games, it doesn’t make sense to back out–they may not qualify again, they may never reach this level of physical prowess again, they may need an Olympic win to gain or keep a sponsor. Media outlets will still report on the Games and broadcast events from Rio because they are massive moneymakers, no matter how dangerous they are. The International Olympic Committee will not cancel the games because it would consider that to be an overreaction. The World Health Organization has given the Games the green light, stating that Zika virus is still an emergency in Brazil but holding the games will not drastically increase the risk of the virus spreading.

Despite all the evidence that the Rio Games are dangerous, they are still moving forward, setting a dangerous precedent for events such as the Qatar World Cup, which was allegedly secured through bribes and has been allegedly built on slave labor and violent human rights abuses. Athletes and media outlets have the option of abstaining from these events, and international sports organizations have the power to revoke a nation’s bid or cancel an event, but none of them do. The media and organizers fear losing their profits, while the athletes fear losing their one shot at success. However, if taking that shot comes at the expense of public health and safety, is it really worth it?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Bacteria on the Beaches: No One Wins at Rio 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The sights and sounds lent the midday scene a feeling of political unrest: fists, chairs, and bottles were thrown. People yelled, incomprehensibly and passionately, at high volume. Glass shattered on the concrete. Police fired tear gas into the raucous crowd. This was not a reaction to oppressive politics or even a protest of a law, however. It was the seaside city of Marseille, France on Saturday afternoon, after Russia and England squared off in the Euro 2016 soccer championships.

And on Sunday, as a result of the violent clashes between Russian and English fans, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) threatened to disqualify both teams from the tournament if the brawling continues. “Such unacceptable behaviour by so-called supporters of the national teams of England and Russia has no place in football, a sport we must protect and defend,” read a statement released by UEFA, which also urged the soccer organizations of both countries to condemn the actions of their supporters.

Things first got testy during the game–which ended in a 1-1 tie–when Russian fans reportedly set off flare guns and stormed the barriers that are designed to separate rival fans. By the end of the day Saturday, 31 people were injured (four critically), and 17 arrested. Moving forward, UEFA promised security would be “strengthened,” following the lax pat downs dolled out by security guards on Saturday, which allowed Russian fans to bring in flares undetected. 

Rebekah Vardy, wife of English striker Jamie Vardy, tweeted about the incident, which she was swept up in before the game even started:

That has to be up there with the worst experience EVER at an away game! Teargassed for no reason, caged and treated like animals! Shocking!

— Rebekah Vardy (@RebekahVardy) June 11, 2016

UEFA is considering immediate action against Russia–which is set to host the 2018 World Cup–on Tuesday. During the 2012 Euro Championships in Poland and Ukraine, Russia was fined £150,000 ($213,310) and hit with a six point deduction toward qualifying rounds for the 2016 tournament. For its part, the British government has offered to send extra police forces to Marseille.

Both the Russian and English soccer bodies supported UEFA’s moves to punish the teams. “We strongly request that you show due respect to the opponents and their supporters,” said a statement published by the Russian Football Union. “We kindly remind you that the matches of our national team are under scrutiny of international football disciplinary bodies.”

England’s counterpart, the Football Association, agreed. Chief Executive Martin Glenn said: “We understand the potential implications of our supporters’ actions and wholly accept that every effort needs to be made by the FA to positively urge them to act in a responsible and respectful way.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Euro 2016: Clashes Erupt in Stadium, Spill onto Marseille Streets appeared first on Law Street.

Former double-amputee Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius is a “broken man” and is unfit to testify at his sentencing for murder, according to the defense’s clinical psychologist. Today marks the last week of Pistorius’ highly publicized sentencing trial in South Africa, and a final sentence will be announced by Friday.

Dr. Jonathan Scholtz said Pistorius suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and putting him in jail would only worsen his mental state. Instead, Scholtz suggested that Pistorius be sentenced to community service or be hospitalized.

“Since the offence he has developed a serious psychiatric condition which has become worse over the past two years,” Scholtz said. He also argued that Pistorius did not pose a threat to society, and further incarceration “would not be psychologically or socially constructive.”

Here is a play-by-play of the hearing:

Oscar Pistorius is ‘broken’ and should be in hospital, sentencing hearing told https://t.co/p42Avg8KM4

— Guardian news (@guardiannews) June 13, 2016

In case you missed it, Pistorius was sentenced in 2013 for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. He said he thought she was an intruder–shooting her through the bathroom door four times.

Since the incident, Pistorius has sold all of his firearms and is still traumatized by the sound of them, according to Scholtz. The prosecution didn’t buy it. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested that Pistorius felt sorry for himself and had not shown true remorse. Nel also questioned Scholtz’s claim that Pistorius was unfit to testify, stating he was perfectly fine to do an interview recently with a local television station about the killing.

Pistorius received some harsh backlash on Twitter for being labeled as unfit to testify.

Dear @OscarPistorius me and most people I know have ‘not being rich anxiety disorder’. Please give us your money to help us overcome this

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) June 13, 2016

So murderers (Oscar Pistorius) and rapists (Brock Turner) shouldn’t go to jail bc it’ll impact them emotionally. When did jail become a spa?

— AL (@MissSchliez) June 13, 2016

Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide in October 2014, which carries a five year sentence and is similar to manslaughter in the United States. After serving a year in prison, he was released on house arrest. However, because of his athlete-celebrity status, he was unsurprisingly not treated the same as the rest of the prisoners. During his time in jail, he stayed  in a private cell in the hospital wing and he spent his time on house arrest kicking it at his uncle’s mansion. In December 2015, his conviction was changed to murder in the Supreme Court of Appeals, which decided that whoever was behind the door was irrelevant because Pistorius should have known that pulling the trigger would cause death.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, but a judge can pare it down depending on the circumstances. Prosecutors and Steenkamp’s family argued at the trial that Pistorius deliberately killed her after an argument, so they are working to ensure he receives the full 15 year punishment. However, Scholtz described Pistorius’s relationship with his girlfriend as “normal” and “loving” with “no signs of abuse or coercion.” Pistorius tried to overturn the upgraded murder charge earlier this year, but failed, which is why a new sentencing hearing was called this week.

Steenkamp was 29 when she was killed, an up-and-coming model, a law school graduate, and a budding reality TV star.

Pistorius, known as the “Blade Runner” for his carbon-fiber prosthetic legs, is known globally for being able to compete against able-bodied athletes, especially during the 2012 London Olympics. He has also competed in three Paralympics.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is presiding over the hearing—the same judge who originally convicted Pistorius.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defense Psychologist Calls Oscar Pistorius A “Broken Man,” Unfit To Testify appeared first on Law Street.

Ex-Stanford student and swimmer Brock Turner, who most of us are acquainted with by now, has been banned for life by USA Swimming. Turner, who was sentenced to an upsettingly mild sentence of six months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious student in 2015, was a promising athlete with his mind set on the Olympics. Now he will never be able to compete professionally in swimming since USA Swimming is the national governing body for the sport, and also hosts the trials for the Olympics.

See Law Street’s five reasons why people are protesting the Brock Turner’s sentence.

A spokesperson for the organization told USA Today that Turner was no longer a member of the organization at the time of the assault since his membership had just expired, but if he wished to apply today, he would not be eligible. The spokesperson said:

USA Swimming strictly prohibits and has zero tolerance for sexual misconduct, with firm Code of Conduct policies in place, and severe penalties, including a permanent ban of membership, for those who violate our Code of Conduct.

Now that Brock Turner has been banned from US Swimming for life and no longer has any of those cool future prospects can he just go to jail

— Kendra W (@kendrawcandraw) June 10, 2016

Although sentenced to six months, it now looks like Turner will be a free man after only three–online inmate records from Santa Clara County Jail show that he is to be released on September 2. This is because inmates at county jails only serve half the time they were sentenced if they behave well. On top of that, he is reportedly held in protective custody to keep him safe from other inmates during his short jail stay.

#BrockTurner will probably serve HALF of the 6 month sentence+is placed in protective custody as to not be targeted. pic.twitter.com/UNowixpccG

— very famous (@adatweetsthings) June 10, 2016

Turner was found guilty of three felonies, which carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison–but the judge thought it too harsh for the 20 year-old, saying “a prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” so the judge sentenced him to six months in a county jail. The assailant’s father also read a letter in court, pleading for a mild punishment, saying, “he has never been violent to anyone including his actions on the night of Jan 17^th 2015.” This seems like a strange statement about someone who was found guilty of attacking an unconscious woman.

The girl who was assaulted read her moving statement in court and it was later published on Buzzfeed, to which Vice President Joe Biden replied with an open letter expressing his anger with what happened and thanking her for her courage to speak up. Both of them praised the two Swedish students that rescued her and held on to Brock Turner until the police showed up.

Brock Turner is blowing up but these men (Carl Fredrik and Peter Jonsson) rescued the girl and called the police. RT pic.twitter.com/vMqZePrYMn

— Tweet Like A Girl (@TweetLikeAGirI) June 10, 2016

The judge, Aaron Persky, has been widely criticized for the lenient sentence and urged to withdraw. In the new and totally unrelated case he’s working on, 10 prospective jurors have refused to work with him because of the Turner case.

For more on this, read Law Street’s piece about Lena Dunham and the cast of “Girls” dedicating a video to the survivor of the Stanford case.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stanford Sex Offender Brock Turner Banned by USA Swimming – Forever appeared first on Law Street.

At a hearing in London two weeks ago, Maria Sharapova–accompanied by her coach, agent, and former doctor–testified about her use of Meldonium, a heart drug banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as of January 1, 2016. On Wednesday, a three-person independent tribunal slapped a two-year suspension on the Russian tennis star, barring her from competition until January 2018, two full years after she initially tested positive for the drug at the 2016 Australian Open, just days after Meldonium was reclassified as an S4 drug–a prohibited hormone and metabolic modulator–by WADA.

The 29-year-old, a five-time Grand Slam winner and the world’s highest earning female athlete, has been taking Meldonium for ten years. It is only available in Latvia, Russia, Georgia and a few other eastern European countries and has not been approved by the FDA. Meldonium improves blood flow and aerobic activity, and hundreds of athletes–many Russian–have turned to it to enhance performance. Sharapova cited health concerns and nutrient deficiency in her decade-long use of the substance.

Sharapova claims she continued using Meldonium, also known as Mildronate, after it was reclassified as prohibited because she was unaware of its new classification. She admitted to using the drug however, which may have contributed to a two-year ban instead of the max four-year sentence. The tribunal–made up of two doctors and a WADA lawyer–recognized her unintentional breach of Meldonium’s new prohibited status, but also acknowledged her actions “knowingly and manifestly disregarded the risk of contravening the anti-doping rules.”

According to the tribunal’s investigation, Sharapova began using Meldomium in 2006, when a doctor in Moscow prescribed her the pills as part of a regimen to address, in the words of that doctor, the “correction of functional reserves.” In detailed messages to Sharapova in 2006, Dr. Skalny, her former doctor, wrote: “During games of special importance, you can increase your Meldonium dose to 3-4 pills (1 hr before the match). However, it is necessary to consult me on all these matters (please call).”

On her Facebook page, Sharapova announced her intentions to appeal the tribunal’s decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport:

While the tribunal concluded correctly that I did not intentionally violate the anti-doping rules, I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension. The tribunal, whose members were selected by the ITF, agreed that I did not do anything intentionally wrong, yet they seek to keep me from playing tennis for two years.

“I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that’s why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible,” she added.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independent Tribunal Suspends Sharapova For Two Years After Banned Substance Use appeared first on Law Street.

Australian athletes will be generously provided with free anti-Zika virus condoms during the 2016 Olympics in Rio. As reported from previous Olympic games, the athletes will almost certainly use them. The Australian Pharmaceutical Company Starpharma teams up with the world’s second biggest condom maker Ansell in supplying the team with condoms treated with a gel that seems to give almost total protection against the virus, as well as other viruses including HIV and herpes.

The 2016 summer Olympics will, as most know, be held in Rio De Janeiro this year. Brazil has been the center of the outbreak of the Zika virus that causes microcephaly, a disease that causes babies to be born with abnormally small heads. The virus particularly affects pregnant women and is passed on via mosquitos, from a man to his sex partners, or from a woman to her child during pregnancy or when giving birth.

The large-scale outbreak of the virus in Brazil has prompted arguments from some that the Olympics Game should be cancelled:

"Zika virus means Brazil's 2016 Olympics should not proceed" https://t.co/PJvzEEnYz8

— TIME.com (@TIME) May 14, 2016

Starpharma’s spokesperson pointed to the increasing importance of protection against the Zika virus, which is now proven to be sexually transmitted. The Australian Olympic Committee said that blood testing of the athletes will not be necessary when they return to Australia, since there is a low risk of catching the virus as long as you follow precautions. The AOC have already sent out a total of 450,000 condoms for the Olympic Village.

On Friday May 13, the first US case of microcephaly due to locally transmitted Zika was reported in Puerto Rico. The United States Olympic Committee said in March that they would give the American athletes guidelines regarding the virus ahead of the games, but whether to attend or not would be up to the individual.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Zika Treated Condoms to be Handed out to Australian Olympic Team appeared first on Law Street.

Monday saw a new wrinkle in the low level scandal that seemingly won’t disappear: Deflategate. New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady will indeed serve a four game suspension for the upcoming NFL season, due to his still unclear role in using deflated footballs during the AFC Championship game in 2014, when the Patriots defeated the Indianapolis Colts 28-0.

A federal court of appeals concluded on Monday morning that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s actions last September in suspending Brady for four games was in fact within his powers, even given the collective bargaining agreement he signed with the NFL Player’s Association (NFLPA) which appealed his original dictum last September.

The latest developments drew praise from the NFL and disappointment from the NFLPA.

After Monday’s ruling, the league posted this official statement:

We are pleased the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled today that the Commissioner properly exercised his authority under the collective bargaining agreement to act in cases involving the integrity of the game. That authority has been recognized by many courts and has been expressly incorporated into every collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA for the past 40 years.

The NFLPA was less enthusiastic with the ruling, which involved a three judge panel led by U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker, and stated:

“Our Union will carefully review the decision, consider all of our options and continue to fight for players’ rights and for the integrity of the game.”

The judges cited Brady’s decision to destroy his cell phone the day he was set to have an interview with an investigative team as a leading factor in their ruling.

Even Donald Trump weighed in. At his campaign rally in New Hampshire yesterday morning, he had this to say about the four time Super Bowl champ (and his frequent golf partner): “Leave Tom Brady alone!“

And although this decision can be appealed by Brady and the NFLPA, it looks like the prospect of that long and arduous process will result in a Brady-less Patriots for the first four games of the 2016 season. At least that should leave Brady with plenty of time to sneak in a few more rounds of golf with his buddy Trump.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deflategate Returns: Tom Brady to Serve Four Game Suspension to Start 2016 Season appeared first on Law Street.

Although gender equality in the sporting world is far from perfect, a majority of sports now have women’s leagues. One notable exception is racing–both Formula 1 and NASCAR. Danica Patrick has worked tirelessly to be a visible competitor on the NASCAR scene but few other female American drivers have been recognized. In Formula 1, there are only a handful of female drivers who were recently made to feel even more out of place in their sport when Bernie Ecclestone, Chief Executive of the Formula One Group, said in an interview with The Daily Beast that he didn’t know “whether a woman would physically be able to drive an F1 car quickly, and they wouldn’t be taken seriously.” Ecclestone said in the same interview that he thinks women can break through as executives outside of the sporting world, but by stating that women are not physically capable of driving in Formula 1 Races, he has effectively written them off as trivial rather than valuable contributors to the sport.

Mario Andretti was asked to comment on women in Formula 1 in the wake of Ecclestone’s comments and told TMZ that

You could be more delicate about it, but Formula 1 has been in existence for what, 66 years, and we’ve only seen 5 women try and compete and none have really been successful.
The bottom line is you can make assertions until the cows come home. Saying women can do it. Bottom line, they have to prove it. You can’t just come out of the woodwork and say ‘I want to be a F1 driver.’ You need to earn your way there.  Will it happen one day? It’s impossible to predict, but I’d say probably yes. At the same time, someone else might say, if it was going to happen, why hasn’t it happened in 66 years?  I think it’s clearly more of a men’s sport. Could there be some women who are competitive? Like with tennis… could Serena Williams compete with men? I think yes, but could she win a major, I don’t know.

Former Williams test driver Susie Wolff has stepped forward, stating that Ecclestone’s comments were taken out of context and that Ecclestone has committed to her Dare to be Different initiative, which aims to get more girls interested in motor sports. However, Wolff’s defense of Ecclestone (and his commitment to her initiative) may be too little too late. By claiming that women don’t have the physical capacity to drive at the highest level of racing, Ecclestone has undercut decades of hard work and sacrifice from the women who are pioneering gender integration in Formula 1.

Just because women are a minority in the sport does not mean that they are not capable. When given access to the training, funding, and resources that male drivers receive, women can also compete on the most challenging race tracks in the world. It is a question of opportunity, not of ability. Ecclestone and Andretti are working on the flawed assumption that because no woman has emerged as a racing champion equivalent to a male driver in the past, it would be impossible for such a female to exist in the present or the future. In reality, all forms of sport are based on breaking records and pushing forward rather than being tied to the way the sport was conducted in the past.

When male leaders in the motor sport community dismiss the possibility of female talent, they are shutting the door for the current generation of girls who find racing interesting. These girls may enjoy driving and cars just as much or more than their male peers but when they are constantly told that there is no way they will ever compete seriously, they lose all inspiration and incentive to continue training and racing. Ecclestone and Andretti should have stepped forward and challenged young women to break into the boys’ club of motor sport so that it can become just as diverse as any other major sport. By falling back on antiquated notions of female ability, Ecclestone and Andretti are hammering the final nail into the coffin–if the most high profile and experienced men in the sport don’t think you’re capable, then you can bet no one else will.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Where are the Women in Formula 1? appeared first on Law Street.

