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.

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.

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.

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.

As of 2015, each NFL team was worth at least $1.4 billion according to Forbes. Despite these massive valuations, three teams–the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers–hoped to leave their current cities and move to Los Angeles. The reasoning behind the desire to move was a yearning for a new, higher revenue stadium to play in. Each team was eager to leave its current city because of the failure of the local government to fund similar sites. This has increasingly become an issue in the NFL, as with other major sports leagues. It has even made international events like the World Cup and Olympics less appealing to host cities.

Read on to find out more about the real cost of having a hometown team, why the public keeps giving in to team demands, and how this problem has spread around the globe.

The Cost

The cost to taxpayers to renovate or build new stadiums has been enormous, particularly when it comes to America’s most popular sport, professional football. Over the last 15 years, the NFL has received $12 billion in public funds. These funds are not isolated to a few teams either, 29 of the 31 stadiums in the NFL (the two New York teams play in the same stadium) have used public financing to build new arenas. Public support for pro sports teams comes in the form of tax breaks, loans, and grants offered primarily by a city or county and occasionally the state.

Despite this funding, most cities and voters have little, if anything, to show for it. In fact, some reports suggest that using subsidies to pay for stadiums can negatively affect metrics like poverty rates and median income levels. Robert Baade, a researcher of these stadiums and their economic consequences, disputes the clear connection between the two, but his own research suggests that new stadiums almost always fall short of delivering the promised economic uptick suggested when they are funded.

Even stadium-related costs for things like renovation go to projects such as luxury boxes or seat licenses, which are not typically accessible to the casual fan or those with less disposable income. These same fans also do not see any sort of break on the cost of tickets or concessions. In fact, the only group that really seems to make out well in all this is the owners. Not only do the owners get to keep most of the revenues from the stadium, minus a very modest rent, they also pay very little in upkeep costs.

The video below goes into detail about what goes into building these stadiums:

Pay… or Else

Since most economists agree that there are very little, if any, benefits to using public funds to build these stadiums, it may be worth considering why people agree to finance them at all. Sometimes, it may simply be because the public doesn’t know about the plans. In 2013 for example, the Atlanta Braves organization agreed to move the team out of the city and into Cobb County. The move was done in secrecy and all information about the deal was kept from the public because otherwise voters could have rejected the plan.

While the Braves left Atlanta to get funds from a nearby county, the city was already building a new stadium for its NFL team as well as a practice facility for a new MLS team. This move is also unfortunate because the original stadium, which was built for the Olympics and would become the Atlanta Braves’ home, was initially financed without any public money. Making matters worse, that stadium they are so desperate to move out of is not even 20 years old.

In the recent fight for the St. Louis Rams, the court voided a law requiring a public vote to approve stadium funding only to watch the Rams leave for Los Angles anyway. But when citizens actually do get the chance to vote on how their tax dollars are spent, sports teams have mastered an invaluable tactic to keep the money flowing. That tactic is the threat of relocation, or basically taking the hometown team hostage to see if the city and the taxpayers will pay up. Once again, the Rams are not the first to use this threat or to follow through with it. The Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis Colts, two high-profile teams that have won Super Bowls in the last 10 years, both left the cities they originally played in when their demands for new stadiums were not met.

The following video gives a lighthearted look at how teams use the threat of relocating to get new stadiums:

Case Study: The St Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams

While the Rams are clearly not the only team to move or used the threat of relocation in an attempt to leverage a city for a better stadium deal, it is the most recent. The Rams originally moved from Los Angeles in 1995, lured to St. Louis with a $250 million stadium paid for exclusively with public funds. However, as the stadium aged, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the 63rd richest person in the United States, worth $7.6 billion, exercised an opt-out clause that let him flee St. Louis for Los Angeles and its much bigger media market.

This decision came even after St. Louis agreed to offer the Rams an additional $158 million while the new site in Inglewood, California offers no public funds at all. This may seem foolish, but as the owner of the new site–which includes amenities beyond just a football stadium–and landlord for whichever other teams play in Los Angeles, Kroenke is likely to make back his initial investment and more. Although Kroenke ultimately opted for a venue that does not utilize public funds, the Rams managed to get a remarkable offer from St. Louis. In the negotiation process, the owner, and to an extent the local government, utilized many of the classic leveraging techniques such as removing the influence of voters, threatening relocation, and ultimately following through on a threat to move.

A Global Epidemic

While NFL stadiums are the biggest and most public culprits of the stadium financing problem, there are a number of high profile examples around the globe. These often come in the form of stadiums built for the World Cup and the Olympics.

After less than two years, many of the sites for the Men’s World Cup in Brazil sit idle, barely being used. Some of the stadiums are only now being finished while others are put up for sale so that the government can make back some of its investment–an estimated $3 billion spent on building and refurbishing the facilities. Brazil is also scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in 2016, a move that comes with similar problems but on an even grander scale.

The abandonment of Olympic stadiums has also become a major issue for host countries. Facilities in places like Beijing, Seoul, Athens, and Montreal sit abandoned or are rarely used just years after costing the cities that built them hundreds of millions of dollars. This is especially disconcerting because it comes with the additional cost of hosting the Olympics. In what makes the NFL’s demands look like pocket change, the cost of the Olympics has averaged $3.6 billion from 1968 to 2010 and $16.2 billion after that. As bad as these costs are, the fact that they have an average cost overrun of 167 percent is even more concerning.

In fact, due to the ever-rising costs of holding the Olympics, many cities now are hesitant to host future events. In the run-up to the selection of the site for the 2022 Winter Olympics; Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Ukraine withdrew their bids when polls showed it would have been incredibly unpopular. Boston similarly followed suit when it withdrew its bid to host the Summer 2024 Games. Ironically, one of the best examples of a city actually repurposing one of its old Olympic stadiums comes from Atlanta where the recently abandoned Turner Field Baseball stadium was created by repurposing the 1996 Olympic Stadium. The accompanying video gives a chilling look at a number of stadiums used for the Olympics and then just abandoned:

Conclusion

Professional sports teams, like any business, are always seeking to maximize their profits and it is unrealistic to expect them to do otherwise. Even though the public usually pays a large portion of the cost for a new stadium, they rarely pay all of it. Instead, that cost is usually spread out between the owner–in the case of the NFL, all the owners by using something known as the G4 Fund. Sports leagues are not the only corporations utilizing these tax breaks and deals offered by local governments. Many companies take advantage of these opportunities and there is often less of an outcry when cities, counties, or states offer huge tax breaks to lure other organizations. While these teams and businesses may have a lot of bargaining power, the decisions to use public funds remain up to local governments, and in some cases, voters.

However, while there is certainly enough blame to spread around, only the owners of these teams or their partners tend to benefit from them. This is particularly true for NFL owners, as they not only benefit from stadiums but media deals as well. Until recently, the NFL was also considered a non-profit organization, giving it even more tax breaks.  All the public has to show for this is more debt, empty stadiums, and the knowledge that the next threat of a move could happen at any time. The situation is increasingly frustrating and begs the question: what can be done?

Unfortunately, there may not be much that cities can do. In his recent budget proposal, President Obama included a plan to end tax-free bonds for teams, but that has a long way to go before it becomes law. Other suggestions have included anti-trust lawsuits, but these too gained little traction. The ultimate problem is that there are more cities than teams, meaning the teams will always have leverage of some kind and cities are often interested in getting a new team.  The real lesson in all this is while we root for our favorite hometown teams we should remember those teams will likely only remain in our hometowns if the price is right.

Resources

Forbes: The Business of Football

City Lab: The Never-Ending Stadium Boondoggle

The Huffington Post: “Taxpayers Have Spent A ‘Staggering’ Amount of Money On NFL Stadiums

Buffalo Rising: New Stadium Prospectus: Finance-Truth, Misconceptions, and Consequences

The Wire: Voters Don’t Want to Pay for Sports Stadiums Anymore

Curbed: How Atlanta’s Stadium-Building Madness is Nothing New

WBUR: Nearly 20 Years Later, The Legacy Of Atlanta’s Olympic Venues Is Still being Written

The New York Times: In Losing the Rams, St. Louis Wins

St. Louis Business Journal: Kroenke (Stan and Ann) are some of America’s richest

The New York Times: World Cup Stadiums Leave a Troubled Legacy in Brazil

The Wire: Turner Field Is the Latest In a Long Line of Abandoned Olympic Stadiums

Business Insider: The cost of hosting the Olympics is getting out of control

Slate: How to Stop the Stadium Wars

The Atlantic: How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stadium Deals: The High Price of Your Home Team appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday night, the three remaining Democratic candidates took to the stage for the second Democratic debate of the primary season. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Bernie Sanders appeared at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. In light of Friday night’s horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, France, the debate was shifted to focus on national security, terrorism, and foreign affairs. It was an interesting evening–in comparison to the Republican debates, which have ranged from 8-10 participants and have been full of skirmishes between the candidates–it was congenial and at times even boring. But the big takeaway is that regardless of debate performances, it probably didn’t make a difference in Senator Bernie Sander’s quest to unseat frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with a disclaimer: the Democratic field is down to three candidates–two of whom are arguably in contention (Sanders and Clinton) and one who, barring a miracle, is fundamentally not (O’Malley). So let’s get O’Malley out of the way now–he has no shot and while he was applauded for some strong answers Saturday night, his poll numbers are so low that even a bump wouldn’t matter much at this point. It’s way more interesting to discuss the overall showdown between Clinton and Sanders, and consider if the debate performances will benefit one or the other.