Late Saturday, former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith was pronounced dead after suffering multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Smith, 34, was driving his Mercedes SUV with his wife Raquel in tow, when a minor auto accident led to an altercation that left Smith dead and his wife with 2 non-fatal gunshot wounds to her legs.

While the incident originally appeared to be a random act of road rage, details emerged throughout the week that provided a clearer picture of what happened that night. Cardell Hayes, 28, who was charged with second-degree murder in the incident, was a prep-school football star who dreamed of playing for the New Orleans Saints, according to The Daily Beast. He also reportedly had worked as a security guard for the Saints at the same time that Smith was a player. On the night of the incident, Hayes’ Hummer was rear-ended by Smith’s vehicle. The exact details of what followed are still fuzzy, but the accident allegedly led to an exchange of words between the two men that ended with Hayes shooting Smith.

Smith played for the Saints from 2004 to 2013, and played an important role in helping the team win the 2010 Super Bowl. His former teammates have expressed grief over the loss, including quarterback Drew Brees who spoke up on the high rates of gun violence and homicides in the city as a major factor.

Hayes has claimed no wrongdoing in the event; his lawyer told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that his client was “not the aggressor” in the situation. He also claimed that toxicology reports should be conducted, as they would “shed light on the behavior of some of the participants,” insinuating that Smith was possibly under the influence at the time of the alleged incident.

Hayes also claims that their prior dealings were just coincidental and had nothing to do with the killing; he allegedly didn’t even know who the victim was until the next morning.

On Wednesday, the lawyer for Hayes’ passenger, Kevin O’Neal, stated that Smith was armed that night and that Hayes’s actions “may have saved both of their lives.”  She referred to the incident as “justifiable homicide.” Police have stated that while they did find a loaded gun in Smith’s car, there was “no evidence” that it had been fired. Smith’s attorney also responded to these claims, saying that Smith did not threaten Hayes and had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

In another strange coincidence, Smith had dinner earlier that day with William Ceravolo, a police officer who had a history with Hayes. In 2005, a dispute in a Walgreens involving Haye’s father, Anthony, led to an altercation with the police that ended in officers shooting Anthony dead; Caravolo was one of the six officers involved. Hayes sued the New Orleans Police Department for his father’s death, but the officers were not charged. There is no indication at the moment that this was related to Smith’s death at all.

Photo:
Will Smith 1-hour before being shot & killed, w/Pierre Thomas & former NOPD commander Billy Ceravolo.
So sad. pic.twitter.com/PMFpRm3vOl

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherMackel) April 10, 2016

Until more details emerge it won’t be clear what exactly transpired that night, but this is clearly a tragic situation all around.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Led to the Shooting Death of NFL Star Will Smith? appeared first on Law Street.

Athletes from practically every sport frequently donate their gear to charity but this week, FC Barcelona’s Lionel Messi received negative press after donating a pair of shoes to a charity auction conducted by a television station with high Egyptian viewership. Instead of being seen as a gesture of goodwill, the donation of the shoes was received as a slap in the face–a suggestion that Egyptians aren’t capable of purchasing their own shoes. Furthermore, in Egyptian culture, shoes are seen as a symbol of disrespect or insult (shoes are considered unclean in many parts of the Arab world and the act of throwing a shoe at someone is a powerful insult). Egyptian MP Said Hasasin went on national television denouncing Messi’s donation, removed his own shoes and claimed he would donate them to Argentina as a form of retribution. Egypt’s Football Association representative Azmy Megahed sided with Hasasin, stating that :

I am confused, if he intends to humiliate us, then I say he better put these shoes on his head and on the heads of the people supporting him. We don’t need his shoes and we don’t need charity from Jewish or Israeli people. Give your shoes to your country, Argentina is full of poverty.

The Jewish Chronicle expressed confusion over this reaction, as Messi is in fact Catholic.

Not all reactions to Messi’s donation were negative. The Egyptian football manager (and former player) Mido defended Messi, stating that a soccer player’s shoes are his most prized possession and the whole debate stemmed from a misunderstanding. Reporter Mona El-Sharkawy, who conducted the interview, stated that Messi never suggested he was donating the shoes to Egypt–the program she interviewed him for asks all its guests to donate items to a charity auction and Messi simply suggested that he would like to donate his shoes to that auction. He never mentioned the country of Egypt at all, and meant no offense.

While the Egyptians who spoke out against Messi’s donation have the right to their own opinions, they may have cost Egyptian charities a major opportunity to raise money. Auctioning off the possessions of famous athletes has historically been a profitable practice and an athlete with as much star power as Messi would have no doubt drawn interest from buyers around the world. Messi is a five time Ballon d’Or recipient who is generally considered to be the best soccer player on the planet. The shoes were not a gift to the nation of Egypt, they were a donation to a specific charity that was seeking out the possessions of celebrities. Lionel Messi has historically been very active in donating to charity and taking part in fundraising events, including the foundation of his own organization–Fundacion Leo Messi–which aims to improve the lives of impoverished youth around the world. By taking a gesture that was meant out of goodwill to heart as an attack on national identity and prosperity, Hasasin and Megahed denied the charity auction the opportunity to rake in a significant sum.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Messi’s Donation Offends Egyptian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

Because “deflategate” can apparently never die for Boston sports fans, Patriots fans are now suing the NFL to block one of the penalties that the league handed down. Seven irate fans want the team’s draft picks reinstated, and have filed a lawsuit in federal court to that effect.

The penalties for deflategate were highly contested from the beginning–the original decision by the league to suspend quarterback Tom Brady for four games was been put on hold by a judge and appeals are still ongoing. One of the other penalties levied by the NFL, however, was the loss of two draft picks for the Massachusetts-based team–this year’s first round draft pick, as well as 2017’s fourth round draft pick.

The suit, Orsatti v. NFL, is filed against the NFL, Roger Goddell, the NFL commissioner who has already received plenty of flak over his handling of deflategate, as well as the owner of the Patriots, Robert Kraft. While it could seem weird to sue Kraft, the man whose team is actually negatively affected by the penalty, the lawsuit claims that he didn’t do enough to fight against the revocation of the Patriots’ draft picks. It states:

Defendant Robert Kraft had remedies to attempt to get plaintiffs’ draft pick back, but he chose his fellow billionaire owners above the plaintiffs and fellow fans.

The lawsuit claims that Goddell, Kraft, and the NFL as a whole have broken a number of laws ranging from consumer protection issues to racketeering. As a result, the fans who filed the suit allege that they have experienced: “embarrassment, ridicule and depression due to the rest of the country who is jealous of the Patriots ‘piling on’ and criticizing the Patriots and their fans for being ‘cheaters.'”

However, legal experts are saying that this lawsuit probably won’t go too far. ESPN talked to Michael McCann, a sports law professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, who pointed out that the fans bringing the suit don’t really have standing. He stated: “paying for a ticket to watch the Patriots play isn’t interfered with by the team losing a draft pick or two.” While it seems likely that we’ll continue to hear about deflategate as the legal side of the controversy continues to make its way through court, this particular case appears to be dead on arrival.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Controversy That Will Never Die: Patriots Fans Sue NFL Over “Deflategate” appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? appeared first on Law Street.

Raymond Moore, CEO of the BNP Paribas Open, left his post this week after he stated that women’s tennis “rides on the coat-tails” of the men’s game and that female players “should get down on their knees” in gratitude for famous male players who have, in his eyes, kept the sport afloat.

Moore’s comments angered tennis players from around the world but even though his immediate removal from his post suggests that the tennis community will not stand for this kind of blatant sexism, there has been a surprising wave of agreement with Moore’s comments.

Famed tennis star Novak Djokovic has claimed that male tennis players should be awarded more prize money at competitions because men attract more spectators. He went on to say that:

[Women’s] bodies–and their bodies are much different than men’s bodies–they have to go through a lot of different things that we don’t have to go through. You know, the hormones and different stuff–we don’t need to go into details. Ladies know what I’m talking about. Really, great admiration and respect for them to be able to fight on such a high level.

Djokovic also said that women have to make “sacrifices for certain periods of time, the family time or decisions that they make on their own bodies in order to play tennis.” Although Djokovic was clearly fumbling to reform his comment into a statement that respected women, the mere concept that women are too “hormonal” to compete on the same level as men and that they should set aside time for family life that male athletes should not is not a compliment nor a mark of respect.

Serena Williams responded to Djokovic’s comment, saying that: “Novak is entitled to his opinion but if he has a daughter–I think he has a son right now–he should talk to her and tell her how his son deserves more money because he is a boy.” Djokovic could have made a simple statistical argument about prize money–tournaments that attract more spectators in person and are viewed more on television should have a bigger prize at the end–but by choosing to make the discussion about female bodies and “hormones,” he has stepped firmly into the camp of sexism.

It is never acceptable to suggest that women deserve to be making less in their chosen place of work, but the insult is especially galling in a field where women have historically been excluded because their bodies were considered too weak to play. Female competitors spent centuries being labeled “enthusiasts” rather than athletes. We are lucky enough to have hundreds of strong female athletes in sports across the world who demonstrate that women are capable of incredible athleticism–but consider that the Olympics only began accepting female athletes in 1900,  the U.S. Women’s Open only began in 1946, the FIFA Women’s World Cup only began in 1991, and the Women’s National Basketball Association was only formed in 1996.

Gender parity is not alive and well in the sporting world, even at the highest tier, where men should respect the women who worked the same long, draining hours they did to become champions. Professional athletes and organizers who participate in tournaments such as the BNP Paribas Open are not ignorant of the training athletes of both genders have to go through in order to become the best in their sport. Less than fifty years ago, Billie Jean King and the other founders of the Women’s Tennis Association had to fight to receive equal pay–male tennis players told them that “No one is going to ever pay to watch you birds play.”

Modern women’s tennis is a testament to the work of King and her contemporaries, as millions of viewers tune in to women’s matches, attend the matches in person ,and follow the careers of female athletes. Yet after comments like those of Djokovic and Moore, it would seem that little movement has occurred since the 1970s.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post A Lesson in Sexism: Moore and Djokovic Trivialize Women in Tennis appeared first on Law Street.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is again probing into the NFL’s hiring policies, over concerns the coaches have been asking college players about their sexual orientations. This is just three years after Schneiderman looked into the NFL for the same kind of concerning questions in 2013.

At last month’s Scouting Combine–a weeklong showcase of promising college players for coaches and other officials every February–Ohio State cornerback Eli Apple was asked by a coach for the Atlanta Falcons if he “liked men.” The coach in question, Marquand Manuel, has since apologized.

Schneiderman wrote a letter to Robert Gulliver, the Chief of Human Resources for the NFL, alerting him to these concerns. In the letter, Schneiderman points out the history that his office has had with working with the NFL over issues of sexual discrimination. He wrote:

I write today with serious concerns regarding the persistence of conduct at League-affiliated recruiting events that may violate New York State law concerning sexual orientation discrimination, and specifically regarding reports of an incident at this year’s Scouting Combine that appears nearly identical to the incident which triggered my office’s initial inquiry into the League.

The investigation that was conducted in 2013 found no specific issues but as a result the NFL put in place things like a revised player code of conduct to try to prevent sexual orientation discrimination.

Schneiderman also highlighted other issues that the NFL has had with these kinds of questions in the past. He specifically mentioned questions asked about Michael Sam, the first publicly gay player to be drafted by the NFL.

Essentially, Schneiderman’s letter focused on how questions that reference players’ sexual orientation have consistently been issues in the past, and while the NFL has taken those steps to prevent those changes, complaints keep springing up. As a result, Schneiderman is asking for the league to provide “a detailed summary of the steps that it has taken to to eliminate sexual orientation discrimination and to prevent such incidents as these from occurring since our first engagement in 2013.”

Brian McCarthy, a league spokesman, stated:

NFL players and prospective players have the right to work in a positive environment that is free from all forms of harassment, intimidation and discrimination. […] Our policies stress that clubs must ensure that our Draft-eligible players and potential signees are afforded a professional and safe NFL environment that is consistent with state and federal law and the CBA and reflects our shared commitment to diversity and inclusion, conduct and character.

While the probe didn’t really turn up anything in 2013, Schneiderman’s renewed look will hopefully keep coaches and other team officials from asking inappropriate questions moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NY AG Probes NFL Questions About Players’ Sexual Orientation appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Platini, former UEFA president, and Sepp Blatter, former FIFA president, were denied appeals on their ban from all football activities this week. However, the FIFA appeals committee did decide to reduce the ban from eight years to six, based on the duo’s “service to the game.” Both Platini and Blatter claim they are innocent and plan to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to lift their ban, but with the election of Gianni Infantino as President of FIFA, it appears that the soccer world is moving on without them.

Infantino was previously an adviser to Platini, but when seven of FIFA’s highest ranking officials were arrested five months ago, he transitioned from UEFA secretary general to the race for the FIFA presidency–a far more contentious position. Infantino’s primary competitor was Sheikh Salman, who ran on a platform of transforming FIFA from a Euro-centric governing body to a truly international organization that would recognize the interests of soccer around the world. Despite this noble ideal of creating a more equitable soccer world, Sheik Salman did not build the solid constituency that Infantino managed to construct.  This could be attributed to Sheik Salman’s allegedly checkered past when it comes to human rights–he was connected with the jailing and torture of Bahraini athletes who peacefully protested against his family during the Arab Spring.

Infantino has multiple issues to tackle during his first several weeks in office. The most immediate concern regards Russia and Qatar’s respective bids for hosting World Cups. The circumstances by which those countries secured the bids are under investigation by Swiss law enforcement, but the chance of FIFA reneging on the bids is relatively slim. Construction has already begun on stadiums and tourist attractions in Qatar, and although the working conditions on these construction sites have caused outrage among human rights activists, there is no sign of development slowing down.

A troubling prospect for the 2022 Qatar World Cup is that Platini and Blatter might be able to return to football just in time to participate in the tournament. The shortening of their sentences leaves the door open for them to participate, either within FIFA or through smaller organizations that will be working on logistical issues in Qatar. Argentina’s legendary Diego Maradona recently stated that he feels Platini and Blatter should receive life in prison for their abuse of power, and while that seems like an extreme reaction, it is clear to many that their current sentence is not a sufficient punishment for their crime.

Missing the 2018 Russia World Cup may be a blow to the egos of Platini and Blatter but if the two men are allowed to participate in the Qatari World Cup, they could be able to step back into their old habits without missing a beat. By 2022, Infantino may enact broad reforms of FIFA activity during his tenure but the return of Platini and Blatter would automatically undermine any of those actions. If the Court of Arbitration for Sport moves to completely overturn the ban on football related activities that was upheld this week, then FIFA may never escape its reputation for corruption.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post FIFA 2016: Can Sepp Blatter and Michael Platini Get Back to Soccer’s Inner Circle? appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers have determined that there’s a relationship between college football games and incidences of reported rape. The study was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research late last year, but has broken into the news recently, as the conversations around college sexual assault and the violence of football have continued into the new year.

The researchers, led by Professor Jason Lindo at Texas A&M University, discovered that:

Home football games increase reports of rape by 41 percent on the day of the game while away games increase reports by 15 percent. They estimate that Division 1A football games cause between 253 and 770 additional rapes of college-aged victims per year across 128 universities.

The researchers don’t claim this is a direct link–rather they were attempting to look at the connection between events that sparked heavy drinking and partying, and reports of sexual assault. Understandably, then, they found higher reports of rape when something worth “celebrating” happened during a football game–for example, underdog teams upsetting better-ranked rivals. Additionally, game days saw a spike in other crimes–such as disorderly conduct, DUIs, and public intoxication. Given that big college football games usually happen on Saturdays and Sundays–busy party days for college students–the researchers attempted to control for that. According to NPR’s Social Science Correspondent Shankar Vedantam:

Lindo and his colleagues actually tried a control for this by comparing reports of rape on a days the college team was playing to reports of rape on other Saturdays of the year when the team was not playing. So this analysis is focused on the additional rapes being reported to college police and local law enforcement on days the college team is playing compared to what’s reported on a typical Saturday.

In order to conduct the study, the researchers looked at 22 years of FBI data on rape. Given that those statistics have received criticism for being undercounts of sexual assaults, the numbers could be even higher. Additionally, the statistics can’t provide a full picture of all big college football schools, as only 96 of the 128 schools with Division I teams voluntarily reported enough data to be included in the study. However, as they stand, the statistics are certainly worrisome, and worth a look as the fight to prevent sexual assault on college campuses continues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There a Connection Between College Football and Rape? appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL has traditionally received plenty of criticism for its handling of domestic violence–particularly when it comes to the league’s treatment of players who have committed such acts. But Super Bowl 50, tonight, will feature a moving public service announcement drawing attention to domestic violence. Check out the PSA, which appears to be aimed specifically at young people, below:

The ad was created by a non-profit called NO MORE, in partnership with an advertising agency called Grey. The NFL donated the ad time, and paid for the production costs. It features one young woman talking to another about a Super Bowl party. The invitee tells her friend that she doesn’t “think it’s a good idea” because “Jake is in one of his moods.” It ends with the party host asking her friend if she’s ok, and then the ellipses that signal that a message is being typed. But the ellipses never turn into a message, implying that something happened to the young woman whose boyfriend was “in one of his moods.”

This is actually the second year running that there has been a domestic violence PSA during the Super Bowl; last year’s main event featured a similar spot, also produced by NO MORE. A camera panned around a house where someone was attacked, with a 911 voice call as the audio part of the spot. Check it out below:

The NFL’s history with domestic violence has been a storied one, and there’s still a lot of work to be done on the part of the league. For example, the NFL came under fire once again this year for its treatment of Greg Hardy, who was suspended for only four games last year after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Not only did many view the four-game suspension as entirely too short, but were also unhappy with the fact that he was welcomed back with open arms after his suspension. More recently, there have been allegations that Johnny Manziel, also known as “Johnny Football” threatened and assaulted his girlfriend.