Sanders was in trouble from the start just based on the timing of the debate itself. Saturday night at 9 PM isn’t exactly a great time for a debate, particularly for the sought-after contingent of young voters. This is particularly a concern for Sanders, who has become an attractive candidate for millennials. According to a poll conducted in mid-October, among those born between 1985-1997, Bernie Sanders is at 54 percent. Hillary Clinton is at a meager 26 percent. In contrast, Clinton dominates among older voters, at 48 percent.

The debate drew in only 8.5 million viewers. While for a political event on a Saturday night that’s pretty good, it’s not good enough. It was the lowest of any of the primary debates so far, including the first Democratic one, and the four Republican debates. Twenty-four million people watched the first Republican debate; that’s almost three times as many people who tuned into Saturday night’s showdown. While the debate was technically the most watched program in its time slot, ABC’s college football game between Oklahoma and Baylor was the top program for the 18-49 age demographic. Essentially, more older people watched the Democratic debate than young people. While that’s not surprising, it is deeply problematic for Bernie Sanders, who needs to keep getting his message in front of the young people he’s proven it resonates for. To be fair, online streaming data isn’t immediately available, and that’s how I, as well as probably a bunch of other young people watched the debate. If online streaming data indicates that a big chunk of millennials watched the debate instead of doing other things on a Saturday night, I’ll stand corrected, but I’d be very, very surprised.

Multiple polls post-debate declared Clinton as the winner–and that’s just based on performance, which of course a subjective marker. But in terms of numbers, she probably won it too. Her base was more likely to watch Saturday night’s debate. If Sanders is going to have a shot at the nomination, and that’s a big “if,” he needs to continue to inspire young voters. While it’s not his fault that the debate was at a truly inconvenient time, Sanders is going to need to continue to seek out alternate ways to get his message across.

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 Why the Second Democratic Debate was a Loss for Bernie Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 11:45 am

Roughly thirty African-American football players at the University of Missouri are boycotting the team until their demand is met: the resignation of the university’s president, Tom Wolfe.

Wolfe is accused of not appropriately handling some racially-based incidents on campus, including on September 12, when the Missouri Students Association president Payton Head was the recipient of racial slurs yelled at him from a pick-up truck on campus. On October 5, the Legion of Black Collegians were harassed while practicing for a homecoming performance. On October 24, a swastika was drawn in feces in one of the dorms.

Wolfe is also accused of ignoring a group of students when they approached his car to talk about the issue during the homecoming parade, and actually allowing his driver to hit one of them with his car. The allegations from that incident are detailed in the tweet below:

If you don’t know already, here is our story. #ConcernedStudent1950pic.twitter.com/BNi8NggYV6

— JB. (@_JonathanButler) October 13, 2015

Furthermore, Wolfe allegedly met with some of the concerned students, but did not take steps to assuage the issues on campus. It’s within this context that at least thirty African-American members of the football team have said they will not continue to play unless Wolfe steps down. The plan was announced via Twitter:

We are no longer taking it. It’s time to fight. #ConcernedStudent1950#MizzouHungerStrikepic.twitter.com/mnPZBviqJF

— LBC (@MizzouLBC) November 8, 2015

The university’s athletics department has said it stands by the students.

The overall air of protest at Mizzou also made headlines earlier this week when graduate student Jonathan Butler announced that he would embark on a hunger strike with the same goal–forcing Wolfe’s resignation. The football boycott is tied to Butler’s protest, and was overall organized by a student group called Concerned Student 1950. The 1950 in the group’s title is a reference to the fact that 1950 was the first year in which African-American students were allowed to matriculate at Mizzou. Butler explained his actions, stating:

I will be embarking on an indefinite hunger strike in opposition to having Tim Wolfe as the University of Missouri system president. I will not consume any food or nutritional sustenance at the expense of my health until either Tim Wolfe is removed from office or my internal organs fail and my life is lost.

Missouri’s next game is supposed to be against Brigham Young University on November 14. What will happen at that game, and exactly how many players have explicitly joined the protest are unclear. But one thing seems certain–these Mizzou students aren’t going to back down without a fight.

Update: 11:45am 

It was announced today that President Tom Wolfe will be stepping down–he announced his resignation at a University of Missouri System Board of Curators special meeting earlier today. 

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 University of Missouri Football Players Boycott Until President Resigns 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.

If you’ve watched a football game on TV lately, you’ve probably seen a whole litany of ads for the two leading fantasy companies–DraftKings and FanDuel. While fantasy football has been a popular pastime for years, DraftKings and FanDuel have entered the scene relatively recently: they were founded in 2012 and 2009 respectively. But with great success and power comes great responsibility, and now both sites are under investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for insider-trading-like activity.

The premise of DraftKings, FanDuel, and other similar sites is simple–it takes the traditional model of a season-long fantasy competition, and condenses it into smaller contests, usually just one week or one day. Both sites offer a variety of sports to choose from, including NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, and some college sports. You put up money to play, and win money if you’re successful.

Whether or not these activities should be considered gambling has been a point of contention, but the legality tends to rest on the fact that technically these are games of skill, not chance. Participants have to have background knowledge of the players they are choosing, and make informed decisions based on that knowledge. However, not all states agree with that assessment–Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, and Washington all have deemed participating in sites like DraftKings and FanDuel illegal.

So, while these very wealthy new companies are already rife with controversy, it really comes as no surprise that a new investigation is being launched. The reason that Schneiderman is looking into DraftKings and FanDuel is because of concerns that employees at each have won big payouts on their competitors’ sites. There are allegations that these employees have access to inside information in the form of stats and algorithms and are using that information to profit by playing themselves. One particular incident sparked outrage over this possibility–mid-level DraftKings employee Ethan Haskell recently won $350,000 on FanDuel. The question is whether or not Haskell was able to win that money because he had an advantage as a DraftKings employee with access to insider information, or because he was just a skilled fantasy player.

In response to the scandal, both companies banned their employees from playing on each others’ sites, and issued a joint statement, which read in part:

Nothing is more important to DraftKings and FanDuel than the integrity of the games we offer to our customers. Both companies have strong policies in place to ensure that employees do not misuse any information at their disposal and strictly limit access to company data to only those employees who require it to do their jobs. Employees with access to this data are rigorously monitored by internal fraud control teams, and we have no evidence that anyone has misused it.

However, it will now be up to the Attorney General’s investigation to determine whether or not that’s true. Schneiderman will be attempting to determine “the prospect that employees of daily fantasy football sites have won lucrative payouts based on inside information not available to the public.” He also added: “I don’t have comments on the specifics of that matter at this time. But fraud is fraud and we’ll investigate it wherever we find it.” So, if he finds it, both DraftKings and FanDuel may be in serious trouble.

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 Fantasy Fight: DraftKings and FanDuel Investigated by New York Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between student athletes and the schools for which they play has operated increasingly in a gray area in recent years. Student athletes are technically students, but in many ways–particularly when it comes to the money they generate for their schools–their relationships to the colleges and universities are significantly different from non-student athletes. In recognition of the ambiguity of this gray area, and the desire to contribute to discussions about their program, football players at Northwestern University recently tried to unionize. After a long back-and-forth, their application was effectively turned down by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), meaning the players cannot unionize.

The argument made by the students looking to unionize was based on something that is pretty well known for permeating college sports–money. Universities can make a hefty chunk of change from having strong college sports teams, particularly football. According to the Department of Education, college football revenue generated by Division 1 teams topped $3.4 billion in 2013. For comparison, that number wasn’t too far from the $3.6 billion in revenue generated by the National Hockey League (NHL) in 2013.

But a team is only as good as its players, and while players do receive plenty from the arrangement in the form of publicity, experience, and sometimes a straight shot to the big leagues, the Northwestern football players were arguing that they deserve a more prominent seat at the table. Kain Colter, a former co-captain of Northwestern’s team, explained that being a football player at the school was essentially a job. CNN summed his testimony at the NLRB hearing to that effect:

He said football was dominating his college experience, consuming up to 60 hours a week during the season and up to 20 hours the rest of the year, he said. He and his teammates never got summer and winter breaks, couldn’t schedule certain classes and were required to adhere to dozens of rules or risk losing their scholarships.

As a result of that environment, Colter and the other Northwestern players who voted to unionize, as well as players from other schools involved in the movement, argued that they would like to receive benefits like free tuition or more extensive medical coverage.

However, that particular argument wasn’t convincing for the NLRB board, which denied to take jurisdiction over the application to unionize. By doing so, the board essentially stopped the students’ ability to join or create a union. Northwestern University brought up that its student-athletes are students first, not employees, an important distinction if the players were to unionize. Additionally, officials from the school expressed confusion as to why Northwestern was the focus of this push, given that Northwestern isn’t generally regarded as a football powerhouse. Additionally, a big concern for the board appeared to be that it would create an unfair advantage for students who attend private universities, because the ruling wouldn’t apply to students at public universities.

The Northwestern players’ attempts to form a union have been pretty much quashed, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. Players at public universities could try their luck with various state institutions. Additionally some of the things that the players are fighting for, like improved medical care, are consistent with broader discussions in the football community and the NFL about player safety. As the line between student-athlete and athlete continue to blur, and college football promises to continuing growing, these are essential issues that schools will have to contend with.

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 Northwestern Football Players Lose Fight to Unionize 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.

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 d, the i, the d, the d, the y, the d, the I, the d is diddy just got arrested. Again.

Sean “Diddy” Combs was arrested by the UCLA Police Department on Monday afternoon on a charge of assault with a weapon–a kettle ball. He was released several hours after his arrest by posting bail, but he wasn’t able to Diddy Bop out of there with just a slap on the wrist.

The hip-hop music legend has officially been charged with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, one count of making terrorist threats, and one count of battery.

According to Bruin Report Online, the incident began early that morning when Diddy’s son, Justin Combs, was attending an off-season workout on UCLA’s field. After Combs missed some recent workouts and a few other minor offenses, one of the team’s coaches kicked him out.

“I don’t care if your dad’s here,” Coach Sal Alosi said. “This is UCLA. I’m going to treat you just like I treat everyone else.”

Diddy was reportedly upset with Alosi’s behavior, because he felt that the coach was trying to humiliate both him and his son in front of the entire team. So when he went to the coach’s office to discuss the issue, the coach refused to see him, and threatened to call security if he didn’t leave. The coach’s diss set Diddy OFF.

Reports claim Diddy replied, “Fine, I’ll call police,” and Alosi snapped–going after Diddy with his hands. It was reported that Diddy then grabbed a kettlebell and held it up in a defensive position, but did not attack with the intent to injure the coach.

When Alosi instructed interns outside of his office to alert campus security, an unclear riff-raff between the two went down, which resulted in scratches on Alosi’s face and a ripped shirt. While interns were able to remove Diddy from the office and into the next room, it was there that Diddy reportedly picked up a kettle bell and swung it at one of the interns.

When UCPD arrived and the situation had calmed, everyone believed nothing would come of the incident. But with the UCLA training facility security cameras, police were able to watch the altercation and subsequently arrested Diddy.

According to TMZ reports, this is not Diddy’s first altercation that has resulted in police presence. In 2011, he settled a lawsuit from a shooting that occurred in a night club in 1999 that left about three victims injured.

While Puff had no right to assault the coach for giving his son some tough criticism, we all know Diddy has a temper. I bet the coach thought he was handling the situation appropriately by immediately asking him to leave, but we all know Diddy doesn’t play that way. Whether or not Diddy will actually have to pay a price for his actions however, remains to be seen.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Diddy Did It Again: Rapper Arrested After Altercation at UCLA 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.

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.

The NFL regular season is coming to a close, and with it, a plethora of fantasy-football dreams. Typically, friends draft a team of their favorite stars before the start of the season and depending on their team’s performance, a fantasy dueler can win bragging rights or bets made within the group. Except today, what started as a competition among friends has evolved into a multi-million dollar enterprise. Websites like DraftKings and FanDuel have capitalized on this competition by changing the fantasy landscape. These sites hold weekly competitions allowing users to choose players weekly for a fee. Although this option bypasses the heartache of seeing a number one draft pick go down with a season-ending injury, this type of competition raises some interesting concerns. Instead of bragging rights, friends can compete for millions of dollars against thousands of players across the globe by depositing cash for a particular contest. This sounds wonderful on paper, except it also sounds like gambling, too. Read on and find out whether you should cosign your fantasy involvement.

 What’s the latest news in the fantasy world?

Like the fantasy pro, I’ve endured the pleasure and heartbreak that fantasy football conjures. For instance, two weeks ago week I won $500. Nevertheless, the excitement that a touchdown catch enlivens is comparable to blackjack. The rush in seeing the craps table explode with shouts of hope and trembles of fear is similar to the anxiety of watching the player that you almost drafted “go-off” for three touchdowns. Although there are plenty of gambling outlets for duelers like myself to feast on, discouragement kicked in after reading this article about the Denver Broncos signing a partnership with Draftkings. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t be fair if the number one offense was in cahoots with the fantasy source. Although it’s doubtful that Peyton Manning gets a call during the game to throw an interception, these competitions craft an accessible outlet for fantasy football, which inadvertently targets kids and young adults to compete/bet/win. That worry grew after researching the inner-workings of these one-day fantasy events.

As my fellow New York Law School alum Andrew Blancato correctly noted in his article about fantasy sports gambling, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) outlaws online sports gambling. The fine distinction is based on skill and chance. But when did this all begin? Years ago, fantasy sports was limited to drafting teams before the season and hoping your team excelled in their respective positions. Today a user can bet online anywhere from 25 cents to upward of a thousand dollars on his team’s weekly performance. When did Football Sunday transform into caring more about the points a player scored, rather than the outcome of the game itself?

Image courtesy of Evangelos Siozos

When did fantasy become financial?

In July 2009, Nigel Eccles and Tom Griffiths altered the fantasy sports arena by launching their newly minted one-day fantasy competitions. Eccles, the CEO of FanDuel, based his idea on a simple premise: Letting people pick professional athletes daily and bypassing the debilitating effects of injury risks associated with season-long tournaments. Instead of one bite at the apple, these businesses capitalize on multiple game-day bites.

In 2010, Allen Tippy explained the phenomena that recently started interrupting your favorite TV or radio show with a 30 second advertisement.  “Fantasy is the steak,” Mr. Lowitz says. “We just want to be the mashed potatoes on the side.” After gorging on the traditional fantasy platter, Tippy made the change to one-day fantasy competitions.

I search out the weak players…I played in the same traditional fantasy baseball league with a group of lawyers from Mobile, Alabama for about 15 years.

That’s right. The success of one-day fantasy sports is semi-driven by the fantasy fanatics, those who play and switch their line-ups with 30 seconds to spare before the game begins. In fact, by employing these modern tactics, a one-a-day dueler can exploit an opponent’s weakness by staying alert of all injuries and penalties that keep a player sidelined. Interestingly, this awareness sounds just like skill, except in one-a-days there are a few caveats.

For example, unlike traditional gambling site, there is a higher commission taken out by the one-day fantasy servicer. Further, what separates a winner from the host of losers requires beating 60 percent of them to make a profit. Eccles calls it “fantasy for the ADD generation.” Mr. Eccles hits it on the nose, considering FanDuel paid out roughly $500 million this year alone.

After FanDuel captured 70 percent of the daily fantasy sports market, DraftKings snatched the remaining 25-30 percent. Fast forward four years: these simple startups have catapulted to infamy and success. In fact, the Fantasy Sports Trade Association acknowledged that about $1.7 billion is spent each year on fantasy sports in the U.S. and Canada. Couple this with an infinite pool of investors and big-name endorsers and one is left to wonder if any regulatory measures have been taken to ensure fair play.

So…is this even legal?

In 2006, Congress passed the UIGEA, which basically outlawed any online sports gambling that relied strictly on chance instead of skill. Whether or not fantasy sports are chance- or skill-related is a question for Socrates; however, what has been done since 2006 is quite startling, especially considering the mammoth explosion of this business. Vice Sports explained it best:

The debate over the legality of DFS revolves around the definition of skill versus chance. DFS games fall somewhere in between pure games of skill (chess, checkers) and pure games of chance (lottery, bingo). Picking a winning lineup involves a level of skill, intelligence, and talent that can be improved but also, Peyton Manning could tear his ACL in warm-ups and sorry, bro, your lineup is done.