So, while the NFL has done a good thing by promoting the PSAs, actions speak louder than words, and the NFL’s actions still could use some serious work.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Takes on Domestic Violence With Super Bowl PSA appeared first on Law Street.

The St. Louis Rams recently announced that they would be leaving St. Louis, Missouri for their new (and also old, given that they played there from 1946-1994) location of Los Angeles, California. However, St. Louis isn’t just losing its NFL team, it’s also now saddled with an all-but-useless, but very expensive, football stadium.

The St. Louis Rams built the Edward Jones Dome in 1995, right after moving to St. Louis. The deal to build it was viewed as potentially problematic by many in St. Louis pretty much from its inception. It was a $280 million deal, and it included provisions that St. Louis would keep the stadium in tip-top shape: it had to be “maintained to a first-tier standard, meaning the facility must be considered among the top quarter of all NFL football facilities.” Naturally, that provision became harder to uphold as the stadium aged, and new stadiums were built.

Recently, while the stadium was still actually being used by the team, revenue didn’t even amount to enough to pay for it, meaning that taxpayers were still stuck with some of the bill. The stadium, as it currently stands Rams-less, will cost taxpayers $144 million in debt and maintenance costs. While that money won’t just fall to the people who live within the confines of St. Louis–it will be also be paid by residents of the surrounding county, as well as the state of Missouri–it’s still a pretty big price tag for a team that now plays on the other side of the country.

St. Louis politicians have attempted to do something about the cost, but likely to no avail. St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed has asked the NFL to help out with the cost, but (predictably) has not received a response, at least as of yet.

Concurrently, the Missouri Senate is trying to pass legislation that would prevent Governor Jay Nixon from issuing bonds on any sort of new stadium without a popular vote or legislature support. It would also require the same provisions for the governor to authorize any improvements to Edward Jones Dome. State Senator Rob Schaaf is sponsoring it, and stated:

We’re just requiring them to get permission that we always thought that they had to have. Who would have guessed that Gov. Nixon would interpret the law to say that they could put us into debt, with a total of payments of $415 million over 30 years, without our say-so.

That bill has created some tension within Missouri’s senate–Minority Floor Leader Joseph Keaveny, a Democrat from St. Louis, told Schaaf: “You’ve done a very good job of discouraging the NFL to stay in St. Louis; I commend you for that!”

So, St. Louis is now saddled with an expensive stadium it has to pay off, and a bunch of angry legislators trying to figure out how to prevent something like this from happening in the future–not great news for the city or state as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rams Leave St. Louis, Leave Behind Debt-Saddled Stadium appeared first on Law Street.

At this year’s X Games in Aspen, Colorado, 13-year-old Estonian skier Kelly Sildaru took home the gold in the women’s ski slopestyle event, garnering praise from her fellow athletes and attracting attention from corporate sponsors. Sildaru has been offered a sponsorship from ROXY as a reward for her athleticism, becoming one in a long line of exceptional athletes who  have committed to sponsorship deals at a young age.

Sponsorship is defined by the IEG Sponsorship Conference as “cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property  in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property.” Sponsorship costs can include equipment, travel fees, training fees, and a host of other expenses that an athlete would not be able to cover on their own dime. Once an athlete accepts sponsorship from a company, they often effectively agree to promote the company: wearing the company’s logo, using that company’s products and promoting that company among their peers. By sponsoring the athlete, the company will profit within the elite circles of a given sport but if they want to advertise their brand to the general public, they will ask their athlete to commit to a celebrity endorsement–print, radio, or television advertisements for the company’s products.

Some companies, such as Contour HD, require their sponsored athletes to endorse their products in interviews and on social media while others pay their athletes for endorsements in addition to their sponsorship contract. In many American high school and college level athletics programs, athletes are prohibited from striking endorsement deals (which has often been cited as an unfair practice) but in the less traditional world of winter sports, athletes as young as Sildaru may strike sponsorship deals without any penalty.

Sponsoring athletes in extreme sports was once considered risky, as it did not connect with a large enough consumer base, but as these sports become more popular, the sponsorship deals surrounding them become more attractive. The X Games 2016 were sponsored by AT&T, Coors Light, Intel, LifeProof, America’s Navy, GoPro, Harley-Davidson, Jeep, Monster Energy, Oakley, Polaris, Skype, and Xbox. Several of these companies hosted welcoming events and their logos were prominent throughout the competition, cropping up on jackets, helmets, snowmobiles and tents. During the broadcast of the X Games, commentators were not obligated to “endorse” any of the sponsors but they were required to mention the names of the sponsors at the opening of the broadcast.

Most athletes rely on sponsorship as a primary source of income and actively court endorsement opportunities. The idea of competing in a sporting event for the sheer joy and thrill still exists for many athletes, but it is complicated by the pressure placed on athletes to attract sponsors. Winning a gold medal results in a sense of pride and the respect of fellow athletes, but it also is a surefire path to a sponsorship deal. Chris Tierney, father of X Games snowboarder Meghan Tierney, stated in a recent interview that

In my eyes, from a marketing standpoint, most snowboarders would say that the Olympics and the X Games go hand in hand.

The X Games pride themselves on celebrating bright, young talents in the extreme winter sports world–but over time, the competition has become less about the sport and more about the sponsorship. The Olympics have been dominated for years by their McDonald’s and Coca-Cola sponsorship and the X Games may be taking the same path. Sponsorship is a major boon for any athlete hoping to carve out a long-term career in their sport but it also shifts the ultimate goal of the Games from athletic excellence to financial solvency.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Competition in Aspen: Sponsorship Deals at the X Games appeared first on Law Street.

On December 14, 2015, Serena Williams was named the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” But, despite the fact that Williams went 53-3 in the 2015 season and earned five titles including Wimbledon, the Australian Open, and the French Open, and despite the well-earned SI title for her dominant performance in tennis, Williams’ accomplishments haven’t been without severe criticism and personal attack.

Quite noteworthy is the fact that a woman has not achieved this title by herself in over 30 years–since 1983. Yet, to the dismissal of such an empowering feminine feat and celebratory cause, the public lost their bananas that American Pharaoh, the Triple Crown winning horse, did not win “Sportsperson of the Year.”

Huh? Excuse me for not understanding, but why would a horse trump a person for the Sportsperson award? How does that make any sense? The outrage over Williams’ triumph is actually quite ridiculous–that in and of itself is the outrage–that people cannot support a strong, confident, independent woman who is setting an impeccable example of dreaming, hard work, and success for young women and athletes around the world.

Further adding insult to injury, not only did the haters loudly and colorfully express their disdain that Williams won SI’s “Sportsperson” award, claiming that American Pharaoh was at a disadvantage because he “couldn’t display sportsmanship,” something that can only be done by a person, but critics further lashed out at the magazine’s cover rolling out the royal treatment to highlight the award’s recipient. Critics actually defended and made an argument for American Pharaoh under an affirmative action basis–that the criteria and policy used by Sports Illustrated placed American Pharaoh at a disadvantaged position to show sportsmanship and be the “Sportsperson of the Year.” What? Ridiculous. As the queen of tennis sat on her gold throne, dazzling in black lace, looking as powerful and dominant as ever, the persistent and consistent racist, dehumanizing, and body-shaming critics trolled in. Williams, a developing and trending fashion icon who has her own HSN line and has graced the covers of various magazines, including Vogue (twice), and is no stranger to criticism, took the cynics on in stride like the lady that she is, stating:

I’ve had people look down on me. I’ve had people put me down because I didn’t look like them, I look stronger. I’ve had people look past me because of the color of my skin. I’ve had people overlook me because I was a woman. I had critics say I will never win another Grand Slam when I was only at number seven and now here I stand today with 21 Grand Slam titles and I’m still going.

Serena Williams used a platform built out of negativity, stereotypes, racism, misogyny, and hate to spread a positive and inspiring message to women and people of color–chase your dreams and do not for a minute focus on what other people say about you because they will talk regardless. “You have to believe in yourself…sometimes you have to be your own cheerleader,” Williams stated in her speech posted above.

Her point is proven in the fact that she has consistently dealt with body-shaming critics, some saying that she is too large, too muscular, too masculine, and overly built, which drastically separated her in appearance from her opponents. It did separate her from her opponents most notably in her performance and domination of the sport, and her own opponents began to highlight her different appearance in negative ways. In 2012, Caroline Wozniacki stuffed her chest and behind area with towels to imitate Serena Williams against Maria Sharapova.

Most recently, it has been said that Williams’ SI cover makes her thighs look too skinny or that she is buying into the idea that sex sells and spreading the ideology, against feminism and women, that sexiness in marketing is required to get attention and recognition as a female athlete. However, the double standard holds true–men gracing the cover of SI for the “Sportsperson of the Year” award have never had to worry whether their cover would be seen as too sexy or too suggestive. How exactly is a woman supposed to present herself when she is told she is too large and too masculine one minute and too sexy the next? Is there a happy medium?

Regardless of the haters, Serena Williams deserves to be the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” Her domination in tennis highlights her as one of the best female tennis players in history. She is a strong and independent woman who is setting an incredible example for young women and female athletes. Let us silence the neigh-sayers because this queen absolutely deserves her throne.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Serena Williams Served Up Backlash and Criticism for “Sportsperson of the Year” Win appeared first on Law Street.

A controversial new bill that would have banned Missouri student athletes from striking was abruptly withdrawn Wednesday after public backlash called the restrictive legislation unconstitutional.

Republican state Representative Rick Brattin withdrew the bill (without comment) that he and co-sponsor state Representative Kurt Bahr had submitted Friday. If approved, the legislation would have revoked a scholarship from any student athlete that “calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”

The proposal was in direct response to a massive strike at the University of Missouri, where over 30 football players refused to participate in any football activities until the university’s System President Tim Wolfe resigned. Wolfe had been deemed unfit by students after mishandling a series of racist incidents on campus.

The team arrived at the decision to strike after graduate student Jonathan Butler’s life-threatening hunger strike failed to provoke any action from the university. On November 7, Sophomore safety Anthony Sherrils announced the strike on Twitter in a message that read,

The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe ‘Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere’ We will no longer participate in any football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students’ experiences. WE ARE UNITED

We’re black. Black is powerful. Our struggle may look different, but we are all #ConcernedStudent1950 pic.twitter.com/obCjSWCFVY

— HeMadeAKing (@1Sherrils_2MIZZ) November 8, 2015

Three days later Wolfe resigned, and as a result the team did not miss a scheduled a game.

Bahr told the Kansas City Star that the incident prompted him to re-examine the relationship between student-athletes and the universities where they play. Bahr said,

Kansas State Rep. Brandon Ellington, however, disagreed. The Democratic legislative black caucus chair said in a statement to the AP, “this unconstitutional legislation never should have been filed in the first place.” Ellington also applauded Brattin’s decision to withdraw the bill saying,

Seeking to punish those who peacefully take a stand against racial injustice violates not only the constitutional right to free speech but the values we hold as Missourians. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to his misguided and offensive proposal, I hope Representative Brattin finally understands that.

But the unfortunate thing is, Brattin and Bahr will probably never understand how offensive the proposal was. These men attempted to take away students’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly, because they’d rather Missouri players be on the field getting physical than standing up for something political. If they keep this up, Missouri may run into some issues recruiting quality players in the future.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Missouri Lawmaker Withdraws Bill to Ban Student-Athletes From Striking appeared first on Law Street.

In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins, declaring the team name “disparaging to Native Americans.”  This ruling was reinforced earlier today and while owner Dan Snyder is scrambling to defend the trademark, this ruling will unfortunately not actually force Snyder to change the name of the team.

Stripping the team of the trademark is an important first step, but there has been no other legal action leveled against the team that will result in an official name change. Snyder and team President Bruce Allen have doubled down on preserving the team name, finding allies in presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Despite overwhelming protest from the Native American community (and the American populace in general), it seems like the leadership of the team is determined to retain the name by any means necessary. In 2013, Snyder released a letter claiming that:

After 81 years, the team name ‘Redskins’ continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.  We are Redskins Nation and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.

In a nation where there are infinite loopholes that let teams retain offensive names, the Redskins are an omnipresent reminder of exactly how far we still have to go to create and protect racial equality. Snyder’s disconnect from the reality of the American political landscape and the importance of inclusive language is nothing short of disturbing. Eighty-one years of ignoring organized protest against a racial slur isn’t a legacy, it’s a travesty. Snyder “owes” nothing to the “nation”–football fans turn up to games because they want to see their favorite players win, not because they are demonstrating solidarity with the management’s decision to stay on the wrong side of history. His decision to retain the name is purely financial, which is exactly why he has fought so hard to retain the trademarks.

Snyder appears to be fully aware of the nonsensical nature of his claim, as evidenced by his establishment of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in 2014, which is dedicated to providing resources to Native communities across the country.  If the term “Redskins” is truly a term full of memories and heritage, why would he use the term “Original Americans” when establishing his foundation?  The contradictory nature of the Foundation’s name reveals that Snyder is not ignorant of the offensive nature of the slur. The Foundation is a transparent attempt to assuage his guilt and pacify Native American activists. Despite Snyder’s efforts to build a positive PR strategy, a new generation of Native youth is growing up surrounded by the slur–seeing it on television screens, t-shirts, and toys across the country. Constant use of the slur is not only frustrating for this generation, it endangers their perception of safety and their ability to learn. If Snyder truly wants to clear his conscience and make peace with the protesters, he’ll need to put in more than minimal effort. This is not a minor gaffe or an honest mistake. The use of a racial slur in the team’s name is a conscious action, which prioritizes profit over equality and inclusion.

Not everyone subscribes to the idea of karma, but if there ever was a case for its existence, it is the Washington Redskins. Since Dan Snyder purchased the team, the team has lost spectacularly and consistently. There are dozens of reasons to change the team’s name, but seeing as none of them have yet swayed management, I’d like to put forward a new one:

Snyder, perhaps if you took a racial slur off of your helmets, your jerseys, your field and your merchandise, the stars would align in your favor and you would be able to win a game.

I hate to think that such an insane idea could actually impact Snyder’s attitude, but at this point, it’s not a stretch to think that a man this deluded about the reality of the world believes that stars can control his fate.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Changing The Redskins Mascot: Washington, D.C.’s Greatest Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian and double-amputee known as “Blade Runner,” was released from prison last week. In October of 2014 he was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and sentenced to five years in prison. Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to manslaughter, a crime which would have merited more jail time.

Pause for a reminder: Pistorius claimed that the day he “accidentally” killed Steenkamp, he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. Steenkamp was set to give a speech on domestic abuse the day she was killed.

Needless to say, many South Africans (including Steenkamp’s family) do not believe that the athlete mistakenly shot his model/reality star girlfriend. They believe the killing was intentional, and that Pistorius got caught up in his own lies.

Elements of Pistorius’ testimony did not add up with forensic analysts’ findings. According to BBC:

A forensic analyst contradicted Mr Pistorius’ claim that he was wearing his artificial legs when he tried to break open the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising Ms Steenkamp was inside. Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle and location of the marks on the door suggested Mr Pistorius was on his stumps.

If Pistorius lied about not having his prosthetics on, what else did he lie about? Why did he shoot his firearm multiple times if he thought the noises he heard were just an intruder?

Thankfully, Pistorius will not have access to firearms while on house arrest in (ahem) his uncle’s tricked-out mansion. He is also required to attend regular counseling sessions, so long as he is “doing time”–which, as of now, means four more years.

To the American mind, it seems crazy that a man found guilty of being involved in the death of his girlfriend could possibly receive such a lenient sentence. However, under South African law, “an offender sentenced to five years or less in jail can be released to correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of the term—in Pistorius’ case 10 months.” Indeed, Pistorius has served a bit more than one-sixth of his sentence, so it should not come as a shock that he has been released from Kgosi Mampuru II jail in Pretoria, where he was being held.

What should come as a shock is that Pistorius was held in the hospital section of the jail, rather than in the cells with the other 7,000 inmates who are not celebrities or well-known athletes. As past Law Street articles have stated, it is problematic when a celebrity uses his or her status to acquire special treatment while incarcerated. Yes, it is true that Pistorius would have needed additional medical support as an imprisoned double-amputee in jail. However, he received preferential treatment as a celebrity athlete, which unjustly separated him from the rest of the prison community.

Additionally, Pistorius was released a full day earlier than what was announced by the State Department, in order to avoid a media firestorm. Surely no other prisoner would have been afforded the luxury of a 24-hour head-start after their release was already announced. It’s time for South Africa to re-assess its court procedures when dealing with high-profile suspects and prisoners. (Heck, it should also consider overturning the 1969 law that abolished trial by jury.) But hey, some countries have to walk before they can run like a convicted Olympian.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Leaves Prison to Chill at Uncle’s House in South Africa appeared first on Law Street.

It really isn’t looking good for the University of Louisville Cardinals’ basketball team after former escort Katina Powell aired out their dirtiest laundry in her new book “Breaking Cardinal Rules: Basketball and the Escort Queen.” Powell, 42, claims that from 2010-2014 Cardinals’ coaches used her and her girls to recruit players with illicit stripper dorm parties, where they paid dancers to have sex with the recruits.

In the book, which was compiled out of four years worth of Powell’s personal journal entries, she claims that she did “everything to make those guys sign,” and even felt like she was part of the recruitment team.

Continuing coverage today of our exclusive local interview with Katina Powell @WHAS11 @WHAS11Tabnie pic.twitter.com/73IdSIqNfu

— Renee Murphy (@WHAS11Renee) October 20, 2015

Shortly after the book’s release ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” launched its own investigation into the “sex party” claims and uncovered evidence that seemingly supports Powell’s assertions.

Watch the ESPN interview below  

The interview was chock full of juicy, salacious material, but here are the five most important facts you need to know.

1. Andre McGee allegedly orchestrated the parties

Former Director of Basketball Operations and graduate Assistant Coach Andre McGee was the alleged “point person” for all of the dorm stripper parties that took place in U of L’s Billy Minardi Hall. Powell claims that McGee asked her if some of the dancers would have sex for money. In her interview with ESPN’s Powell said,

He asked me, ‘Is there any girls that want to make extra money,’ pretty much a side deal with the players. … So I asked the girls and their eyes lit up like, ‘Well, yeah.

[…]

I just knew ‘Side deals’ were sex, and if they [the dancers] wanted to make extra money, that’s what the ‘side deal’ was, sex.

2. Players who supposedly had sex with dancers are being named

Powell outed former Louisville recruits JaQuan Lyle, Antonio Blakeney, Jordan Mickey, and Terry Rozier as all having had sex with dancers during their recruiting visits. She also claims that two former Cardinals players who made it to the NBA were also involved. She named Memphis Grizzlies point guard Russ Smith and Houston Rockets power forward Montrezl Harrell as having had sex with her daughters Lindsay Powell, 24, and Rod Ni Powell, 22, respectively.

3. Katina pimped out her own daughters

Opps, did I forget to mention that she pimped out her own daughters?

Her three daughters were paid to strip and have sex during these parties. But she made a point to mention that they were all at least 18 when they were first paid for sex. Great job mom.

4. Recruits are backing up her story

ESPN found five former Louisville basketball players or recruits who asked to remain anonymous, who are corroborating her story. One recruit who eventually signed to play elsewhere said, “I knew they weren’t college girls. It was crazy. It was like I was in a strip club.”

5. Coach Rick Pitino claims this is news to him

Many are wondering whether or not Cardinals Head Coach Rick Pitino knew anything about these parties. Powell, however, is pretty sure that he did, saying, “I said, ‘Does Pitino know about this?’ And he said, ‘He’s Rick. He knows about everything.'” As of now Pitino has no plans to step down, and is directing all blame on McGee, but the blowback from this scandal could easily make him the next casualty.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ex-Escort Claims Louisville Coaches Paid for Recruits’ Strippers & Escorts appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though Donald Trump has permeated every aspect of our lives these days. He’s all over the news–particularly social media. So when Fox Soccer put out a promo on Twitter for the United States-Mexico CONCACAF Cup game tomorrow, it wasn’t surprising that it featured good ol’ Donald Trump.

(2/2) Well, now watch this Trump pump up video for the #USMNT! Get ready. #USAvMEX kicks tomorrow on @FS1! https://t.co/1mfnfZiqTo

— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) October 9, 2015

But while it wasn’t surprising, it was upsetting. Fox Sports seemingly made the promo in response to a similar one from Mexican station TV Azteca, which used Trump’s statements to rile up its fan base.

TV Azteca’s #USAvMEX promo (also using Trump). https://t.co/uNDQiuu2hI — Tom Marshall (@mexicoworldcup) October 9, 2015

So, here are two promos, both using footage of Donald Trump’s presidential announcement speech to promote a soccer game. So why does Fox Sport’s really feel like it’s in worst taste? It all comes down to the context.

Trump said some truly horrible, racist things about Mexicans in his announcement speech. The most notable quote was probably this one:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump’s incredibly disparaging remarks have continued as consistently as his surges in the polls–the man has been running a campaign rife with racism and xenophobia.

So, that TV Azteca promo was at least in part tongue-in-cheek. It was making fun of Americans for the fact that this buffoon is leading the polls to be the presidential nominee for one of our two major political parties. For Fox Soccer to turn around and also use that footage, it sends a concerning message: yes this guy is an idiot, but he also speaks for us. They validated his xenophobia and racism, and that’s incredibly embarrassing.

Many Twitter users seemed to agree, condemning Fox Soccer for the promo:

@FOXSoccer @FS1 Not clicking. Nope, not gonna do it. Trump obviously doesn’t realize how many USMNT players are immigrants.

— superguppy (@superguppy) October 9, 2015

@FOXSoccer @FS1 Literally the last thing needed in international soccer right now is more xenophobia. Why would you do this? Disgraceful. — Christopher Dwyer (@dwyercd) October 9, 2015

@FOXSoccer @FS1 the other piece was satire, this is disgusting. Horrible way to alienate fans and politicize/corrupt the beautiful game.

— Adrian//Amler (@AdrianAmler) October 9, 2015

.@foxsoccer You might want to check with your market researchers, but I suspect the Fox Soccer audience is not the Fox News audience. — R. H. (@iltuesday) October 9, 2015

Listen, it’s understandable that social media marketers for Fox Soccer want to pump up their audiences however possible, and tapping into already trending topics is certainly a way to do that. But that doesn’t give them an excuse to tacitly endorse racism and xenophobia. Shame on you, Fox Soccer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox Soccer’s Donald Trump CONCACAF Cup Promo is in Bad Taste appeared first on Law Street.

Greg Hardy, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, is returning to the field after a four-game suspension for domestic violence. According to court records, he allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder, at one point throwing her onto a futon covered in assault rifles. But now that he’s back, it’s all sunshine and rainbows for Hardy, as he made inappropriate jokes to interviewers about coming out “guns blazin,'” and commented on the attractiveness of other players’ wives in a spectacularly sexist  fashion. Hardy deserved some seriously hefty criticism for the fact that he showed no remorse for his actions, recognition that he’d done anything wrong, or respect for women. Well, he got what he deserved, as the harshest and arguably most badass criticism came from “Garbage Time” host Katie Nolan. And she totally, utterly, nailed it. Check out the video below:

Nolan has hosted the show, which airs on Fox Sports 1, since earlier this year. Playing off the title of her show, she denounced Hardy as a “garbage human,” for his behavior, as well as the NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and sports media for not speaking out about his inappropriate comments.

Nolan hits all the important points in her criticism, including but not limited to:

1. Hardy’s totally cavalier attitude.
2. The NFL’s seeming endorsement of his comments when they put them on the league’s website.
3. The Cowboys’ posting of the interview on their site.
4. The fact that a reporter asked Hardy a question about finding another player’s wife attractive instead of following up with him about the very real, important, and upsetting reasons why he was suspended.

But what hit closest to home was Nolan’s explanation of the fact that no one seems to find this problematic because the NFL doesn’t care about its female fans. She stated:

Greg Hardy had to pretend to respect women for 12 minutes — just 12 minutes — and he couldn’t even do that. And what’s worse: No one stopped him. They let him go on about girlfriends and guns, and posted video of it on DallasCowboys.com, because who f***ing cares, right? Women won’t see it. Women only care about football during those events they run where they tell them what to cook on game day and give them free manicures.

It’s a powerful statement, but more importantly, it really does seem to be true. After the controversy over Ray Rice’s suspension–also for domestic violence–last year, the NFL pledged to do better. While the NFL has taken some positive steps, including partnering with organizations that combat domestic abuse and violence and reforming some of its polices, the way that Hardy’s return to the game was handled shows that it’s clearly not enough. The NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and the reporters who interviewed Hardy could all still do way better. Many kudos to Nolan for pointing it out.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Nolan Says What Everyone is Thinking About the NFL and Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

With the United States losing to Jamaica in the semifinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup the final was projected to be Panama vs. Jamaica. The  regional soccer tournament between the countries in Central America, North America, and the Caribbean is held every two years and draws millions of viewers. However, the success of the Gold Cup this year may have been corrupted by the allegations of inappropriate refereeing to ensure that the final game featured Mexico.

The finals were scheduled to be played in Philadelphia, which is home to many Mexicans. For revenue purposes, it would have been ideal to host a final including Mexico rather than  a Panama-Jamaica final. With the U.S. losing in the semifinals, placing at least one soccer power house, most likely Mexico, in the final was imperative for TV viewership as well. It’s within this context that questionable referee calls took place in the quarterfinal against Costa Rica and  the semifinal against Panama which ultimately granted Mexico a spot in the finals. The head referee of the calls in the semifinals, Mark Geiger, along with CONCACAF, are receiving serious backlash, as many critics, soccer players, and countries feel that there were third member parties involved which made it possible for Mexico to win. Although Geiger apologized for his calls, and CONCACAF admitted mistakes were made, an investigation is pending to truly determine what went wrong.

There were two clear instances in which observers are claiming that the calls made on behalf of Mexico were amiss. The Mexican-Costa Rican semifinal game ended with a winning penalty kick for Mexico, yet the nature of the foul that led to the kick was very much disputed. Many feel that Mexico was given a clear advantage in that game and that the actions embodied by the ref showcased an ulterior motive. Then, the Mexico vs. Panama game shocked athletes and fans around the world. Panama lost a man after a foul call, then a second controversial call allowed Mexico to tie up the game. Mexico then moved onto the final game against Jamaica and won the Gold Cup.

In the moments following the Panama game, spectators and members of the Panamanian Soccer Federation alike were quick to accuse Mexico of fixing the game. Allegations were also made about third party members being involved and paying off the referees. Panama’s federation demanded the removal of CONCACAF’s referee selection panel after describing the officiating in the loss as “insulting and embarrassing.” The statement also accused the match officials of favoring Mexico in a “vulgar and shameless way.” While there may not be any clear answers for some time, if there was any cheating involved, it does not appear to involve the Mexican players. “I didn’t celebrate because that penalty call left me with a bad taste,” said Mexican player Andres Guardado after he scored the controversial penalty kick which ultimately propelled them into the final.

This isn’t the first time CONCACAF has been accused of shady behavior. There was recently a massive investigation which resulted in several lawsuits against individuals working with FIFA and the organization as a whole. Amidst the disaster, two former CONCACAF presidents Jack Warner and Jeffrey Webb were accused of bribery by the United States Justice Department. The United States Department of Justice alleged that for more than two decades, sports-marketing executives paid more than $150-million dollars in kickbacks and bribes to high-ranking soccer officials. The charges are an indication and direct representation of corrupt practices at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport; secret meetings, hidden cash, and bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands were discovered as part of the investigation.

Most recently, CONCACAF acting President Alfredo Hawit announced a review of the refereeing in the Gold Cup. This review will hopefully shed light on the events of the two controversial games. While it may have been more profitable to have Mexico in the finals, it’s important that the integrity of the game remains intact.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Calls: What Happened at the Gold Cup? appeared first on Law Street.

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, FIFA’s outgoing President Sepp Blatter deserves a Nobel Prize. Putin made these comments during an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS that was released on Monday. These comments followed  Blatter and Putin’s gathering in St. Petersburg for the preliminary draw for the 2018 World Cup located in Russia. But Putin’s comments seem a bit odd, as there’s potential evidence that Blatter has been involved in suspicious or illegal activities for years.  

After all, Blatter has had his fair share of attention this past year. Blatter’s 17-year-reign as FIFA president came to an end in June when he announced his resignation. His resignation came six days after the FBI announced it would be investigating some top FIFA officials. The FBI later announced it planned to win the cooperation of other FIFA officials who were under indictment and work its way up the organization.

During the interview, Putin stated

I believe that people like Mr. Blatter, the heads of major international sports federations, deserve special attention and gratitude from public organizations, if anyone should be awarded Nobel Prizes it is these people.

FIFA itself had a rough year as well. Last January, FIFA was hit with a lawsuit by several high profile female players after it announced the Women’s 2015 World Cup would be played on turf instead of grass like Men’s World Cups. In addition to the lawsuit, FIFA has struggled to maintain partners and sponsors after the announcement of the investigation into the potential corruption scandal. Last month, the Nobel Peace Center announced that it would stop working with FIFA on the joint fair play Handshake for Peace after the corruption allegations. After the severance of this relationship, it is hard to believe that the Nobel Peace Center would agree with Putin’s comments. While the Nobel Peace Center doesn’t directly say the relationship was severed because of the allegations, it’s a popular and believable theory.

While Blatter denies any wrongdoing, that’s a bit hard to believe given his abrupt resignation and the indictment of his former colleagues. However, Putin seems to be convinced of Blatter’s innocence stating:

We all know the situation surrounding Mr. Blatter right now, I don’t want to go into details, but I don’t believe a word of him being involved in corruption personally.

I question Putin’s ability to judge someone’s innocence given his recent activities (Ukraine comes to mind), but since Blatter isn’t being personally investigated by authorities, that could be part of Putin’s reasoning.  Currently, Swiss and U.S. authorities are investigating whether the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids were accepted through legal means, but Putin has voiced his concerns about those investigations, particularly the U.S. role.

While Blatter has won more than 70 awards in the futbol world, many members of the soccer community were not sad to see him go. Greg Dyke, the head of the Football Association (FA), and Michael Plantini, the head of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) had already been calling for him to step down.

While Blatter is not currently being investigated by U.S. or Swiss authorities, many believe he may be at least somewhat involved in the scandals. Dyke, the head of FA, stated

I don’t believe Mr. Blatter’s decision to step down was an ethical decision. I suspect it is much more to do with the investigations that are going on, clearly something has terrified him.

Although Blatter has many awards and served FIFA for 17 years as president, he is in no way qualified to receive a Nobel Prize. In fact, given that the Nobel Prize is only given in Chemistry, Peace, Physics, Physiology, Literature, and Medicine, Putin should have specified what award Blatter is actually qualified for.

The 2015 Nobel Prize winners have yet to be determined, and Blatter will likely remain in office  until his successor takes over. However, his role in the potential corruption investigation has yet to be determined, creating skepticism around his legacy and role at FIFA, and a huge question mark when examining Putin’s statements.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sepp Blatter and the Nobel Prize: What is Putin Thinking? appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there have been multiple cases of athletes putting their hands on women and suffering the consequences. Baltimore Raven’s running back Ray Rice and Texas Tech football player Nigel Bethel II both recently assaulted women and were dismissed from their teams. But most recently, Florida State University’s Quarterback De’Andre Johnson has made the news after an altercation with a young woman at a bar.

On June 24th at a night club called “Yiannis,” 19-year-old Johnson was caught on video shoving past a woman–a 21-year-old FSU student–waiting in line for her drink as he made his way to the front of the bar. The two then began to argue and the woman proceeded to hit him in the face. Johnson grabbed her arm and punched her across the left side of her face.

According to the Tallahassee Police Department incident report, the woman had bruises near her left eye, swelling of the left cheek and upper lip, and a small cut near the bridge of her nose. Jose Baez, Johnson’s well-known criminal defense and trial attorney stated on Monday:

While it is clear from the video that De’Andre Johnson was not the initial aggressor, his family wants to take the lead in helping him learn and grow from this experience. He is currently participating in community service and faith-based programs focused on battered women, substance abuse and the empowerment of children…De’Andre is extremely embarrassed by this situation and would like to express his heartfelt apologies to everyone, including those who were directly affected, Coach Fisher and his teammates, the entire Florida State University community, as well as his family and friends.

The Florida State Seminoles head coach Jimbo Fisher announced that Johnson had been suspended indefinitely from the FSU football program on June 25th. This week, just hours after the state’s attorney’s office released the video, Coach Fisher dismissed the freshman quarterback from the team. Johnson, who was named Florida’s “Mr. Football” as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville was charged with misdemeanor battery. He turned himself in to Tallahassee police on June 30th and was released on a $500 bond. According to FSU’s athletics policy, if a student-athlete is charged with a misdemeanor or felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the department makes a decision on discipline on a case-by-case basis.

This is not the first time an FSU football player has been in the headlines due to trouble off the field. Jameis Winston, the former Florida State University quarterback-turned-top NFL draft pick, was accused of rape in 2012. Winston claimed the charges were false and they were eventually dropped. It does not seem that Johnson will be as lucky as Winston was.

While this might seem like a straightforward case of yet another instance of violence from a promising young football player, there is another thing worth noting–a double standard. Although Johnson was obviously very much in the wrong, the woman who hit him has not yet been charged. I have always been a firm believer that no man should ever put his hands on a woman, but I am also a believer that no woman should put her hands on a man, and I’m not alone.

I think De’andre Johnson should be kicked out of FSU and charged with battery, but the woman (clearly the aggressor) should be charged too..

— Marcus Aurelius (@marcusjordandoe) July 7, 2015

Everyone deserves to be punished if they behave inappropriately and violently. The student who was hit should be charged for hitting him as well–regardless of the high profile nature of this case, respect should still be key. Obviously, Johnson’s behavior was completely over the line here; by putting his hands on the woman he lost the respect of many and a promising future. Violence is never the answer–that’s a lesson worth repeating again and again.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FSU Quarterback Pays the Price for Bar Brawl with Young Woman appeared first on Law Street.

The NCAA’s amateurism rule is rubbish. On its website, the college athletics governing body claims it has “adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.” The page goes on to list all the things student athletes are not allowed to do under the principle of amateurism, including:

1. Salaries for participating in athletics;
2. Contracts with professional teams;
3. Benefits from an agent or a prospective agent;
4. Agreement to be represented by an agent; and
5. Tryouts, practice, or competition with a professional team.

In the meantime, the University of Texas basketball program collected more than $165 million in revenue for the 2013-2014 season, according to the Office of Postsecondary Education. Forbes values its football program at a cool $139 million, while the NCAA as a whole made nearly $913 million for the fiscal year 2013.

If the NCAA is starting to sound like a cartel, that’s because it is. By definition, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to fix prices. A long time ago, colleges got together and decided not to pay players, fixing the salaries of their student-athlete employees at zero for the benefit of NCAA and participating universities’ leadership.

So then, it becomes evident that the NCAA needs to get rid of its amateurism rule. Fortunately, the rule is already under assault in the court room.

In a March 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision, Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that a group of Northwestern University football players are eligible to form a union on the basis that players devote as many as 50 hours a week to football, and that scholarships, which can be terminated yea to year and require student athletes to adhere to certain guidelines, are a contract for compensation.

In an August 2014 California District Court decision, Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that “NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools” in a case involving a former UCLA basketball star who claimed the NCAA and EA Sports violated his right to use his image for marketing purposes when his image was used in a video game without his consent and without compensation.

Nevertheless, there are numerous arguments against compensating student athletes.