Great, so playing fantasy sports involves both a touch of skill and a dash of luck. Easy, done. But some questions still linger. For example, since 2006, the marketing landscape changed, technology evolved, and fifth graders were given cell phones. So, what exactly is going on?

On December 2, 2014, lawyers lodged formal complaints against FanDuel in Florida Federal Court. The allegations included claims of deceptive practices by misleading customers, which tiptoes the line into fraudulent territory. Basically, FanDuel targeted customers through its promise to double any money deposited into its website. Yet, its “double your deposit” promotion didn’t double its customers’ deposits upon joining. Instead, if a user deposited $200, her money was entered into a formula, which requires a contestant to spend $5,000 in order to receive the initial $200 promised payback. This wasn’t the only lawsuit targeting the fantasy giants.

That’s when I was introduced to Christopher Langone, who filed pleadings in Illinois Federal Court to challenge the winnings of Patrick Kaiser, a FanDuel enthusiast. Months later, Langone filed another action against DraftDay.com and bypassed any jurisdiction issues by filing in San Antonio, Texas, DraftDay’s state of incorporation. What initially seemed like a theoretical query based on whether fantasy sports involved more skill than chance, created a battle of mythical proportions, perfect for the great professors who teach me.

What is being done?

In short, nothing yet. Some Federal Courts have reacted, using the judiciary power bestowed upon them to influence states to strike down fantasy football in Montana, Louisiana, Washington, Iowa, Arizona, and Puerto Rico. Or take Florida for example, where state law technically bans the “fantasy phenomenon,” and makes playing it a misdemeanor. But other than political riffraff and textualist toils over what chance and skill really are, the main concern for fantasy-player welfare has dissipated. As Mike Florio puts it,

In what would be a bizarre twist on point shaving, coaches and players could in theory be bribed to ensure that certain players will generate significant production, or that certain players will be shut down. Getting to coaches and assistant coaches who control the offensive game plan would be the most efficient approach. It also would help to grease defenders who would be inclined to slip on an invisible banana peel, springing a specific player for a touchdown or two. Or four.

Florio’s concerns express the same disbelief I have. Further, his article was written in July, way before Peyton endorsed Draftkings and Tom Brady joined DailyMVP.

Fanduel pays out 1 million dollars in prizes per day. Join my 1-day league http://t.co/oTvV4dzNZE

— Vince Wilfork (@wilfork75) August 23, 2014

With more and more players signing onto these fantasy startups, maybe it’s time to start paying attention to the inconspicuous tweets of NFL players. It’s not that Wilfork would miss a tackle to spring a runner 50 yards, it’s that he might be tempted to do so in order to capitalize on the same organization paying him to tweet.

Conclusion

Greed takes many forms. After witnessing the fall of the real estate market, we all saw the destructive nature of our fellow man. Like much of the law, Congress has slowly reacted to recent changes in technology. Today, kids and adults have online access at their fingertips. Although this doesn’t fit the bill as a pressing concern, it could become so. Anyone can click to verify that they are 18 years old in order to play on these sites. Further, not an iota of regulatory action has been taken since 2006. Although it is too early for the unforeseen consequences to materialize, it might already be too late to ensure that they don’t. Alas, chance and skill can only get a fantasy dueler so far. My hope is that there’s no one whispering in the players’ ears to strike that balance.

Resources

Primary

 Denver Broncos: Draft Kings, Broncos, Sign Partnership

Additional 

Law Street Media: Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling?

Wall Street Journal: Everyday fantasies

Boston: Single-Day Fantasy Sports

Vice Sports: The Daily Fantasy Sports Takeover

Forbes: Fanduel sued in court

Fox News; Gaming laws could pose risk for fantasy football craze

NBC: NFL Paying attention to Influence of high-stakes fantasy football leagues 

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fantasy Sports: Ready…Set…Bet! appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a few weeks since the announcement that the Ferguson grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown to death. It’s been about a week since a Staten Island grand jury announced that Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted for the death of Eric Garner. Protests have continued in many major cities, and everyone is still talking about the injustices inherent in our judicial system. #ICan’tBreathe, a reference to Garner’s last words as he died after being put in a chokehold by Panteleo, is still trending on Twitter as I write this.

Now, celebrities are starting to get involved. A few nights ago, Kobe Bryant and other members of the Los Angeles Lakers wore “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts before their game.

Kobe and the rest of the #Lakers wearing #ICantBreathe T-Shirts during warm ups ( pic via @lakers ) pic.twitter.com/kd2OlxrZfm

— Jeff G. (@TheSportsDude) December 10, 2014

The Lakers weren’t the first team to participate in protests. The St. Louis Rams, shortly after the Ferguson grand jury decision, walked out onto the field with their hands in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that has been a symbol of the Ferguson protests:

Rams players said they ‘absolutely’ would repeat ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture http://t.co/lxshSRD8wrpic.twitter.com/H4Z71QQWau

— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 4, 2014

Rams player Davin Joseph also kept his support going by writing “I Can’t Breathe” on his shoes before a recent game:

R.I.P Eric Garner pic.twitter.com/i84grny7pR

— Davin Joseph (@DavinJoseph75) December 7, 2014

Detroit Lions player Reggie Bush also showed his support with a homemade “I Can’t Breathe” shirt:

ICYMI: Reggie Bush supports Eric Garner with message on shirt http://t.co/N6oDRFTcQD pic.twitter.com/LqMsc2eCsx — Josh Katzenstein (@jkatzenstein) December 7, 2014

It’s not just professional athletes who are showing their support; other celebrities have chosen to throw their weight around as well and bring attention to the Brown and Garner-inspired protests. Singer/songwriter John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model, paid for an entire fleet of food trucks to serve protesters in Lincoln Square in New York on Sunday. 

.@johnlegend and his wife pay for a food truck to feed #EricGarner supporters at #NYC protest. http://t.co/HYLPqHTFZxpic.twitter.com/0JJqqEuIIu — Jassiel Perez (@fl_dreamer) December 8, 2014

Finally, members of Congress have shown their support. Four members have done the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture on the floor of the House of Representatives: New York Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. 

Four Members of Congress do ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ gesture on House floor. http://t.co/EMPkdTk6otpic.twitter.com/YanQI5RzJ4 — NYDN Politics (@NYDNPolitics) December 2, 2014

Although many celebrities have made their opinions known about the lack of indictments in these cases, these athletes, celebrities, and politicians have stood out. They’re in good company–it’s only by bringing attention to these issues that we can ever hope to enact change. 

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Celebrities Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.

From the time I understood the concept of “sports” I understood that the athletes who participated in such activities were loved and respected. They showed up on the fronts of my cereal boxes, on TV, and some even made the somewhat ungraceful transition into film.

As I grew older, entering high school and then college, I came to realize that student athletes were not only loved and respected, but given special treatment. They could miss class, skip tests, and all around give half the effort a normal student would have because they had to stay focused on whichever sport they happened to excel in.

I did not have a stereotypical “American” upbringing in which sports reigned supreme. My father taught music and my mother taught dance, and so I grew up with a healthy passion for the arts. My sister and I went to “rival” state schools, but since we didn’t choose those schools because of their football teams, that rivalry didn’t matter. I became a little bitter toward those athletes who had it all while art classes were cut, and dancers or drama students who had rehearsals late into the night were still expected to perform academically. To me, that didn’t seem fair. Besides, doing a triple pirouette en pointe takes way more skill than running down a football field right?

Obviously, the slightly biased opinions I held toward sports as a student are not completely factual. The various performance and visual arts require different skills than those of various sports, and so it is impossible to compare the talents of a soccer player to the talents of a ballerina. However, it is true that athlete favoritism exists in academic institutions.

Just this week, the University of North Carolina has come under fire for its preferential treatment of student athletes. UNC is a well-respected university, lauded for both its academic superiority as well as its exceptional sports programs. Recently, the school had defense attorney Kenneth Wainstein perform an internal investigation on some discrepancies in its former Afro and African-American Studies department. What did he find? For the last 18 years the department has been enrolling athletic students in freebie “paper” — or non-existent — classes to keep them on the field.

Eighteen years.

Obviously, these classes were only meant as grade boosters to maintain the athletes’ eligibility. For your viewing pleasure, here is the only required paper from one of those courses, which received an A- :

Whistleblower says UNC put athletes in classes that never met and required only one final paper. This one got an A-. pic.twitter.com/HShyr6ivGm

— Bryan Armen Graham (@BryanAGraham) March 26, 2014

 

The text says:

On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.

Gripping stuff.