Some argue that a vast majority of athletic programs at universities are losing money and need help from their basketball and football programs to stay afloat. Compensating student athletes, they contend, will force athletic departments across the country to cut programs.

Tough luck. We live in a capitalist society where businesses close every day because they fail to make a profit. If a university believes that maintaining these programs leads to more donations from alumni, fine, fund them through donations. But student athletes contributing to profitable programs should not be punished for the financial woes of their unprofitable counterparts.

Others argue that scholarships reasonably compensate student athletes.

No, they don’t. In a Drexel University and National College Players Association study, the average Division I college basketball player would earn $266,000 per year, and the average Division I football player would earn $114,000 per year, if players received 50 percent of the revenue earned by their respective programs, which is approximately the revenue sharing model of the NBA and NFL.

Still, others argue that high school athletes have the right to decide whether or not they want to accept a scholarship and be bound by NCAA regulations.

Well, the NBA enforces a 19-year age minimum for draftees, and the NFL requires its draftees to be three years removed from high school. With the emergence of European and Chinese leagues, some high school basketball stars have opted to spend their last years of ineligibility abroad. With no comparable foreign football leagues, football stars are out of luck.

There is yet another denomination of people who argue that the NFL’s three-year rule protects young athletes who are more susceptible to injuries such as concussions.

In most states, minors become legal adults at the age of 18, and the legal age of consent is 16. High school football players are well aware of the risks associated with playing the sport, and they should have the option to get paid millions of dollars to take on the higher risks of playing professionally with better athletes, or receive scholarships and develop their skills in a less physical college setting.

Consequently, the most sensible solution to the NCAA amateurism problem is for the NBA and NFL to eliminate their age requirements. Unfortunately, college athletics function as a phenomenal developmental league for professional leagues that professional franchises do not have to pay for.

So, as long as these age requirements are in place, amateurism in college athletics is dead. The NCAA needs to stop pretending that its student athletes are students first, athletes second, and open up its leagues to all the intricacies of the free market.

Doing so may involve sports agents that specialize in college athletes, or a free agency period where eligible players can transfer to other universities. The market will invariably take many twists and turns before it settles into a final model, but it will certainly be better than a system in which a cartel blatantly exploits the services of helpless college athletes.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capitalism and College Sports: Time to Pay Student Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

Aaron Hernandez was found guilty yesterday of the first-degree murder of Odin L. Lloyd. Hernandez, a former tight end for the New England Patriots, will serve life in prison without the chance of parole. The legal troubles aren’t over for Hernandez, however, as there are still two more murder charges for the former star. The high profile nature of these cases does now beg a question: how did a man with such a bright spotlight shone on him manage to keep his criminal behaviors in the dark for so long?

Hernandez’s past is often described as a troubled one. He grew up in Bristol, Connecticut, was known to run with bad crowds from time to time, and other members of his family had relatively consistent run-ins with the law. But Hernandez’s talent on the football field always seemed to propel him forward–he shattered Connecticut state records, was very successful playing as a Gator at the University of Florida, and then was a fourth-round draft pick for the New England Patriots. By the time he was arrested he’d made millions of dollars and was still young enough to have many good years in the NFL ahead of him.

He was the “pride” of his small town. But he’s also a murderer–he’s now been found guilty of shooting one man seemingly in cold blood, and it’s looking pretty likely he’ll get convicted in the 2012 murders of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Hernandez allegedly shot them after Abreu bumped into him in a club and caused Hernandez to spill his drink.

There are really only two possibilities for what happened here. One is that he was such a brilliant manipulator that he managed to hide his violent tendencies from those around him. The other seems unlikely, although it’s not a completely outlandish theory. Boston.com columnist Bill Speros wrote an op-ed in which he alleged that Hernandez is an undiagnosed psychopath. An interview from right after the Boston murders seems to lend at least some evidence to that theory. He joked and laughed with the media, saying that his summer was “private” but he “still had some fun.” If he did indeed murder Abreu and Furtado, the fact that he could be so callous and removed just 11 days later certainly is a concerning sign.

I think there’s a more likely scenario, however, and that’s that there were plenty of warning signs, but that they were flat out ignored because of his star status. Take an oft-cited incident when he was in Gainesville, for example. He went out with some of his former teammates, got into a dispute over a check, and ended up punching a bouncer in the face. One of his teammates on the Patriots, Tully Banta-Cain, said in 2010:

A lot of guys come into the NFL haunted by the past. Some guys overcome it and some continue to be haunted throughout their careers if they’re not able to disassociate themselves from certain people or certain atmospheres. Aaron may have fallen victim to that.

Aaron Hernandez spent his life thus far with people who were willing to look out for him because they saw promise, or because they saw that he was trying to overcome a “troubled” background. But in an atmosphere like that, it seems like he got away with a lot and those close to him let a lot of things slide.

That wouldn’t be unheard of. The Steubenville rape scandal a few years back, for example, showed an almost textbook example of many people in a small town willing to forgive horrid crimes because of who the perpetrators were.

No one will ever really know how Hernandez–a man who ostensibly could have had a very bright future–ended up as a murderer. But one thing is certain: he’s now going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Hernandez: Sheltered by His Own Talent? appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like Patriots’ Coach Bill Belichick has found himself at the center of yet another cheating scandal, this time over his balls. The NFL has found that 11 out of 12 of the New England Patriots’ game balls were under-inflated during their 45-7 victory over the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game on Sunday.

According to ESPN, the NFL’s subsequent investigation found that the footballs were inflated two pounds per square inch below what is required by NFL regulations. This apparently went unnoticed by the referee, Walt Anderson, who checked and approved both team’s footballs a little over two hours before kickoff.

So how do under-inflated footballs provide a competitive advantage? In an interview with NPR, scientist Ainissa Ramirez, author of “Newton’s Football,” explained that it helps improve the grip. She stated:

Particularly during that game which was very rainy, it’s hard to hold the ball, it’s hard to catch the ball. So by making it a little softer, it’s easier to catch the ball.

Patriots’ Quarterback Tom Brady tried laughing off the ball-tampering allegations Monday saying, “I think I’ve heard it all at this point,” but I doubt he’s laughing now. In fact, he’s probably putting his head under the covers after a 2011 radio interview surfaced in which Brady admitted he likes deflated balls. I find it highly unlikely that Brady would not have noticed that the balls were lighter throughout the game, but there’s no way he would ever admit it.

This isn’t the first time that Belichick’s coaching methods have been under fire. In 2007 he was disciplined by the NFL for a videotaping controversy dubbed “Spygate.” He was caught recording the New York Jets’ sideline coaches’ signals during a September 9, 2007 game. He was fined the largest fine ever imposed on a coach in NFL history–a total of $500,000. The Patriots were also fined $250,000 and stripped of their 2008 first round draft picks.

The NFL is choosing not to comment at this time, so it’s yet to be determined what penalties might be imposed. It’s highly likely that the Patriots will end up being fined and lose their draft picks as well, but that will have to be determined by the NFL. So far, the Patriots are still scheduled to play the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl XLIX on February 1st.

The league should be taking this scandal very seriously. Personally, I think the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl game. Even though they defeated the Colts by a landslide, cheating is cheating and this scandal threatens the integrity of the game. More fines and lost draft picks are going to be just another slap on the wrist, but taking away the chance at a championship ring will really hurt. Fans and players alike on Twitter seem just as outraged.

11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!! #Just Saying

— Jerry Rice (@JerryRice) January 21, 2015

If you get 100% on a test and only cheat on half of it… It’s still cheating. It doesn’t matter what the score was. #Patriots

— James Rapien (@JamesRapien) January 21, 2015

Breakfast of cheating champions. #patriots cheaters pic.twitter.com/3FFAzLpw0j

— merlisa (@merlisa) January 21, 2015

However, no matter what happens, in an effort to make light of the situation we can always rely on the internet to quickly add some well-timed “balls” jokes. So before you go, enjoy this wonderful Patriots-Cialis parody video.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deflategate: Patriots Caught Deflating AFC Championship Game Footballs appeared first on Law Street.

Fantasy football players received an early Christmas present this week, as leagues throughout the country crowned new champions following week 15 of the NFL season. For most, that present was the gift that keeps on giving: cold, hard cash. Anybody who has played in a fantasy league will tell you that these winnings are the result of hours of research, informed speculation, and hard work…or at least hard television-watching. Even those of you who don’t understand fantasy sports have still probably noticed the growing popularity of fantasy leagues. So with millions of dollars being legally exchanged this week for fantasy winnings, it’s time to re-visit the age old question: why are fantasy sports legal while most sportsbooks–places where gamblers can wager on sports–remain illegal?

The answer to this question lies in a small, perhaps capricious distinction between chance and skill. In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) which essentially outlawed online sports gambling. The law excluded most fantasy sports leagues, exempting bets with:

An outcome that reflects the relative knowledge of the participants, or their skill at physical reaction or physical manipulation (but not chance), and, in the case of a fantasy or simulation sports game, has an outcome that is determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting events, including any non-participant’s individual performances in such sporting events…

Essentially, the government created a naughty-or-nice list. If you place bets based on skill, you’re nice. If you place bets based on chance, it’s coal city for you.

Exploiting this distinction has made fantasy winners happy, and fantasy businessmen even happier. FanDuel, which specializes in daily fantasy sports matches, is projecting $40 million in 2014 revenue. Boston-based DraftKings has raised over $75 million in investments since it was founded in 2012. Clearly, the industry heads of “skill” based sports wagers are at the top of the nice list, but the ambiguous language Congress has utilized may leave room on the list for others.

Most sportsbooks typically offer their clients bets on a particular team’s outcome in a particular game. Arguably, the results of these games are determined based on home-field advantage, strength of the opponent, and the collective performance of the team. Some larger sportsbooks offer player-props, which are estimations of how a particular player will do either in a particular game, or over the course of a season. For example, if a gambler banks on Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson to catch more than 1.5 touchdowns in a specific game, he reaps a monetary reward. Sound familiar?

To New Jersey attorney Charles Humphrey, it sounded like a fantasy sports wager. That’s why in 2006, Humphrey filed an action in federal court arguing that fantasy leagues and sportsbooks were essentially the same, and that ESPN was breaking gambling laws by collecting fantasy entry fees. The District Court of New Jersey ruled against Humphrey, but chose not to tread into the murky waters of the UIGEA’s skill/chance distinction when relying on the law.

Few others have opined on whether player props are skill-based and technically legal under the UIGEA. That’s probably because it’s political. Some casinos with money and clout have set their sights higher than online player props, attempting instead to push through live-action sportsbooks in places like Monmouth, New Jersey. And seeking to compete online with the aforementioned FanDuel and DraftKings is also probably more difficult than it appears. Beyond deep pockets, those two companies belong to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA). The FSTA is no stranger to lobbying and legal action, and although they typically argue in favor of the sports-wagering industry, don’t bet on them siding with a start-up company looking to specialize in prop bets and take a piece of their pie. After all, some of the biggest opponents of the online expansion of gambling happen to be other gamblers.

Regardless of hurdles, the valuation of a professional athlete’s performance is highly lucrative, and part of an industry that is getting bigger and bigger. It’s only a matter of time before some brave company offers player prop bets under the guise of a fantasy league. To prepare, Congress should rewrite the UIGEA’s skill/chance distinction, because the current list of who’s naughty and who’s nice doesn’t make much sense…even if you check twice.

Andrew Blancato

The post Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I love a good football story, but I am a little bit tired of all of the crappy ones coming out of the NFL these days. Ray Rice likes to hit women, Adrian Peterson is suspended for the remainder of the 2014 season, and now the DEA raids teams at away games.

The DEA showed up unannounced on Sunday after several games to check on the visiting teams and medical staff. The San Francisco 49ers’ staff was checked at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey after playing the New York Giants; the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ staff was checked at the Baltimore-Washington International airport after playing the Redskins; and the Seattle Seahawks confirmed via the team’s Twitter account that they were spot-checked as well after they played at Kansas City against the Chiefs.

“DEA agents are currently interviewing NFL team doctors in several locations as part of an ongoing investigation into potential violations of the (Controlled Substances Act),” Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Rusty Payne said Sunday. Of course there were also no arrests because we all know that would be plastered all over the news. Does this show that the NFL is doing what it’s supposed to be doing? Surprise, surprise the NFL might actually take something seriously when it comes to its players!

The DEA claims that the teams involved were not specifically targeted, but rather they were chosen because they were travelling and the DEA wanted to see if visiting clubs were in compliance with federal law. DEA agents requested documentation from the visiting teams’ medical staffs for any controlled substances in their possession, and for proof that doctors could practice medicine in the home team’s state.

The investigation was triggered by a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of more than 1,200 former NFL players going all the way back to 1968.

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL and its teams, physicians, and trainers acted without regard for players’ health by withholding information about injuries while at the same time handing out prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and Percocet and anti-inflammatories such as Toradol, to mask pain and minimize lost playing time.

The NFL is also trying to finalize a $765 million class-action settlement reached in August 2013 over complaints by thousands of former players that the NFL concealed the risk of concussions.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around certain lawsuits. Guys, if a team doctor is handing you drugs and you feel uncomfortable with it, why not just say no? Or get a second opinion? You do have the right to refuse treatment and see another doctor outside of the NFL world. You might have to pay for the visit yourself but I’m pretty sure you make enough to afford a visit to a doctor who will tell you the truth and let you know what you should be on. I understand that the team physicians are supposed to be there to help out the players, but let’s be honest about where the loyalty really lies. Players don’t sign those big fat checks those doctors are cashing.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DEA Raids NFL Teams After Sunday Games appeared first on Law Street.

Time and time again, celebrities have evaded prison sentences because they claimed to be too fragile for life behind bars. In the case of recently tried and convicted Olympian Oscar Pistorius, he may be able to serve just ten months of his five-year maximum for shooting and killing his then-girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. After those ten months, he can request to be moved to house arrest in his mansion. That’s a rough life right there.

In Pistorious’ case, it’s a bit tricky. He is a double-amputee, and because of this, many claim that prison is simply not suitable for him. Nooshin Erfani-Ghadimi, project coordinator for the Wits Justice Project, a civil society group, said before the sentencing that she believed Pistorius would probably receive far better treatment than the average prisoner and has throughout the entire judicial process thus far. However, she also noted “I don’t think anyone with a disability necessarily will be able to be provided for at the moment in a way that ensures that they would have the correct medical treatment, that they have the correct physical structures.”

Pistorius’ prosthetic limbs are not the only issue. Health risks such as tuberculosis are often cited as a problem in South African prisons due to poor air circulation, and many fear that he will be susceptible to contracting the illness. Some believe that his celebrity status will make him a target for gang violence.

While defending his client, Pistorius’ attorney, Barry Roux, argued that there is extreme overcrowding in South African prisons. This point is irrelevant, however, as his celebrity status would easily prevent him from sharing a cell. The other health fears such as inmates not receiving their medication because of the inadequate number of health workers in prisons are unlikely to be of valid concern. He is a celebrity. History shows that celebrities receive special treatment in prison.

Efraini-Ghadimi conceded that South African law has policies for accommodating physically disabled inmates. Zach Modise, acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, pointed out that there are 128 disabled inmates currently doing time and therefore prisons are properly equipped with the appropriate facilities.

Currently, Pistorius is living in a single cell with everything he needs along with access to the medical care for any ailments both physical and psychological. In ten months, he will likely be permitted to move to his home in the Silver Woods Estate in Pretoria.

This case is undoubtedly tricky. If Pistorius did not have his celebrity status, his prison sentence would be of greater concerned because it would mean less special treatment behind bars. For example, a paraplegic man, Ronnie Fakude, struggled with very real concerns while serving a prison sentence; however, he did not enjoy the status as a famous individual the way that Pistorius does.

Just because you are in the media spotlight doesn’t make it okay to commit crimes, and hopefully this case will shed light on that fact, even though he is getting off relatively easily. Even Arnold Pistorius, Oscar’s uncle, said that the family accepted Oscar’s sentence and viewed it as a way for his nephew to pay back society. Perhaps in ten short months Mr. Pistorius can relax in the comfort of his own home again. Only time will tell…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Can Opt for House Arrest in Just 10 Months appeared first on Law Street.

On August 20, 5 million people tuned in to watch a summer baseball game, a pretty impressive figure considering MLB playoffs don’t begin until October. Now consider that those numbers aren’t for major league baseball or even college, but for little league baseball. Last Wednesday, 13-year-old Mo’ne Davis and her Philadelphia team battled and lost admirably to their Las Vegas counterpart, the latest event in a string of brushes with early fame. Sports fans and parents alike seem to endorse little league baseball, but one has to wonder: in an age when amateurism is being redefined at the collegiate level, will the public ever find little league baseball to be exploitative?

Like college football, little league baseball has seen a relatively quick surge in revenue. In 2012, even before Mo’ne Davis took America by storm, Little League Inc. had assets of nearly $85 million. Also like college football, the players are not the ones collecting the revenue. A majority of the revenue generated is used to maintain the Little League headquarters in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, as well as the domestic regional offices and the international facilities in Canada, Hong Kong, and Poland.

As the NCAA can attest, if organizational revenue increases from television contracts while players remain unpaid, some may declare the league exploitative. But Little League, Inc. can rest assured knowing its players won’t be seeking the same redress as current or former college athletes. For starters, Little League, Inc. hasn’t sold its athletes’ rights to merchandisers. The NCAA did, and that was generally what the recently decided O’Bannon v. NCAA was all about.

Secondly, the best college athletes not only earn their organizations money, they do so in lieu of their own earnings. Star athletes in basketball, football, hockey, and baseball often choose between college or receiving compensation from a domestic or foreign league. In 2008, NBA point guard Brandon Jennings chose to play professional basketball in Italy rather than play college basketball in the U.S. Mo’ne Davis et al., as entertaining as they may be, do not have similar opportunities considering minors lack the traditional capacity to contract in the United States, and child labor, even in Europe, is frowned upon.