After the truth behind the fake classes was revealed, UNC fired the faculty members responsible for starting and “teaching” those classes. The student newspaper, though, the Daily Tarheel, revealed that the fraud went much further, saying the report “found clear evidence that academic counselors from the football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball teams asked for players to be enrolled in bogus independent study classes in order for them to be eligible.” That answers the question of how no one in the last 18 years noticed that the classes weren’t actually meeting — the athletic chairs and faculty members already knew!

This scandal is just one example of athletic favoritism, which has existed since colleges first started athletic programs. Apparently, football is so important to some people that they will break school policies — and sometimes laws — to keep their athletes playing. It is just insane. In most schools, if a student who is involved in a non-athletic club or activity fails a semester, they give up that club or activity until their grades are better. Several on-campus organizations require a minimum GPA for membership. Athletics should be the same way. If an athlete cannot perform well in school, they should not be permitted to play. End of story.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [Hector Alejandro via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Athlete Favoritism 101: A+ For Everyone! appeared first on Law Street.

With all the media hoopla surrounding Ray Rice’s domestic violence issues and Adrian Peterson’s child abuse controversy, the NFL diverted its attention from its previously spotlighted concussion policy. In fact, the NFL’s recent media attention to domestic violence issues threatens to expose its player health policy by subjecting it to increased scrutiny as a result of its players’ recent predicaments.

Well, the issue here isn’t domestic violence, but rather Roger Goodell’s non-partisan approach to controversial issues concerning player welfare, accentuated by the NFL’s re-emerging concussion policy. Perhaps Goodell going on this media blitz has taught him a football fundamental; keeping his eye on the ball. Read on to learn about what could become of the NFL’s newest scandal: concussion policies.

When did the NFL become conscious of the unconsciousness of its football players?

In 1994, the National Football League created a committee responsible for overseeing brain injuries to its players after a series of permanent and near-fatal neurological issues to former players. The NFL named Dr. Elliot Pellman, a doctor without any brain-injury experience, the head of its newly-formed Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Thirteen years later, Pellman stepped down after his highly criticized finding that returning to play after sustaining a concussion did “not involve significant risk of a second injury either in the same game or in the same season.“

Between 2008 and 2010, the bodies of twelve former professional American football players underwent post-mortem evaluations for CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), a degenerative brain-functioning disease, which contributes to suicide, apathy, memory loss, changes in behavior, and depression. The proteins developed in an NFL player’s brain are inherent to a chronic sufferer of Alzheimer’s or epilepsy. Within months the NFL faced legal action from players and responded by implementing a telephone hotline for players to call when forced to play contrary to medical opinion. Nevertheless, by 2012, after unsuccessfully trying to wiggle its way out of the media onslaught, the NFL finally admitted its role in neurological dysfunctions.

PBS Concussion Frontline: CTE occurs when repetitive head trauma begins to produce abnormal proteins in the brain known as “tau.” The tau proteins work to essentially form tangles around the brain’s blood vessels, interrupting normal functioning and eventually killing nerve cells themselves. Patients with less advanced forms of the disease can suffer from mood disorders, such as depression and bouts of rage, while those with more severe cases can experience confusion, memory loss and advanced dementia.

Richard Ellenbogen, a neurosurgeon and co-chairman of the NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee, characterized these issues this year by saying, “The big issue in concussions is when is it safe to return a player back to the sport, or back to exercising? And the fact of the matter is we really don’t know the correct answer.”

Recently, the NFL supported its players after acknowledging its fault and changing some rules by reaching a settlement requiring the NFL to fund medical exams, concussion-related research, and litigation expenses. However, recent progress was overshadowed when a study of 79 former players yielded that 76 players were diagnosed with CTE.

What changes did the NFL implement to mitigate the consequences of playing professional football?

In light of the head-trauma class-action lawsuits targeting the NFL’s policy, one wonders whether the NFL instituted safe precautionary measures. In 2012, 261 players were diagnosed with concussions in preseason and regular-season injuries. Just a year later, CNN reported a 13 percent drop in these injuries, totaling 228 concussions. This decrease was largely attributed to the 2013 change in on-field rules prohibiting runners and defenders from lowering their heads outside of the tackle box and leading with their helmets when tackling. Additionally, the NFL moved the kickoff yard marker from 25 to 35 yards, to help curb player injuries on kickoff returns.

According to PBS Frontline, the preseason and week one games combined produced 15 concussions. The positions most prone to these injury in the past were wide receivers and cornerbacks, with safeties snatching the number three position. Currently, the NFL heads into its fifth week with 22 concussions to date.

Due to the recent uptick in concussions in light of post-football life injuries, the NFL agreed to settle its pending concussion-centered lawsuits for $765 million to 21,000 former players. Although this may seem exorbitant, the NFL’s tax exemptions and billion dollar revenue schemes amount to a $20,000 a year payout for 30 years to each player. Considering about 30 percent of all current NFL players will suffer from dementia or CTE, this amount represents a minor setback, accounting for only .05 percent of the NFL’s annual revenue.

Should the NFL be doing more to prevent concussions?

Truth is, the problem is exacerbated by us, the fans. Too often we hope for big hits and inside play-action passes giving rise to the bone-crushing plays, which provoke these devastating brain injuries. Although the NFL reduces the impact of these injuries by having doctors perform sideline evaluations and requiring a player to miss at least one play after receiving medical attention, progress has been minimal.

Recent changes in technology provide easier and cheaper alternatives that can detect concussion symptoms. One alternative, such as brain sensors in players’ helmets, can ameliorate some of the sting of future injury because they scan the brain for concussion symptoms during the game. As of now, the NFL does not include this technology in players’  helmets. Instead, the NFL relies on an unaffiliated neuro-trauma consultant (UNTC) who stands on the 25-yard line and waits for an emergency call by the team’s physician. This seems paradoxical, considering the team employs the physician who decides whether to allow the UNTC to evaluate a player. Furthermore, there aren’t any guidelines as to when the physician makes that call, which poses questions regarding the NFL’s regulatory capacity. Who regulates these physicians with unfettered discretion making these calls? Why doesn’t the independent doctor have priority, when football games are a billion-dollar, competitive enterprise?

In 2013, Matt Forte, the Chicago Bears’ running back criticized the NFL’s proposed policy and rule changes by tweeting,

“Last time I checked, football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering boom fund.”

Fans may not want to watch a game diluted by yellow flags, commercials, and contact alternatives. On the one hand, players should be careful, but on the other, pro-football players pull in more than ten times the salary of the average citizen; they are compensated for sacrifices to their bodies. This isn’t to suggest the NFL has not protected its players, but it raises questions as to whether the NFL has taken every step to ensure safety as its priority. Nevertheless, even if sensors are added, or rules are changed, football is football, and fans love it.

Football is inherently a physical sport. People get hurt when they play physical sports. By regulating the hits and plays giving rise to concussions, one might say that the game’s integrity is compromised. The players’ safety is pitted against fans cheering (money, television, and notoriety), which contributes to the NFL’s dilemma, because both are equipoised. The problem of mitigating concussion injuries infiltrates deeper than simply installing sensors in players’ helmets because new technology goes hand in hand with new rules, which lead to more timeouts and less action. For example, all scoring plays are now reviewed. Before, fans felt excitement in hoping their quarterback would summon his offense and snap the ball to kick the extra point.

Although recent changes seem promising because they promote player welfare, one of the biggest problems requires educating the public. Public scrutiny is unforgiving, especially when fans are unaware of why new rules are enacted. In response to public scrutiny, the NFL now provides guidelines for dealing with concussion-related injuries and measures on protecting football players.

What are the latest developments on concussion policies?

Due to the way Goodell handled the domestic violence issue, his cohorts are under the gun to produce some positive changes, especially in light of recent data exposing the NFL’s past efforts in restructuring its concussion policy. Although the NFL was blindsided in some fashion by its players’ conduct, most of which are out of its control, the NFL restructured its policy by pulling players, minimizing competitive interests, and educating the public. Moreover, the NFL’s recent changes reflect its attitude of preserving its players’ welfare. The NFL itself issued a statement last August.

Player safety is the top priority for the NFL. Since its earliest days, the league has continuously taken steps to ensure that the game is played as fairly as possible without unnecessary risk to its participants, including making changes and enhancements to game safety rules.

In recent years, the NFL has modified its playing rules to sharply reduce contact to the head and neck of players. These modifications were made separate from, and in addition to, the league’s longstanding prohibitions against helmet to helmet contact.

Conclusion 

By confronting the issue honestly, settling lawsuits, and changing rules, the NFL has progressed. But at what cost? As the leading example of football everywhere, Goodell will likely return to initiating swift rule changes. In 2007, Goodell’s policy and partial reaction to Austin Collie’s concussion was:

“Medical decisions will continue to override any competitive decisions.”