Although it shouldn’t worry about being sued by its players, Little League Inc. might have to worry about its volunteers. Behind the play of child stars stands 1.25 million non-paid volunteers who ensure little league games are run effectively. Think it’s unlikely they would sue after volunteering to work for no money? So too, most likely, did Major League Baseball. So too, most likely, did several media giants in NYC.

Can all volunteers now sue their “employer,” even if it’s a non-profit? Is anything keeping Americorps and Salvation Army volunteers from suing those establishments? Not exactly. The Southern District of New York held fairly recently in a suit brought by Fox Searchlight Studio interns that the unpaid’s legal status generally depends on the motivation of the organization using them. Fox was found to be using interns in lieu of employees, and it was mainly to benefit them financially rather than offer experience to the interns. If Little League, Inc. keeps expanding its volunteer base in order to continue generating revenue, then it too may be thrown a curve ball.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Little League is Big Business appeared first on Law Street.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has ruled college athletics in a manner that would make dictators green with envy, and each decade under its rule seemed to indicate the increased power they’ve gained. In 1976 the association was entrusted with the authority to penalize schools directly. In 1988, the Supreme Court held that despite its quasi-governmental makeup, the NCAA was not a state actor and therefore need not provide procedural due process. Throughout the nineties and into the present day, the NCAA brokered broadcasting deals for more and more money, resulting in a body that generated more than $750 million as of 2013.  But as any powerful politician knows, you can’t stay on top forever.

On August 8, 2014, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California held in O’Bannon vs. NCAA that the NCAA’s current structure violates federal antitrust law. Specifically, Judge Wilken found that the NCAA can’t forbid schools from providing marginal compensation to their student athletes. For now, the ruling only approves of a $5,000 yearly allowance to an eligible NCAA basketball or football player’s trust fund. But the old guard should be nervous, as this decision is just one of several recent (and well-designed) attempts to wrestle power away from the NCAA. Earlier this year, Northwestern University football players successfully petitioned the NLRB to form a players union. Around the same time, famed labor lawyer Jeffrey Kessler filed suit against the NCAA, which essentially seeks to remove all caps on a college athlete’s earning capacity. Some journalists have indicated this is the beginning of the endfor the NCAA, but if that’s so, what lies ahead?

The good news is that courts are unlikely to reverse the advances made by the students. The NCAA has already indicated its plan to appeal O’Bannon, but since the Ninth Circuit is generally labor friendly, it’s unlikely the decision will be overturned at the next stage.

A reversal at the Supreme Court isn’t likely either. Despite a recent trend of being generally unfriendly to labor (e.g., this and this), SCOTUS is unlikely to decide O’Bannon purely on employment/labor law grounds. O’Bannon is an antitrust case, and plaintiffs in antitrust cases generally argue to oust a singular bully and restore free market principles. This is a notion most friends-of-management favor, perhaps especially in the Supreme Court’s case considering they’ve restored free market principles against the NCAA in the past.

The bad news for the student-athlete revolution is that their respective schools may have conflicting interests, and they may continue to thwart any effort to provide meaningful pay to students. Not too long ago the NCAA attempted to pass a resolution whereby student-athletes would get a stipend in addition to their scholarships. The schools, not the NCAA, pushed back against the idea.  Essentially, the schools that generated less sports-related revenue believed they would be unfairly burdened if they were forced to offer stipends in equal proportion to money makers like Texas and Wisconsin, especially after considering Title IX funding requirements.

Okay, so tax-paying Americans live with a progressive income tax rather than a flat tax, why can’t NCAA schools construct something similar with regard to student-athlete trust funds? Because the aforementioned money makers in college sports are already positioning themselves to avoid it. The day before the O’Bannon decision came down, the NCAA voted to allow the richest schools in D-I sports to have more autonomy. The autonomy could enable big schools to provide their students with more financial aid and could allow students to receive money through other pursuits (something former Colorado receiver Jeremy Bloom would have enjoyed).

The possible downside to the autonomy is that it becomes less likely the richest schools would be forced to comply with a graduated trust fund plan akin to a progressive tax. The richest schools would pay their recruits what they wanted, while the less-flush schools would be forced to pay the same amount, or risk losing even more recruits to bigger schools. This dichotomy could widen the income gap between large and small schools.

So why would the NCAA do this? Because the NCAA was a puppet government all along, man. Unlike sports oligarch FIFA, the NCAA doesn’t have a lot of disposable income. Ninety-six percent of its annual revenue is returned to charter schools, which is disproportionately given to the moneymakers of football and basketball. This money, AKA leverage, forced the hands of the NCAA and smaller schools to vote for the power-five conference autonomy, because they were scared the big schools would split off and create their own league.

In sum, the students won the day on August 8, but the real war could pit wealthy schools against not-so-wealthy schools. And in the end, the tyranny felt under the NCAA may not compare to the misery that the students and administrators of less fortunate schools feel when they try to compete against the power brokers of college sports. But ya know, viva la revolution.

Andrew Blancato

The post Watch the Throne: Who Succeeds if the NCAA Loses Power? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, the NBA came very close to having at least one playoff game boycotted by players due to the incendiary remarks made by former Clippers owner, Donald Sterling. Last week, rumors swirled that FIFA would be forced to cancel the World Cup due to the number of protests in Brazil. Both the NBA Finals and the start of the World Cup proceeded as planned however, and while their respective controversies remain newsworthy, these incidents joined the long history of near-cancellations not becoming tangibly disruptive. Will this ever change?

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, few major sporting events have been cancelled due to social unrest. The largest instigator of cancellations excluding work stoppages comes in the form of war. The 1916 Summer Olympics were cancelled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1940 and 1944, both the Summer and Winter Olympics were cancelled due to World War II. FIFA also cancelled two World Cups due to World War II, while the International Ice Hockey Federation World Championships were also cancelled between 1939 and 1947.

Although world wars have ended, cooler heads have not necessarily prevailed. Public backlash, much like sports popularity, seems to grow dramatically in the age of twenty-four hour news coverage.  In 2008 the Dakar Road Rally was cancelled following the heavily reported murder of four French tourists in Muaritania over Christmas vacation. Al Qaeda later claimed responsibility and followed with more publicly reported threats, ultimately forcing the Amaury Sport Organization to save face and cancel the event.

Good guys have also used new technology to cancel sporting events. In 2012, the New York City Marathon was cancelled after public criticism following the decision to host the event during Hurricane Sandy recovery. Many New Yorkers took to Twitter and Facebook to spread the message by creating hash tags and Facebook groups calling for cancellation.

A year earlier, the Middle East played host to several national uprisings during the Arab Spring.  Related pressure from the movement, which was largely incited by social media,  led organizers of the Bahrain Grand Prix to cancel the event in 2011. In 2012 the race was almost cancelled again amid continued protest.

Tweeting, Facebooking, and YouTubing protests have galvanized followers into action much like aligned sports fans have used it to organize at their favorite bars to watch games. As these conventions grow more pervasive, it’s possible that protests through social media will gain more followers, and gain them earlier.  Following reports of corruption and poor working conditions, there are already at least four Facebook groups (like this one), a Twitter handle, and a host of YouTube videos calling for a boycott of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. FIFA may dismiss these efforts as a bunch of pissed off young people trying to ruffle feathers. And they may be right. But that’s also why they should be scared.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Agencia Brazil via Wikipedia].

Andrew Blancato

The post Sports History Repeats Itself as the World Cup Goes On Despite Social Unrest appeared first on Law Street.

Roger Goodell’s job may be harder than it looks. The ongoing debate over the Redskins name-change seems to have reached its apex under Goodell, and the commissioner’s decision to police illegal hits by increasing fines and penalties has left him with few fans among active players. Still, Goodell’s largest challenge may be satisfying the former players.

Last May several ex-NFL players filed suit in federal court claiming the NFL recklessly and illegally fed players painkillers as a means to keep them on the job. Several players, including ex-Bills star Marcellus Wiley have argued that the amount of painkillers consumed during his playing days left him with partial renal failure in his kidneys. Other players argue that the culture of painkiller dependence turned them into drug addicts upon leaving the league. Former lineman Ross Tucker has defended the NFL, arguing that the plaintiffs are deflecting personal responsibility and just looking for handouts from the League’s deep pockets. But most ex-players don’t feel that way, and that’s a growing problem for Roger Goodell.

While America remains fixated on the record-setting deals for young NFL stars, its often forgotten that many of its old stars are struggling, both physically and financially. The painkillers suit comes on the heels of the League’s concussion suit, another multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by former players. Retired NFL players also recently met with Congressional members to discuss the difficulties they and their caregivers have faced in retirement. Many of their issues stem from the fact that NFL contracts generally remain non-guaranteed, and players’ health benefits expire five years after defection from the League. These issues, combined with the grim reality of the neurodegenerative disease now plaguing many ex-players, have forced retirees to take their former employer to court.

Can Goodell win this game? Experts say that the suit faces numerous hurdles, like obtaining class certification and proving causation. But even if this latest suit is dismissed,  NFL retirees are not likely to go away without a fight.  The National Football League is the world’s top-grossing sports league, (which also happens to be insulated from paying income tax), and Goodell himself was paid more than $44 million as recently as 2012. At some point the NFL is going to have to share a larger part of that pie with its former players by rebooting their pensions. If not, Goodell and his League’s public image may go down faster than a Cadillac off Alligator Alley.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Woodward via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Old People Continue to Harsh NFL’s Mellow appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Sterling’s dramatic month was capped off with a fittingly tumultuous final week. Let’s review: Sterling authorized his wife to sell his beloved basketball team, then disavowed that plan. He received an offer for $2 billion to buy the team, then was deemed mentally unfit to make authorizations on behalf of his family trust. He then filed a lawsuit against the NBA for $1 billion, only to have the NBA approve the $2 billion sale of the Clippers and forego the now unnecessary forced sale process. Got it?

The flurry of events would be hard enough to understand were they to make sense, but they don’t seem to do that. Why would you authorize your wife to sell the team then sue after she fields a great offer? Maybe there is another motive at work? Maybe Donald Sterling is mentally incapacitated . . . like a fox.

Make no mistake, Donald Sterling was a shrewd attorney and businessman in his day. His ability to navigate the greater Los Angeles real estate market made him millions of dollars and gave him the means to buy the Clippers in the first place. But if the average shrewd businessman felt he were being unfairly forced to sell his largest asset, he might try to halt the sale by requesting injunctive relief from a court. At the very least, he might request a temporary injunction to slow the process. Sterling hasn’t done that. In fact, in the complaint filed by his attorneys on May 30, Sterling asks only for money damages.

Perhaps Sterling believes the value of his basketball team has been artificially inflated. Upon hearing whispers regarding what his team could sell for, he instructs his attorney to draft a letter ceding all selling responsibility to his wife, Shelly. After his instinct regarding his team’s worth is seemingly validated upon Steve Ballmer offering to buy the Clippers for $2 billion, Sterling decides to let the sale proceed. He instructs his attorneys to remove from their suit any provision requesting temporary or injunctive relief.

Ostensibly approving of a sale could make him appear feckless and get his lawsuit against the NBA thrown out of court, so next he agreed to undergo a mental evaluation knowing he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. This diagnosis would leave Shelly alone to approve the sale, while Donald could still carry on his lawsuit against the NBA while still projecting the image of an angry, dangerously litigious man. After the sale is completed, Donald would remove his assets from the Sterling family trust. This way, if Donald Sterling was to successfully sue the NBA, the latter could only collect reimbursement from Shelly Sterling. Donald meanwhile, would be resting comfortably with his recently improved pile of money, and a newer, possibly even more vapid young lady to spend it on.

Possible? Maybe. Probable? Maybe not. The flurry of chess-like moves may only appear strategic considering the wealth and profiles of the parties involved. The truth may be that Donald Sterling is a spiteful man who no longer possesses the abundance of fluid intelligence he once had, but maintains the wealth to fire various shots via high priced attorneys. But even that would seem to make too much sense, and really nothing in this saga is as it appears.

Andrew Blancato

The post A Donald Sterling Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a chilly November afternoon in Indiana. Simple, God-fearing folks from Fort Wayne to Evansville have gathered with friends and family to celebrate the football game happening in South Bend, just as they do every year. The game would give the winner a good shot at college football’s national championship, and give one team’s fans bragging rights throughout the country for at least a year. But this year there would be no bragging rights for either Notre Dame or USC fans because there would be no game. Hours before kickoff, Notre Dame quarterback Josef Steinbeck (a transfer from Michigan) convinced his team to strike over the team’s early curfew and average salaries. Notre Dame University, Steinbeck’s employer, was powerless because Steinbeck was protected by a big, powerful, union.

This Thayer-esque sports tragedy is exactly the type of yarn being spun by opponents of unions in college football, like United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the Wall Street Journal. These stories have the potential to both entertain and galvanize the casual fan into opposing collective bargaining for college football players, but are they cautionary tales or tall tales?

Generally, unionized workers are permitted to strike only for economic concessions or due to an unfair labor practice (ULP) committed by their employer.  If a union strikes for an economic concession that’s plainly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (e.g. strike to compel an employer to raise minimum salaries higher than the CBA permits), a union risks committing a ULP itself, which could lead to fines, sanctions, or even decertification of the union. Unions also can’t strike unless they’ve given ten days notice to their employer, and they can’t strike at all if their CBA contains a no-strike provision. Rather than striking or hashing out issues via proletariat revolution, union complaints are usually either withdrawn or settled.

Still, work stoppages do happen (although apparently not in Canada). In sports though, it’s often not at the behest of the union.  A glimpse at work stoppages in professional sports shows that most are caused when owners refuse to permit the players to work (lockout) rather than the players refusing to play for the owners (strike). In baseball, strikes outnumber lockouts but mainly because the MLB’s perplexing antitrust-exemption prevents players from using alternate means to litigate their beef with management. In other sports, lockouts have typically arisen when CBAs between ownership and players have expired, and the two sides have not agreed upon a new contract. Since it takes two to tango, an unbiased observer would see owners just as responsible for sports stoppages as players are.

Even if the improbable did happen and unionized college players went on strike, would they deserve our resentment? The National College Players Association (NCPA) would be the presumptive union representing most college sports teams, and their demands are fairly modest requests regarding player safety, scholarship guarantees, and the ability to transfer. If a school reneged on one of these issues mid-season and still expected its football player to provide it with its multi-million dollar revenue stream, is the student the bad guy? Not in any story I’ve ever read.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Shaynedwyer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post The Fable of the College Football Strike appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL’s drug enforcement policy is making news again, this time because the Cleveland Browns’ only reason for existing star receiver, Josh Gordon, failed another drug test for allegedly smoking marijuana. The Browns are now likely to be without Gordon for the entire 2014-2015 season because the League’s Policy and Program for Substance Abuse (a cleverly couched title for a lengthy drug rulebook) imposes a one-year banishment from the league as the minimum penalty for stage three infractions.  Much like a judicial body, the NFL and a few other leagues have devised a lengthy program to curb drug use. Unlike a judicial body, however, the NFL is not a tax-payer funded institution entrusted to balance the punishment and rehabilitation of society. So why do they try? It probably has to do with image. Drug-using players make for poor role models, which is why the issue remains uncontentious between player unions and ownership (at least compared to wages). But with public opinion changing and player drug-use actually elevating, it’s probably time to relax the rules with regard to weed.

The League should remove marijuana from its drug policy list of controlled substances because the public doesn’t care if athletes smoke weed. A majority of Americans now support efforts to legalize marijuana, and 18 states have decriminalized non-medical marijuana possession. Will Sports Illustrated for Kids soon be posting pictures of Johnny Manziel on its cover smoking a joint? Probably not, but it’s already pretty clear that not all pictures of athletes exude professionalism.

Athletes who use marijuana also don’t hurt their game. Several athletes have admitted to smoking marijuana, even those who rely on lung capacity. If weed cost them a competitive edge and consequently money, why would they continue to smoke?

League drug policies aren’t curbing drug use either. In 2000, marijuana use among NBA players was reported to be small. Now, reports have used the word ubiquitous to describe the prevalence of smoking pot. The drug’s popularity is likely what prompted Arizona Cardinals cornerback Antonio Cromartie to exclaim that penalizing the drug serves no punitive function. Besides, leagues that haven’t penalized marijuana use, such as the NHL, have remained competitive and are not yet overrun with Jeffrey Lebowskis on ice.

Clearly, it’s high time (couldn’t resist!) to change the rules.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Erik Drost via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Enough with the Draconian Rules on Pot, Man appeared first on Law Street.

As those of us who don’t live under a rock know, an audio recording was leaked to the media last weekend of Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racist remarks. Last Tuesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver addressed the comments and levied historic punishment against Sterling, which included a $2.5-million fine, a lifetime ban from the NBA, and a forced sale of the basketball team that Sterling has owned since 1981. The punishment has earned Commissioner Silver the praise of basically everyone, but the envy of none. That’s because forcing Donald Sterling to sell his basketball team will be fraught with legal difficulties.

The greatest legal obstacle to overcome before finding the Clippers a new owner may be the antitrust hurdle. Several attorneys have opined that there’s little precedent beyond financial instability that permits a commissioner to force an owner to surrender ownership rights. The NBA Constitution, made public last week, is also arguably overbroad with regard to the behavior that can earn an owner the boot. Section 13(a) states that ownership stakes may be terminated if an owner “willfully violate(s) any of the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.” That could include almost anything.

Leagues have been taken to court over similar antitrust issues. In 1994, former New England Patriots owner Billy Sullivan sued the NFL for antitrust violations after the league refused to let Sullivan sell a portion of the Patriots through a public stock offering.  The NFL settled the case with Sullivan for $11.5 million.

A potential antitrust case is also possible considering the domain Silver would exercise over potential buyers. Silver, like other sports commissioners, is likely to veto any buyer who plans to relocate the team to Las Vegas, due to the omnipresence of gambling in Nevada.