Recently, the NFL published its Return to Play Policy for concussions and the guidelines for players returning from concussions. After years of debate, it seems Goodell is poised to confront the reality that NFL play permanently injures professional players.

Although domestic violence eclipsed the concussion issue recently, teams scrambled to get in touch with their fans, implementing strategies in an effort to save the organization’s reputation. Progress was made, but the underlying health issue remains. Niles Paul reminded the public of this Thursday night, when he crashed into the ground, motionless. Although the team doctor removed him from the game and issued mandatory time off, the rowdy bar-crowd screams overshadowed his injury, clearly representing the NFL’s dilemma.

Resources

PBS: 76 of 79 Deceased NFL Players Found to Have Brain Disease

MMQB: A Tie’s a Win for the NFL

ESPN: Concussion Case Good for Ex-Cowboys

CNN: NFL Concussions Fast Facts

USA Today: NFL’s Concussion Carousel in Full Motion Week 1

PBS: League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis

ESPN: Seaus to Opt Out of Concussion Deal

Bleacher Report: Why the NFL’s Concussion Policy is Failing

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fans vs. Player Safety: The NFL’s Concussion Dilemma appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [m01229 via Flickr]

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 Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice 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.

Punishments often don’t fit the crime, but cases of overly lenient or harsh sentences are especially prevalent in the world of the rich and famous. The NFL in particular has received a lot of attention for its recent punishments, as many see them to be inconsistent. While it may be true that the criminal justice system treats pro football players differently than the average American, much of the recent outrage is focused on the NFL’s internal system of discipline. Athletes in the NFL can commit the same crimes and often receive completely different punishments.

One of the most recent cases involved Ray Rice, a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens. Video cameras captured Rice beating his former fiancée, Janay Palmer, unconscious after dragging her out of an elevator. His punishment for this heinous act was recently revealed by the NFL: Rice will be suspended for two games.

If Rice were not a professional football player, his aggravated assault may have been considered a felony, punishable by up to 25 years in a Maryland state prison. Instead Rice was placed in a diversion program for first time offenders and does not face any prison time. His status as a famous athlete instead of an average Joe seems to have led to his evasion of prison time and a very lax punishment from the NFL.

To contextualize the absurdity of his recent punishment, one must look at other examples of crimes committed by NFL athletes. Another similar case that vastly juxtaposes Rice’s is that of Daryl Washington, a linebacker for the Arizona Cardinals. Washington, like Rice, assaulted his girlfriend, yet received a much harsher penalty of one year of supervised probation. He later got a one year suspension for substance abuse.

Clearly, there is no uniformity dictating the type of punishments doled out to NFL athletes. Their punishments fall at two extreme ends of a spectrum–either far too harsh or far too lenient. Punishments for drug violations in particular have proven to be one area that demonstrates the league’s use of “far too harsh” sentences. Last year, LaVon Brazill received a four game suspension for violating the league’s drug policy by reportedly smoking marijuana. Brazill recently violated this policy a second time, for which he was suspended for an entire year. His most recent punishment also prompted his release from the Colts entirely.

So, let’s compare this to Rice’s case:  Rice was given a two game suspension for beating his wife. On the other hand, Brazill’s first offense for smoking a drug that has been decriminalized or legalized in many states, yielded a suspension that was twice as long, and his second violation left him without a job. While assault and drug use are obviously very different crimes, this kind of disparity doesn’t seem to add up.

In the last year alone, at least 14 players were suspended by the NFL for either substance abuse or performance-enhancing drug use. None of the aforementioned players received less than a four-game penalty. One of them, Indianapolis Colts linebacker Robert Mathis, was suspended for four games by the league for taking a fertility drug.

There are countless more examples of confusing and disturbing punishment inconsistencies. In January 2013, a player for the Indianapolis Colts was kicked off the team after being charged with a misdemeanor simple battery. In February of 2013, Chicago player J’Marcus Webb was arrested for possession of marijuana and all charges were later dropped. The NFL said they would “look into the charges,” but did not end up doling out a punishment. In contrast, two players for the New York Jets were cut from the team for possessing small amounts of the same drug.

Fans have expressed outrage towards the inconsistency of punishments given by the NFL, yet the league maintains that its punishments are consistent. In order to establish true uniformity and ensure that punishments properly fit the crime, the NFL and its players’  association need to reevaluate their current policies and punishment guidelines. Otherwise, these all-over-the-board punishments will continue to be doled out to players committing the same or similar crimes.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Bob Marquart via Flickr]

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 Recent Suspension Reveals NFL’s Inconsistency in Punishments appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve had trouble with the Redskins name ever since I was in elementary school. I never understood why the mascot of a professional football team was just a man with some feathers on his head. You would think that if a seven-year-old kid can see the wrong in naming a team “Redskins,” then adults would too. But sadly many of them do not. So to help get my point across, for the rest of this article I will refer to them as the R*dskins.

Daniel Snyder, owner of the R*dskins since 1999, has been pressured to change the name of the team by fans, politicians, and various advocacy groups who feel that the name is derogatory to Native Americans. In May 2013, in response to a question regarding the team’s name, Snyder told USA Today, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER – you can use caps.”

Seriously?

I get that you’re from Maryland Mr.Snyder, I am too. And I get that you are a die-hard R*dskins fan, though I am not. But can you seriously not see the racism behind the name of your team?

You are literally taking a whole group of people and turning them into caricatures, and when asked to just think about changing the name to something less offensive, your response is always a loud and clear.

Now, my issue with the name of the R*dskins is not just with Daniel Snyder, it goes a lot deeper than that. My issue runs with the players, the fans, the coaches, the media, and the NFL. Any and all these people could take a stand against Snyder and the R*dskins organization and possibly make a change. But who cares about Native Americans right? We only came to their country, took their land, killed their people, and made it ours. Then to rub salt in the wounds we took a stereotypical image of a Native American and made it a mascot alongside the likes of  falcons, jaguars, ravens, bears, rams, and a ton of other animals. Is that what you see Native Americans as, R*dskins fans? Animals?

You should be ashamed

I’ve been having this argument for years and years, and I have heard the same arguments as to why the R*dskins are a nice, genuine, wholesome team who are just misunderstood. I’ve heard the, “It’s been like that for so long, it would be weird to change the name now,” excuse. Well…

Slavery was normal in America for more than 200 years. People thought it would be “weird” if we gave Black people in America the same rights as White people. Laws change, social systems crumble, but universal truths are constant. What is true and right is true and right for all.

So often when I’m having this argument I say, “What if the team was called ‘Washington Blackskins’ with a Black person wearing a do-rag?” The person is often quiet for a very long moment before replying, “It’s not the same.”

How? How is it not the exact same thing? So what is racist for Black people isn’t racist for Native Americans? That in itself sounds racist to me, and whenever someone says that to me I just simply…

spazz out.

What’s funny to me is that most R*dskins fans are Black, and you would think that they would be more sensitive to racial slurs. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if the team were called the “Washington Blackskins,” there would be a march on Washington, Black religious leaders and other Black activist would be holding press conferences, and a social media campaign with a witty hash tag would be in full effect. Since the slur isn’t directed at the Black community, we don’t really seem to care.

whatever right?

To Snyder, the NFL, and all of the team’s fans, the name isn’t racist. They see it as an entity to be proud of. They’ve watched R*dskins “heroes” such as Joe Gibbs, Sean Taylor, Clinton Portis, and many more, give a good chunk of their lives to this organization. Well I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, R*dskins fans: these guys are not heroes. In fact, they played an essential part in the continuing racism that plagues America today. Also, the original owner of the team, George Marshall, was a loud and proud bigot. He was the last owner in the NFL to integrate his team, and only did so because he was forced to do so by the federal government. “We’ll start signing Negroes, when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing Whites,” Marshall once said. This is the history that makes R*dskins fans proud?

I wish i could roll my eyes further into my head.

Just because you think it isn’t offensive doesn’t mean that it actually isn’t. In fact, many Native Americans do find the name to be incredibly insulting.

• Oneida Nation has encouraged Americans to lobby the NFL in support of the name change at www.changethemascot.org.
• A group of Native Americans sued the team back in 2013 arguing against the team’s trademark rights to the name. Trademarks that are deemed racist are illegal under U.S. federal law.
• The 2,000-man protest at the 1992 Super Bowl consisted of members from various tribes (Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, Choctaw).
•  Hundreds protested at the home stadium in Landover, Md. on Thanksgiving day 2013.
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a video last year that consists of leaders from seven different tribes calling for the name to be changed, and released a new and even more powerful video showing everything that American Indians are, R*dskin not being one of them.

Thankfully they are not competely alone in their fight to get the R*dskins to change their name. There have been numerous politicians, former athletes, and plain old citizens who have helped in the conflict.