Sterling, on the other hand, would likely fight if the team was to be sold for anything less than $1 billion. The Milwaukee Bucks, ranked as the least valuable NBA franchise, sold this year for $550 million, $45 million more than their Forbes valuation. Considering the Clippers are in a bigger market and will soon be signing a lucrative media deal, Sterling could demand at least a $1 billion price tag.

There’s also the antitrust complication posed if NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson were to buy the team. Having one of the all-time affable NBA legends purchase a franchise in a city that adores him seems like the perfect fit, but consider the issue this way: Can someone force a businessman to sell his most lucrative asset to the guy he spoke disparagingly of in a private message, especially if that guy has unparalleled clout and is most likely to leverage power in writing contracts with area media networks? Sterling’s lawyers would say no, and they could be right.

Beyond antitrust issues, forcing Sterling to sell his team could be complicated by marital issues. The team is currently owned by a family trust, which could be liquidated or divided if Sterling initiated divorce proceedings against his wife, Rochelle Stein. Generally, property acquired during marriage in California is considered community property and subject to equitable distribution. Were Sterling to seek court intervention for a divorce proceeding, a California family court would halt any sale of the Clippers — absent mutual assent of the parties — in order to equitably distribute the community property of the marriage.  A court could potentially even award the Clippers to Stein (unlikely, but stranger things have happened in LA).

There’s also the possibility that probate court could complicate a Clippers sale. That’s right, in what would be filed in the “be careful what you wish for” hall of fame, Donald Sterling could die and totally screw things up for the Clippers. Like in family court, a probate court judge would presumably halt any sale of the team subject to the terms of the family trust and/or Sterling’s will. If Sterling died before a sale date was set (not a ridiculous scenario), the NBA would have the displeasure of convincing a judge that the owner-approved complaint against Donald Sterling stripping him of his ownership rights also applies to the heirs and wife of Sterling despite them not having violated NBA policy.

There you have it. If he can’t go to the games, then Donald Sterling will see you in hell.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Andrew Blancato

The post Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that many Americans feel there are too many lawsuits in this country. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, then you know that one of the most common questions asked before sitting on a civil case is whether or not people sue too often. The answer back to the attorney is often “yes,” not just because the panelist is seeking to avoid jury service, but because that’s the view espoused by many when reflecting on the American zeitgeist.

This sentiment is caused, or at least reinforced, by the media’s reporting of lawsuits. The headlines that make the largest waves are often based on huge, seven-digit verdicts. Laura Beth Nielsen and Aaron Beim alluded to this correlation in a recent paper claiming the courts are not as favorable to plaintiffs as the media often portrays, yet the media’s reports are what the public absorbs. Neilsen and Beim’s chief example is a Boston Globe report of an MBTA worker who was awarded a $5.5 million discrimination verdict. The verdict was later reduced by 80 percent on remittitur, an important detail the Globe did not feature as prominently as the original verdict. It seems that cases alleging discrimination in the workplace carry a stigma with the public and media.

Just as the figures of a verdict can be lost on the average American, so too can the merits of the underlying discrimination case. In 2009, former Los Angeles Clippers executive Elgin Baylor sued team owner Donald Sterling alleging racial discrimination. A jury of 12 unanimously rejected Baylor’s suit, and many called the hall of famer’s action frivolous.

Cases alleging tales of sexual discrimination are no different. This year alone, cheerleaders from three different NFL teams have sued their employers, often alleging sexual harassment among a variety of different wage claims. Knee-jerk reactions to such suits are often negative, as evidenced in the comments section of ESPN articles covering the matter.

A closer look at both situations may evoke a more tolerant response. Since his lawsuit, Elgin Baylor’s former employer has allegedly been caught on tape making racist comments against African Americans, and some former Clippers aren’t surprised by his discriminatory tendencies. Details have also emerged in the cheerleading case of the Buffalo Jills, whose employer allegedly instructed them on how to control their menstrual cycles and how to wash their “intimate areas.”

In sum, it’s never a bad idea to reserve judgment on a lawsuit that appears in the news or on TV, even one alleging discrimination. In fact, suits alleging workplace discrimination often already have safeguards in place against frivolous litigation, like the EEOC’s Right-To-Sue-Letter. But even absent an EEOC investigation, plaintiffs should be afforded a blank slate. Few things in this country are as ubiquitously opposed as prejudice and discrimination. Those who decide to sacrifice time, money, and privacy to personally combat these evils in a public court should be heard with an open mind.

____

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [BuffaloProCheer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Rethinking Discrimination Suits in Light of Buffalo Jills, Donald Sterling appeared first on Law Street.

It was difficult to discern reality from fantasy in Tallahassee last winter. Jameis Winston, the college football phenom who was leading Florida State to an undefeated season, was dealt a hard dose of real word problems when he was investigated for sexual assault in November.  If charged, he would likely face suspension, and FSU’s dream of becoming national champions would remain fantasy. In December however, Winston was cleared and no charges transpired. The following week, Winston won the Heisman Trophy, and a few weeks later he led his team to a dramatic victory to claim the national championship. It appeared that reality was indeed sweet, and the rape investigation was simply a bad dream. Or was it?

On April 3, the Federal Department of Education (DOE) announced that they would be investigating FSU for whether they improperly handled the Jameis Winston sexual assault case. Under the landmark legislation known as Title IX, universities are required to “promptly investigate” reports of sexual assault. FSU may not have investigated quickly enough, according to the DOE.

FSU’s alleged failings were highlighted on April 16, when the New York Times published an article detailing the missteps of both the University and the Tallahassee Police Department, and charging that the University didn’t investigate when they initially found out about the alleged incident in January 2013.

FSU fired back at the New York Times, claiming in part that “no university official outside the Victim Advocate Program received a report from any complainant naming Winston prior to when the allegations were made public in November 2013.” At first glance, the statement would seem to exonerate the University. On closer inspection, a rather high burden is placed on the victim in order for FSU to comply with Title IX. Must a university official receive a report from the complainant in order to investigate? Must an accuser be named in order to investigate?

A cursory look at the DOE’s guidelines on sexual assault suggest no. In fact, the following line seems to suggest that schools err on the side of caution:

“…if a school knows or reasonably should know about possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred…”

It is possible that Winston’s accuser failed to tell anyone employed by the University about her assault. After all,Tallahassee police primarily handled the report because the incident happened off campus. I called both the Tallahassee Police Department and the Florida State University Police Department (FSUPD)  to follow up on this matter. I asked if there is a policy requiring that arresting officers, whether employed by the school or by the city of Tallahassee, notify the University upon arresting an enrolled student. FSUPD responded that it is practice for all officers to report student-arrests to the University, at which point the University handles any academic penalties according to the student conduct code.

Is it possible that Tallahassee Police report to the University only student-arrests and not allegations of sexual assault on students? The logic behind such a policy may be difficult for DOE investigators to understand, as would the general excuse that although the Tallahassee Police Department knew of a fairly detailed sexual assault accusation on an FSU student since December 2012, the University did not know until the following November.

In the ensuing months, one if not both institutions will be to blame. Either the Tallahassee Police failed to tell FSU, or FSU failed to investigate when they were told by police. If it’s the latter, expect harsh penalties from both the Department of Education and the NCAA. If FSU football thinks they’ll avoid that reality, they better wake up.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Did FSU Drop the Ball on Jameis Winston Rape Case? DOE Investigates appeared first on Law Street.

It seemed surreal when news broke that star NFL player Aaron Hernandez would be arrested for the mafia-style execution of local amateur football player Odin Lloyd. In the weeks following that report however, details from the case emerged that painted a very realistic image; the former New England Patriot may have actually committed murder. Ensuing news stories seemed to complete the picture of Hernandez as executioner. A motive for killing Lloyd surfaced. Rolling Stone made public his history of violence and drug abuse. But despite all the plausible connections made in the case, the prosecution was facing several hurdles in convicting the fallen football star. The murder weapon linked to the shooting has not been found and finding credible, cooperative witnesses in the trial has proved difficult for the prosecution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be forced to convince a jury — using only circumstantial evidence —  that a local celebrity is guilty of murder.

This was true until recently, as the prosecution may have received a boost to its case. Last Friday, Hernandez’ alleged accomplices from the night of the murder, Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace, were indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Odin Lloyd. Ortiz and Wallace were originally charged only as accomplices, but the failure of either party to cooperate in the Commonwealth’s case against Hernandez has forced the hand of the prosecution, and likely frustrated its’ attorneys.

The indictment of Ortiz and Wallace is helpful to the prosecution because if a murder was part of a joint venture, the judge presiding over the case may instruct the jury that they may render a guilty verdict without knowing who actually pulled the trigger. Joint venture liability doesn’t make the job easy, but it does allow for conviction if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Now its the defendants’ attorneys who are frustrated, and for good reason. If a jury didn’t believe Carlos Ortiz’s dubious story of ‘just going along for the ride‘ prior to the indictment, it meant he could be charged as an accessory. Now, he could do life. Prosecutors can also potentially use these new indictments as negative reinforcement to get Ortiz or Wallace to cooperate against Hernandez in a 2012 murder for which the former tight end has been investigated. Either way it appears the prosecution has gained an advantage, leaving Hernandez with even fewer teammates by his side.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Andrew Blancato

The post Hernandez Associates Charged With Murder: Big Break for Prosecution? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Springtime in America is marked by a wonderful tradition shared by all, regardless of one’s age, gender, or socioeconomic status. I’m not talking about love or cherry blossoms — I’m talking about the NCAA college basketball tournament. If you are a sports fan or happen to work in an office, you have probably paid at least five dollars to enter a pool and pick the winners of the sixty-eight team, single-elimination competition. If you’ve ever been to Las Vegas in March, you’ve witnessed first-hand the popularity of gambling on college basketball.  March Madness is the third most popular time to travel to Sin City, behind New Years and Super Bowl weekend. But apart from office pools and Vegas trips, it may be difficult to legally bet on the college basketball tournament.

Since 1931, Nevada has sold itself to the rest of the nation as the premier destination for sports gambling, largely with the help of federal law enforcement. In 1961, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy spearheaded an effort to crack down on organized crime in America and got Congress to pass the Federal Wire Act, which penalized most interstate sports gambling.  In 1992, a broadly supported law entitled the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) banned intrastate sports betting in jurisdictions apart from Oregon, Montana, Delaware, and of course, Nevada. And in 2011, the Department of Justice released a public memorandum reiterating that online sports betting is within the scope of the Federal Wire Act and will be prosecuted. U.S. law has clearly disfavored sports betting outside of Nevada, but that may soon change.

Enter New Jersey. The Garden State has seen better days, and its officials believe the road back to those better days is paved with the revenue generated through legalized sports gambling.  This effort was kickstarted in 2009 when New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court claiming that the PASPA unconstitutionally discriminates against states by allowing some to engage in legal gambling while blocking all others. The suit was dismissed in district court, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also ruled against New Jersey.  But New Jersey appealed its decision to the Supreme Court, and there are two reasons why the state has renewed hope for a favorable decision in Washington.

1. The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence: New Jersey’s appeal argues that the PASPA violates the equal sovereignty of New Jersey, a principle that basically says the federal government cannot discriminate among states. This principle was traditionally only evoked with regard to land and water rights, but it was recently cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Shelby County vs. Holder, the decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. If the Supreme Court hears New Jersey’s case, it’s a safe bet that the briefs will cite that decision.

2. Times have changed: In addition to New Jersey, elected officials from Iowa, Missouri, and Rhode Island have either discussed or drafted joint resolutions requesting that Congress to repeal PASPA. Additionally, Nevada’s largest gambling ambassadors are more worried about gambling competition from the internet than from the East Coast and Midwest. The time may be most ripe for sports books to return, especially since our New Jersey gambling dearth will soon enlarge. How else would red-blooded Americans fill that vacuous space? With family time? Don’t bet on it.

Andrew Blancato

The post March Madness Outbreak May Not Be Quarantined to Vegas Much Longer appeared first on Law Street.

Eleven days of  evidence have finished in Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial and still it’s difficult to ascertain the track star’s guilt. Some speculate that the national icon will walk, while the public is reluctant to call him innocent. Will his fame influence the finding in his case? Attorneys and bloggers alike speculate that athletes skirt the criminal justice system because of their fame. But is that true? Let’s take a look at some examples.

Donté Stallworth tends to be exhibit A for those who believe athletes get off lightly in the criminal justice system.  In March 2009, Stallworth struck and killed a pedestrian in Miami Beach, Fla. after admitting he drank alcohol earlier in the night. Stallworth served only 30 days in jail as part of a plea bargain, a sentence inciting ire from many who say athletes live in a privileged world. But Stallworth’s sentence may have been the result of circumstances lacking the typical repugnance of a DUI manslaughter case, rather than the result of his fame. Sources claimed Stallworth’s victim, Mario Reyes, was running across the busy road when Stallworth made contact with him. Stallworth also stopped and immediately dialed 911. He reached financial settlement with Reyes’ family rather than drag out proceedings in civil court. Criminal attorneys would probably wager these facts were more integral to Stallworth’s plea deal than his fame.

Mark Ingram Sr. was a star NFL receiver in the 1990s, but has since been charged with money laundering and bank fraud. In January 2009, Ingram Sr. failed to report to authorities to begin his federal prison term, instead deciding to watch his son, former Alabama running back Mark Ingram Jr., play in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The decision to watch his son play cost Ingram Sr. two more years in prison, although U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Platt seemed to issue the elongated sentence begrudgingly.

Plenty more athletes have earned both long and short sentences for committing crimes. The difference maker in many of these cases may be the factor that often coincides with their success: money. Higher socioeconomic standing has long been found to impact the criminal justice system, but the relationship may be more closely followed now than ever before following the Texas “affluenza” case and the growth of private prisons.

Pistorius’ case could be the latest example of how wealth aids criminal defendants. The “blade runner” has amassed a legal bill that few could pay, but fortunately for Pistorius, he and his family can afford it.

—-

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Countdown to Blade Runner Verdict: Will Money or Fame Make an Impact? appeared first on Law Street.

Few things in the world are as marketable as sports. There’s just something about the mix of competitive energy and artistic renderings (especially when appearing on casual clothing) that’s fun. Even when tragedies befall us, opportunities to overcome often appear in the simple form of a sports-related symbol or catchphrase, capable of uniting folks behind a singular cause. But since most Americans have great minds (fact), and great minds think alike, some of our best symbols, catchphrases, or ideas in general have already been taken. The problem that arises in these scenarios is a contest of intellectual property (IP), often settled in federal court.

Are there specific examples of said IP struggles in sports? Oh well I’m glad you asked. Here at Law Street we’ve decided to list the top five examples for your entertainment and intellectual stimulation.

5. “B Strong” 

The most recent example of a prominent sports-related IP battle can be found in El Paso, Texas, home of the Braden Aboud Foundation, which was created in 2007 to honor the memory of its namesake. Aboud was a 14-year-old boy who passed away from injuries sustained during a ski accident. Also in ’07, the Foundation received trademark protection for their slogan, “B Strong,” which they’ve printed on merchandise to help fundraising efforts. Fast forward to 2013. That same slogan was adopted by the Boston Red Sox, who printed ‘B Strong’ on their merchandise to raise money for charity following the Boston Marathon bombings last April. The Red Sox have offered joint licensing with the Texas charity, but the parties have yet to agree upon licensing compensation. The conflict could soon be headed to court.

4. San Diego Chicken vs. Barney

In the early ’90s, two giant bipeds stole everyone’s heart: Barney and the San Diego Chicken (three if you count the Phillie Phanatic). In 1994, the San Diego Chicken began a campaign to push out Barney, as he repeatedly assaulted a Barney impersonator at San Diego Padres home games. The routine was in jest, of course, but Lyons Partnership LLP — the company that owned the real Barney’s copyright — was not laughing. Lyons sued the San Diego Chicken in federal court alleging copyright infringement. The fight for Barney however, didn’t last long. U.S. District Judge John McBryde dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the Barney lookalike in San Diego was intended to be used as a parody, and not as a source of confusion with the actual Barney.

3. Major League Baseball vs. Cape Cod Baseball League

Anybody who has played little league baseball knows that recreational team names are often borrowed from MLB teams. In 2008, Major League Baseball decided it would start to enforce the naming rights of its teams by threatening legal action against the Cape Cod Baseball League, whose teams share the names of MLB baseball squads. The Cape League however, is not your average amateur baseball league. It was founded in 1885, and many of the teams — such as the Harwich Mariners — have names that predate those of their MLB associates. Consequently, this struggle ultimately ended in a tie, as some Cape League teams agreed to change their names, while others were permitted to keep theirs.

2. 12th Man (Texas A&M) vs. 12th Man (Seattle)

Fans can often sway a game for the home team. Some teams recognize this home-field advantage and reinforce the raucous behavior of their crowds in less destructive ways than holding a ten-cent beer night. In football, this reinforcement comes in the form of merchandise labeled “twelfth man,” which refers to the home-crowd advantage which is often equivalent to having an extra man on the field. This clever slogan however, is trademarked by the Texas A&M Aggies. The NFL franchise Seattle Seahawks found this fact out the hard way, when they were sued by A&M for using the slogan on merchandise without permission. Despite retiring the jersey number 12 to honor Seattle fans, the Seahawks eventually acknowledged A&M’s trademark, and the two teams agreed to a licensing relationship.

1. WWF vs. WWF

You ready for this one, brother? The World Wrestling Federation and the World Wide Fund for Nature coexisted in harmony for years with both enterprises agreeing to use the descriptive acronym “WWF.”  Presumably, there was no need for a lengthy legal battle because there was no chance the two organizations would be confused with each other. Then came the internet and the alleged breach of the two organizations’ 1994 agreement by the World Wrestling Federation when it began using the domain WWF.com.  The environmentalists ultimately won when a U.K. Court of Appeals ruled that the wrestling giant had breached the ’94 agreement. Nature – 1, Nature Boy – 0.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Rob Larsen via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post The Top 5 IP Battles in Sports appeared first on Law Street.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell may go down in football history as the least liked commissioner with the best intentions. His effort to deter future head injuries among players by fining violent hits has caused his approval rating with players to sink. His effort to aid the health of former players may not be sufficient, according to a federal judge. And his plan to penalize on-field use of the n-word has been called hypocritical by several journalists (here, here and here, to name a few). So why do haters gotta hate on Goodell? The first two issues have fairly intuitive answers; people don’t like paying fines, and settling decades of severe brain trauma probably requires lots of money. The last issue is a bit complicated, but it ‘s probably because taking baby steps to battle prejudice is considered by many to be aggravatingly stupid.

Goodell’s intentions seem honest enough. Last November the Fritz Pollard Alliance (FPA) — an organization that focuses on  supporting diversity in the League — approached Goodell expressing discontent at the volume of players who use the n-word in the NFL. The FPA again broached the issue with the League last month, and Goodell heeded their advice by proposing it to the NFL’s competition committee. The League is expected now to pass a rule penalizing the slur starting next season.

The move has been hailed by some members of the press, but it has also been criticized as hypocritical in light of the NFL’s much more glaring issue of bigotry: the name of the eighty-two year old NFL franchise in the District of Columbia, the Washington Redskins. The Redskins have been considered a derogatory name for decades, but the debate has gathered steam recently due to their trademark battle for the name. The ‘Skins owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change the name, and Roger Goodell has given his steadfast support to Snyder on the issue.

Why, you ask? If Goodell’s public statements are to be believed, he genuinely believes that the term “Redskins” is more flattering than disparaging. Goodell and Snyder also seem to genuinely believe, despite the lawsuits, that the majority of American Indian tribes support their name. The other less insane argument is that renaming the near-$2 billion franchise could cost both the NFL and the team big time after all of the branding and intellectual property ramifications are considered.

Whatever Goodell’s reasoning is for supporting the Redskins, his stance is nothing new for those in similar positions. In fact, it seems like an American tradition, perhaps as sacred as football, for those of esteemed authority to get tangled in a web of hypocrisy when they’re trying to placate on the issue of tolerance. Our greatest legal minds held in a 7-to-1 vote that “separate but equal” was an equitable way to deal with racial tension and state’s rights. It took Congress 51 years to afford women the same right as minorities in the voting booth. And still some elected officials and judges find civil unions to be adequate for gays who wish to be married. Watershed moments of civil rights often come after years of slow flooding, rather than through large tidal waves. Were Goodell willing to defy this trend and force Dan Snyder’s hand, he might be able to earn the thundering applause he might like in passing the n-word penalty. But instead, the commissioner of football may have to settle for a golf clap.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Staff Sgt. Bradley Lail, USAF via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Why the NFL’s N-Word Ban Gets a Golf Clap Instead of a Standing Ovation appeared first on Law Street.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Low-wage workers are pissed that their multimillion dollar employer pays them next to nothing while spending exorbitantly elsewhere and mooching from the same taxpayers they’re screwing. No I’m not talking about the cashiers at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart or the millions of other employees working at or below minimum wage, I’m talking about the cheering squad for the Cincinnati Bengals. Cheerleaders?! Getting paid?! I know, I know. Next thing you know, gays will want to marry and immigrant soldiers will request a path to citizenship. But these ladies actually seem to have a fair gripe, and their story may be instructive on which direction low-wage American workers are headed.

On February 11, 2014, Cincinnati Ben-Gal cheerleader Alexa Brenneman filed a class-action suit against the Bengals organization on behalf of her cheering squad, alleging that her employer violated federal and state wage laws by paying them less than the minimum wage. In her complaint (which can be read here), Ms. Brenneman argues that she made roughly $855 (or $2.85 an hour) for her work as a Ben-Gal cheerleader in 2013. That work included activities such as required practice, charity appearances, makeup clinics, and photo shoots. Ms. Brenneman also claims Ben-Gal cheerleaders received nothing for the time they spent modeling for and promoting the cheerleader calendar, and they were routinely condescended by Bengals management. The statement below, seemingly authored by Big Brother, is from the organization’s Ben-Gal Rules:

Insubordination: Webster defines this word as “not submitting to authority; disobedient.” Syn. Rebellious, mutinous, defiant. Insubordination to even the slightest degree IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED!!! You will be benched or dismissed!!!

Authority: ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUING OR QUESTIONING THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY!!!

Ms. Brenneman’s argument isn’t one of a kind. Less than a month earlier, a Raiderettes cheerleader sued the Oakland Raiders for similar wage violations. On a more temporary basis, unpaid interns and volunteers have begun organizing their class-action wage suits against movie studios, publishing moguls, and Major League Baseball.  So why all the hostility?

Beyond the inability to make ends meet, the unpaid and low paid could be upset with the massive pay inequality occurring throughout the country. Labor is becoming cheaper and more dispensable, yet ceo pay is continuing to grow, and is often due to the good fortune and political maneuvering that is not available to the average American.

The Cincinnati Bengals may exemplify this point. The Bengals are owned by Mike Brown, the prodigal son of Bengals founder and NFL mogul, Paul Brown. Mike Brown has owned the team since 1991 when he inherited responsibility upon his father’s passing. Since then, he has widely been criticized, often for poor hiring decisions and for refusing to cede management control of player personnel despite amassing one of the worst records in football during his tenure as owner.

Mike Brown is also despised for conning Hamilton County, Ohio into bankrolling a new stadium for his team. In 1995, Brown threatened to move his team to Baltimore if the county didn’t pay for a new stadium. His tactics worked. Brown, a Republican political donor, secured public financing for his new stadium, which would be paid for in part by increased sales and property taxes in Hamilton County. Paul Brown Stadium is still considered one of the costliest publicly financed stadiums in the country, while Mike Brown and his team continue to make millions.

Although the outrage among low-level Bengals workers may be palpable, things are unlikely to become more fair. Instead of increasing wages, employers often double down on the theory that interns and low-wage workers are expendable by eliminating their position entirely. Condé Nast has ended their internship program after they were sued for wage violations last June. In the world of cheerleading, six NFL teams have nixed their squads, and you can bet this number is likely to grow. Just as employers seek to avoid health care expenses, they seek to avoid costly litigation. So although the Ben-Gals squad may be victorious in their class-action lawsuits, professional cheerleaders as a whole may be the latest group of workers left with nothing to cheer about.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Breeze via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post NFL Cheerleaders Are Latest Americans Fed Up With Low Wages appeared first on Law Street.

NFL prospect Michael Sam revealed to the public this week that he is gay. Sam’s decision is undoubtedly brave; if drafted (and he probably will be), he will be the first openly gay male professional athlete in a sport that manufactures traditional male stereotypes. But Sam is no stranger to bravery or to breaking stereotypes. Michael Sam was the first member of his family to attend college, and one of the few children of JoAnn Sam not to clash with law enforcement. Since Sam is used to breaking molds, he may not have needed legal protections to come out. But if we want to enable his choice in more workplaces, two laws could prompt similar behavior.

1. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ENDA is a federal bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees. If enacted, ENDA would prohibit employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity for decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation (read the Human Rights Campaign’s breakdown of the law here). Despite the growing support for ENDA, Govtrack.us gives the bill only a 14 percent chance of becoming law.  Without it, many LGBT employees could face the painful dilemma of lying to co-workers about their identities or risk losing their employment (although it’s worth noting that 21 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws). ENDA does have friends in Washington however, and is rumored to become law for federal contractors through executive order.

2. Workplace Bullying Legislation: This type of legislation is another means to combat discrimination at work and thus possibly encourage LGBT employees to be comfortable at their own jobs. Unlike ENDA, workplace bullying laws may provide private claims for employees against other employees who bully or create toxic working environments through bullying. Some state legislatures have proposed insulating employers who act responsibly to thwart workplace bullying. Despite the growing trend of anti-bullying laws being passed on behalf of public schools, workplace bullying legislation has not been enacted in any U.S. State or at the Federal level. The lack of seriousness regarding workplace bullying laws may soon be a thing of the past, however. Sixteen states have proposed workplace bullying laws since 2009, and the high profile case involving the alleged harassment in the Miami Dolphins locker room may push this issue to the forefront.

Michael Sam’s revelation fortunately lacked the backlash that many expected. Sam’s former teammates on the Missouri Tigers supported him when he privately came out, and several prominent athletes showed support for Sam when he  revealed the news publicly. But tolerance can be fleeting, and Sam’s journey is just beginning.  With laws in place to protect LGBT individuals from workplace discrimination or harassment, his journey is more likely to have a happy ending, and more likely to prompt others to follow in his cleat prints.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia/Marcus Qwertyus]

Andrew Blancato

The post 2 Laws That Could Encourage More Michael Sams to Come Out appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the bigots, dog killers, and unfinished hotels in the Russian Olympic city of Sochi. The Games have just begun and yet problems with hosting the Olympics have been reported for several months. Most folks here in the good ol’ U S of A are probably asking themselves, “Why would the International Olympic Committee (IOC) select such a functional, idyllic location for the 2014 Winter Games?” Well, the answer is more complicated than you think! Just kidding, it’s mostly about money.

In 2007, the IOC descended upon Guatemala to determine which city would be awarded the 2014 Winter Olympics. The winner (if you want to call it that, since most people believe it’s  a drain on the economy) would have to indicate that their city could handle the financial impact, security measures, and transportation demands that come with hosting the Olympics. (Read the IOC Commission Report here.) But to even woo the IOC to your city, a country must spend millions.

The IOC narrowed its 2014 finalists to Salzburg, Austria; Pyeongchang, South Korea; and Sochi, Russia. During the bidding stage, Salzburg and Pyeongchang were both found to be more accommodating than Sochi, but Sochi’s bidding budget of $27.5 million easily eclipsed those of Salzburg and Pyeonghang ($7.8 million and $21 million, respectively). Russia’s bid team hit its crescendo when a full-size skating rink was flown into Guatemala — in the world’s largest airplane — to wow the IOC judges. In addition to the bid budget, the Russian Federation guaranteed any “eventual shortfall would be covered by the Federal government.” Considering the Olympics are usually over budget, and Russia’s GDP is much greater than that of South Korea or Austria, this was no small promise. This guarantee, coupled with Russia’s bidding blitz, cemented Sochi as the host of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.

But considering the Olympics have gotten off to a rough start in Sochi, will the IOC change its valuation system?  After all, tales of Sochi’s spending have traveled the globe; the Games have cost Russia roughly $51 billion. Other countries have also voiced their criticism over the current system of bidding.  Austrian officials say their country has effectively been phased out of future bids due to the country’s  concentrated yet relatively low level of wealth.  But the IOC is unlikely to change. IOC President Thomas Bach has stood by the Sochi Games and the IOC’s choice.  He’s also standing by Rio De Janeiro as the selection for the 2016 summer games, despite the myriad of issues facing those Olympics. The games will go on, and the money will continue to flow.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Atos via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post $how Me the $ochi appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy winter in East Rutherford, NJ. Rex Ryan signed an extension with the New York Jets. Metlife Stadium just hosted the Superbowl. And the New York Giants are being sued for defrauding sports collectors. That’s right, folks, impropriety among famous New Jersians doesn’t just happen in Fort Lee. According to the civil complaint filed in Bergen County, NJ, the Giants’ owners, equipment staff, and even Eli Manning were all part of a memorabilia scam that disguised Giants’ gear as “game worn” to generate higher profits when sold.  But to understand why plaintiff Eric Inselberg is so pissed at the Giants, we have to backtrack a couple years.

In 2007, Mastro Auctions held a sports auction in Cleveland where a Michael Jordan practice jersey from UNC was sold for $11,000. Several days later, Memorabilia Evaluation and Research Services concluded that the jersey was not worn by Jordan, but rather most likely by the less-heralded Tarheel, Ranzino Smith. One of the names that surfaced in the ensuing investigation was Eric Inselberg, a New Jersey collector who was claimed to have purchased the jersey as a Smith original, not as a Jordan.

Although no Federal charges were filed in connection with the Jordan jersey fiasco, the FBI kept a close eye on Inselberg and the exchange of high-priced sports memorabilia.  A few years later, they were led to the New York metropolitan area, where numerous New York Giants items were being sold as game-worn. Subpoenas were issued, a grand jury was summoned, and criminal charges against Inselberg were sought (read the Indictment here).

Inselberg maintained his innocence, arguing in part that the evidence which led to the criminal charges was unreliable because one of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury was lying. Seems like a hail mary thrown by his attorneys, right? Well on April 18, 2013, the Federal government dismissed its own indictment  “in light of some new facts that were pointed out by defense counsel.”

According to Inselberg, the fact pointed out to US Attorney Michael Love was proof that Giants staffers lied in their grand jury testimony on behalf of the Giants’ organization. Consequently, his criminal indictment was simply the result of an organization finding a simple scapegoat to take the blame for systemwide fraud.

One important question remains: Why the hell would a multimillion dollar professional football organization put its sterling reputation on the line to peddle fake memorabilia? As a Patriots fan, I’ve longed to see Eli Manning thrown behind bars. But is he really commanding equipment managers to defraud sports collectors? Seems a bit far fetched. This may be a case that stops with the Giants’ equipment manangers, Joe and Ed Skiba, who are also featured names in Inselberg’s Complaint. It may also be telling to see whether the Justice Department files any more charges in the matter. After all, lying to a Federal grand jury is perjury, and unlike past cases, this may be a situation the government can actually convert. Stay tuned.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Guian Bolisay via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post New York Giant Con Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

“School’s done for me — I’m here to concentrate on football.”

Matt Leinart declared these words in August 2005 on the eve of his final season as quarterback for the University of Southern California’s football team.  The quote was part of an Associated Press article on Matt Leinart’s class schedule for the upcoming fall — a schedule which consisted solely of ballroom dancing. The one-page piece, picked up by ESPN, might have unfairly portrayed student-athletes as having cupcake course loads. But it also confirmed what everyone outside of the NCAA front office already knew: NCAA football players are treated as football players first, and students second.

More than two thousand miles away in Chicago, Ill., Northwestern University football players have taken formal steps to recognize this fact by having a petition filled on their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In other words, college football players are trying to unionize.  If successful, the first ever college players union would be called the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), and would focus on scholarships, transfer rules, and increasing player safety rather than require that players receive specific compensation (find out more here).

Before CAPA becomes an official union of college athletes, NCAA athletes may have to convince the NLRB they qualify as “employees” under Federal law.  At first glance, precedent would appear to favor the NCAA on this issue.  In 2004, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) found that Brown University graduate teaching assistants were not employees, and therefore not capable of forming a protected union.  Important to the Board’s decision however were the findings that:

1. The role of the graduate assistant was integral to the education of the graduate student; and,
2. The relationship between the graduate assistant and Brown was primarily educational.

The NCAA is likely to recycle the same argument against college athletes, but it’s not likely to go as well. Is the role of the football player integral to the education of the football player? Doubtful. When the NLRB decided this issue in the Brown case they relied largely on the fact that graduate assistants “must first be enrolled at Brown to receive a TA, RA, or proctorship.” Meanwhile, most college football players are recruited as minors and offered athletic scholarships prior to high school graduation. Those athletes most similar to the example of an RA or TA in the case of college football would be walk-ons, and well, not all athletes are Rudy Ruettigers.

Is the relationship between the football player and their college primarily educational? Please.  A 2008 NCAA survey among college football players indicated they spent an average of 45 hours per week on their sport. Doesn’t seem to leave a ton of room for studying, does it?  Oh and let us not forget about the bags of money that are thrown around. Although maybe colleges make hundreds of millions from Gabriel the economics TA? Who knows!

Whatever the outcome may be regarding college football players’ right to unionize and their status as employees, we may not know the answer for years.  But clearly, the NCAA is going to have difficulty dancing around the issue.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [David X. O’Neil via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Football Local 60208? Why College Athletes May Win Their Fight to Unionize appeared first on Law Street.

Arbitrator Fredric Horowitz and his panel issued an arbitration decision on January 11 resulting in Alex Rodriguez’s suspension for the entire 2014 Major League Baseball season.  A-Rod vowed to appeal the decision in Federal Court, but what some may not know is that the beleaguered slugger already has a pending case against MLB regarding his steroid feud.

Rodriguez vs. MLB, Allan Huber “Bud” Selig was filed on November 26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following its removal from State Court by MLB. The Complaint alleges that Commissioner Bud Selig and other MLB officials have engaged in a systematic campaign of tortious interference in A-Rod’s existing business contracts and prospective business relationships. Specifically, A-Rod is alleging that MLB:

• Obtained evidence against A-Rod by filing a sham lawsuit to commandeer subpoena power.
• Leaked false stories to the press concerning A-Rod’s performance-enhancing drug (PED) use.
• Bribed witnesses with more than $200,000 to cooperate with their case.
• Impersonated security officers and threatened former ballplayers to receive testimony.

The case may not be a slam dunk for A-Rod, but it surely has a better chance of succeeding than his appeal of Horowitz’s arbitration decision. After all, A-Rod’s attorneys at Reed Smith LLP haven’t been the only detractors of MLB’s media blitz against A-Rod. But if the evidence against A-Rod was procured illegally and the conduct of MLB was malicious, why did the arbitration panel roundly rule in their favor? It’s possible that the panel was not concerned with the issue. On pages 27 and 28 of the arbitration decision, Horowitz noted that the panel would not rule on the alleged breaches of confidentiality and they did not have any power to enjoin third parties from breaching provisions of MLB’s Joint Drug Agreement (the arbitration decision, along with A-Rod’s appeal, can be found here). Considering Tony Bosch, MLB’s main witness, testified in the arbitration hearings, Horowitz may not have needed to consider the implications concerning other bribed witnesses.

Regardless of the outcome, the pending litigation should be interesting. The arbitration process had its fair share of fireworks, and if it goes to trial, his tortious interference case could be the grand finale.

Click here to read A-Rod’s Complaint.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post What About A-Rod’s Other Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.