• President Barack Obama said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”
• DC Mayor Vincent Gray said that if the team wanted to relocate from Maryland to DC they would have to consider changing their name.
• Fifty senators sent a letter to the NFL (really just Roger Goodell) saying that the NFL needs to change the name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter reads. “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team…We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports.”

thank you… its about damn time

Native Americans aren’t cartoons. They aren’t caricatures, or mascots. They are people like you and me, and deserve to be treated with a lot more respect than we have given them over the past hundred years. Their voice may be small in America, but it can still be clearly heard, and as long as one Native American is offended by the word, I think it’s worth discussing what can be done to fix that.

So, I’m going to help out you R*dskins fans a little bit since I don’t hold grudges. Instead of the R*dskins, you could call yourselves the Pigskins! The name still has the same syllables as the original name, it’s a lot less racist, and pigs are super cute and super smart. You could even have RG3 race a pig across the field to start every game or something.

HTTP- Hail To The Pigskins!

That was just a suggestion off the top of my head, you could change it to literally anything and it would probably be better than the R*dskins. Just please for the love of god change that racist name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? 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.

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.

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.

Good morning folks! How many appendages did you lose to frostbite on your way to work this morning? None? Good for you. I’m pretty sure the bottoms of my feet almost turned to actual ice yesterday, when I was evacuated from my burning office building.

Caption: Yes, I work here. And no, none of us crowded around the fire for warmth.

But! The polar vortex isn’t the only crazy thing happening this morning, unfortunately. More absurdity is happening out in Steubenville, Ohio, where convicted rapist Ma’lik Richmond was recently released from a juvenile detention facility.

In case you’ve already forgotten, Ma’lik was at the center of one of the most talked about rape cases of 2013. 16-year-old Ma’lik was a star player on Steubenville’s high school football team, Big Red, along with 17-year-old Trent Mays. The two boys were destined for big things — college ball, maybe the NFL — and they were all but worshiped in a town where football is described as a religion.

Then, one night, the two boys went to a party, where they met up with an extremely drunk young woman. A fellow high school student, this girl had allegedly been flirting with Mays via text message. Apparently, the two boys took her maybe-flirtatious text messages to mean that she was DTF, and they transported her from party to party with an all-male group of friends. Ridiculously drunk, the girl spent a fair amount of the night vomiting and lying around in an essentially comatose state. Unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember most of the night’s events.

But cell phone cameras and social media accounts have pretty long memories. Almost instantly, photos, videos, text messages, and tweets documented the night she couldn’t remember. There were photos of Mays and Richmond holding her limp body by the arms and legs, while her head hung slack. There were photos of her lying naked, face down on the floor, in a home she’d never visited before. (Incidentally, that’s how she woke up the next morning.) There were videos of her being vaginally penetrated with Richmond and Mays’ hands.  And all of this happened while she was way, way too drunk to consent.

Ultimately, Mays and Richmond were convicted of rape and sentenced to serve time in a juvenile detention facility, where they would be “rehabilitated.” Feminists around the world rejoiced, just a tiny bit, that these young men were actually being held accountable. Because, as we know by the gazillion other rape cases that go nowhere — it’s depressingly common for accused rapists to suffer absolutely no consequences for their actions.

So, yay for that not happening! Right?

Sort of. Obviously, children being sent to prison is never something to cheer about. Furthermore, the media’s obvious sympathy for the rapists, and lack of empathy for the victim, was infuriating. Take this clip as an example — CNN spent six minutes lamenting the fact that promising, rapist lives were ruined, and barely mentioned how the victim’s life was affected.

So, the Steubenville rape case has been pretty maddening for everyone who doesn’t hate women. And the horror continues! When Ma’lik was released from juvenile detention this weekend — which isn’t necessarily surprising or irritating, honestly — he/his attorney/his attorney’s PR agency released a statement.

Oh, the agony of reading this statement.

You can read the full text here, but here’s the most important snippet:

“The past sixteen months have been extremely challenging for Ma’Lik and his extended family. At sixteen years old, Ma’Lik and his family endured hardness beyond imagination for any adult yet alone child. He has persevered the hardness and made the most of yet another unfortunate set of circumstances in his life.”

It goes on to ramble about how Ma’lik would like privacy from the media so he can be a normal teenager, hang out with his family, and move on with his life. It also makes ZERO MENTION of the victim. Not one time.

UGGGHHHHH

This is the worst non-apology ever.

Why? Let’s start with simple mechanics. Whoever wrote this train wreck of a press release can’t write to save their goddamn lives. “Hardness?” He persevered against “hardness?” I can’t. I cannot. “Hardness” is not a word that is acceptable to use, basically ever. Just for future reference. Also, SO MANY COMMAS ARE MISSING OMGGGG.

But let’s not get too carried away — obviously the content is what’s most important here. The fact that Ma’lik and everyone around him is so focused on whining about how hard his life has been as a result of this rape is seriously deranged. How difficult do you think the victim’s life has been?  What kind of “hardness” (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist) has she had to persevere against? A whole fuck of a lot, I’m betting.

It’s clear that Ma’lik — or at least the people who are speaking for him — has gone through his “rehabilitation” process without actually taking responsibility for his actions. He’s emerged without apologizing for the immeasurable harm he inflicted on his victim. He’s still solely focused on how this whole ordeal affects him.

Folks, I don’t know about you, but I’m totally sick of this rape culture that pours sympathy on rapists while blaming, shaming, and ignoring victims.

That’s some seriously anti-feminist, anti-woman, pro-violence douche-y-ness.

So let’s put a stop to that, shall we? Thanks a ton.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of  [marsmettnn tallahaassee via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steubenville Rapist is Released and Issues Grammatically Incorrect Non-Apology appeared first on Law Street.

When I hear about bullying I think of children crowded around a playground. I do not think of burly 300-pound men. Well, all of my bullying misconceptions were put to rest this week, after the increasingly odd story revolving around alleged bullying, racism and abuse on the Miami Dolphins.

Any attempt to simplify this story will go horribly astray, because the complicated web of controversy and pure weirdness keeps getting more tangled by the day. My attempt at a timeline will start with the principal players—Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. Jonathan Martin, an offensive tackle from Stanford has stated that Richie Incognito, a guard who’d been with the team for years, harassed, threatened, and made racist remarks to him. These incidents of bullying came out after Martin left the team on October 28^th. He is currently listed on the non-football injury list and has reportedly checked into a hospital room seeking treatment for emotional distress. Incognito was suspended on November 2^nd.

The messages that Incognito sent to Martin were without a doubt incredibly offensive. The transcript of a voicemail left on Martin’s phone by Incognito was as follows:

Hey, wassup, you half n—– piece of [expletive] . . . I saw you on Twitter, you been training ten weeks. [I want to] [expletive] in your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face (laughter). [Expletive] you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.

When allegations first came up, the Dolphins originally claimed that they were groundless. But after they were presented with evidence and forced to acknowledge Incognito’s actions, it has come to light that according to anonymous sources, Incognito may have been told to “toughen up” Martin by the Dolphin’s leadership. Incognito still stands by his claims that he was just joking around with a teammate, and not serious about any of the things that he said to Martin. In regards to the expletive riddled voicemail cited above, Incognito stated, “when I see that voicemail, when I see those words come across the screen, I’m embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed by my actions. But what I want people to know is, the way Jonathan and rest of the offensive line and how our teammates, how we communicate it’s vulgar. It’s not right.”

Other odd facts have come into the story: Martin has hired a lawyer, David Cornwall. Cornwall came out with a statement that claims Martin also suffered a “malicious physical attack” and endured treatment that went well beyond hazing.

Dolphin’s owner Stephen Ross has gone to the NFL and asked for an investigation into the team’s workplace condition. A special counsel will investigate. The NFL Players’ Association has stated that it is not pursuing an investigation, but will try to work with both of the players if need be.

There are also claims of other inappropriate behavior by Incognito. ABC News unearthed a police report from 2012 in which Incognito harassed a 34-year-old female volunteer at a Dolphins golf tournament.

This story has led to a number of different reactions. Dolphins team members claim  that Martin and Incognito were good friends and that they were confused when Martin made these allegations. Commentators and critics have ranged from dismayed over the culture of hazing and bullying in the NFL, to embarrassed that grown men would behave in such a way.

Unlike some past NFL scandals that have been purely about team management and playing style, for example, the Patriot’s 2007 “spygate” scandal, this has the potential to open up a national discussion on so many levels. Conversations on racism, sports culture, hazing, and management are all fair game. Clearly, all need to happen on the Miami Dolphins team.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Douglas McConnell via Flickr]

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 Miami Dolphins Should Be Embarrassed appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, October 29, the horrifying case that has consumed Penn State University came closer to completion. In recent years it has come out that Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions, had waged years of systematic sexual abuse against young boys left in his care. To date, 32 young men have come forward with evidence of abuse: 6 have been dismissed and 26 have been deemed conclusive. While more are likely to come out, it was announced on Monday that these 26 men have concluded settlements with Penn State University.

The settlement dictates that approximately $60 million will be split among the 26 victims. That works out to about $2.3 million each, although some of that will obviously go to legal fees for each victim. As of Monday afternoon, 23 of the victims had signed their settlements and the others are still working on documentation but are expected to sign soon. A stipulation of these settlements is that the victims will not be able to sue anyone else, including Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, through which he became familiar with a large number of his victims.

Jerry Sandusky’s criminal case had concluded well before these settlements. On October 9, 2012, he was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. At 69, he is almost guaranteed to spend the rest of his life incarcerated, and rightly so.

After the settlement was announced, the University President Rodney Erickson released a statement, saying “We hope this is another step forward in the healing process for those hurt by Mr. Sandusky, and another step forward for Penn State. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can and must do everything possible to learn from this and ensure it never happens again at Penn State.”

The finances that will pay for these settlements will not come from the University itself, but rather from various insurance policies that Penn State has in case there is ever a suit pursued against the University.

While this is another huge step forward in providing closure for the young men abused at Penn State University, the case as a whole is by no means over. Earlier this summer, a judge ruled to try former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, former Penn State President Graham Spanier, and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley. These three men will be charged with various crimes related to the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s actions. These trials are still forthcoming.

These young men who were abused by a man whom they trusted had their lives irreversibly and horribly altered as children. In reality, there is probably no amount of money that can make up for what happened to them. Technically speaking, they may have been able to get more money in court. The idea of a settlement is essentially a type of game theory—both sides settle on a compromise that is low-risk, and low-reward as opposed to pursing a high-risk, high-reward strategy.

As The Atlantic pointed out after news of this settlement broke, it makes sense that this case was settled out of court, as many sex-abuse cases are. If this case were in court, the victims would have to testify to a room of people about their abuse, reliving the most traumatizing experiences of their lives.

But worse, they would also be subject to cross-examination, one of the tenants of our justice system. They would be subject to questions on their bias and opposing attorneys would probe them with the aim of poking holes in their stories. Essentially, they would be questioned thoroughly about what happened to them for the purpose of disproving the abuse they suffered. That is one of the main reasons why this case settled quickly, out of court, and for fairly cheaply. The goal was to put at least this part of this abhorrent incident to rest for those involved. As impossible as it seems, hopefully some closure will develop from the conclusion of these settlements.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [drocpsu via Flickr]

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 Penn State Settles With Some of Jerry Sandusky’s Victims appeared first on Law Street.

After a young woman in North Andover, Massachusetts named Erin Cox was punished for picking up an intoxicated friend from a party, her story is receiving national attention. Formerly the varsity volleyball captain, she has been stripped of her captainship and suspended for five games.

The story of what happened that night shows that Cox is a strong, independent, and compassionate young woman. On a weekend evening early in October, she received a text from a friend who was at a party and intoxicated. Being a good friend, Cox decided to go pick her up. However she arrived there at the same time as the police, who had come to break up the rowdy underage party. About a dozen students were arrested, and another dozen or so were warned that they could be summoned to court for drinking underage.

Cox was one of the students who received that warning, despite the fact that she had just arrived and had not been drinking. In fact, a police officer at the scene who performed sobriety tests vouched for Cox’s claim that she had not had even a sip of alcohol.

Cox explained in an interview with the Boston Herald that she truly felt as though she was doing the right thing. “But I wasn’t drinking,” she told me. “And I felt like going to get her was the right thing to do. Saving her from getting in the car when she was intoxicated and hurt herself or getting in the car with someone else who was drinking. I’d give her a ride home.”

After the police reported the party break-up to the school, many students faced various punishments for breaking the school’s zero tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol. Cox was one of them. The school has claimed that simply because she was at the party when the police arrived, regardless of her purpose or sobriety, that she was in the wrong. They also claim that being a student athlete, moreover a student athlete with a leadership position, is a privilege that can be revoked for inappropriate behavior. Cox’s family is standing behind her, stating that they’re proud of their daughter’s attempt to be a good friend and responsible young adult. Her mother attempted to sue the school district, but was told that the district court did not have the appropriate jurisdiction. They are now expected to move onto a federal claim.

I have a few different issues with the punishment of Erin Cox. First, this sends a horrible message to students. Seniors in high school are taught to weight their worth on what they plan on doing after graduation. For some, the attempt to get into a college of their choice becomes all-consuming. The message that North Andover High School sent to its students preached selfishness—essentially Cox’s punishment indicated that helping your friends is not worth it because it may get you in trouble. That’s not the lesson that young people should be learning as they go out into college or the real world. High school isn’t just about algebra and AP Tests; it’s about teaching you how to be a decent human being. Furthermore, the school implicitly told Cox that she should have let her friend drive drunk, or get into a car with someone who had been drinking. Did that friend make a mistake? Yes. Did that mean she was unworthy of Cox’s help? Absolutely not.

This news story reminded me of another instance in which young high school athletes were present at a crazy, unruly party rife with underage drinking. The Steubenville case took the nation by storm, and raised important questions about appropriate behavior in teens. But Cox’s story is the flipside.

Let’s compare the two situations: Here, a young woman in Massachusetts who serves as the captain of her volleyball team is caught by the police, sober, picking up a drunk friend from a party. Her captain title is stripped, and she is suspended for five games. In Steubenville, two young men who are on the football team in non-leadership capacities are drunken underage at a party and sexually assault another teenager. Multiple partygoers take pictures, talk about the incident on social media, and harass this young woman. As recent grand jury indictments show, the high school these young men attend help them cover up the whole thing.

Now my comparison probably falls into the category of apples and oranges, but it is fair to ask: why the enormous disparity in the way these two incidents were treated? I’m not sure. It could be because of different policies at the schools. It could be because high school volleyball in Massachusetts is probably lucky to draw a 10^th of the crowd as high school football in Ohio. It could be because Ma’Lik Richmond and Trent Mays were young men, but Erin Cox was a young woman. There are any number of reasons to explain why these two stories are so divergent, but none of them are particularly comforting. High schools are supposed to teach their students to be adults who are capable of acting appropriately, making good decisions, and determining right from wrong. Then these institutions of education are supposed to hold their students accountable to these standards. In my book, Stuebenville and North Andover, different as the cases may be, both failed.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [bankbryan via Flickr]

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 High School Student Punished for Being a Good Friend appeared first on Law Street.

The nightmare of the Steubenville Rape Case isn’t quite over for the small Ohio town. On October 7, 2013, another arrest was made in the case, this time of a 53-year-old man named William Rhinaman. Rhinaman is the director of technology at Steubenville High School. He has been indicted for tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, obstructing official business, and perjury.

Rhinaman was not the only adult in Steubenville to lie, refuse to talk, or tamper with evidence. As Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told CNN, sixteen different adults refused to talk to investigators. A grand jury, formed on March 17, will determine if any of these others committed indictable crimes. They are mostly looking at whether any employees failed to report a rape they knew had occurred. Rhinaman was the first to face charges, but more may be to come.

AG Mike DeWine will not elaborate on what exactly Rhinaman covered up or what perjured statements he provided, but he did state that the charges are directly related to Rhinaman’s job as an Internet Technology employee. The indictment claims that Rhinaman’s involvement in the case began with the night that the rape occurred—August 11, 2012.

Immediately after being arrested, Rhinamen was held in a local jail without bond. He had a hearing on Wednesday, October 9 in which he was let out on a $25,000 personal recognizance bond.

The Steubenville case took the nation by storm. It was unthinkable—everyone who saw the news footage was horrified that two young men could sexually abuse a 16 year old girl, and that dozens of their peers could stand by and watch it happen. But in a lot of ways the media was more shocked by the way in which the rape was discovered. All of these young people who were present at the party in which the rape occurred took pictures, tweeted about it, texted about it, and generally communicated through social media.

The screen shots that some bloggers managed to grab of the blatant online conversations that these young people had were horrifying. But what is most horrifying is that they thought this was acceptable. Now the world discovers that not only did these teenagers feel this was acceptable, but also that the other adults in their lives perpetrated this despicable cover up. If any of these 16 adults who are being investigated by the grand jury did in fact help a group of young adults cover up the sexual abuse of another, they deserve to face the full force of the law.

[CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [John Perry via Flickr]

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 Steubenville Continues appeared first on Law Street.