Category: Sports

Super Bowl 51: What to Do When Fantasy is Over and Football Fever Becomes Work Reality?

Super bowl 51Super Bowl LI is just around the corner, and many of your employees probably already have football fever. According to a January 2016 study conducted by the Workforce Institute at Kronos, 77 percent of American workers planned to watch Super Bowl 50. So whether they are cheering for the Patriot’s ninth Super Bowl appearance, the halftime show, or the much-talked-about commercials, it’s a safe bet that most of your employees will tune in to at least part of the game day programming. Here are some issues employers may want to consider as they brace themselves for game day fumbles:

1. The fantasy football pool.

Gambling is still illegal in most jurisdictions—even at work and even when it’s just over football. Federal law and most state laws prohibit gambling: the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 prohibits gambling on sports in most states, and the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 has been interpreted to prohibit online betting. In some states, gambling is a misdemeanor. However, in others, while gambling is generally prohibited, gambling at work may be considered an exception under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it’s expected that millions of workers will participate in office pools related to the Super Bowl.

Employers may want to take this opportunity to clearly delineate their policies and communicate these policies to employees. To eliminate any confusion, employers may want to relay the state law on gambling to employees and define exactly which acts are covered under the law.

2. A widespread case of the Mondays.

If your Super Bowl party goes as it should, you and your guests might have a little more Monday angst than usual. The 2016 Workforce Institute study suggested that one in 10 workers (approximately 16.5 million U.S. employees) were expected to miss work on the Monday after Super Bowl 50 and that almost 10.5 million employees had requested that Monday off.

Is there anything employers can do to curb employees’ absences on Monday? Two initial considerations when managing employee sick time requests are: (1) whether the employee has sick time available; and (2) whether the employer’s sick time policies are enforced uniformly and all employees are treated equally in terms of their requests.

Employers might be able to decrease the likelihood of employees failing to come in on Monday and create morale-building opportunities by taking some proactive steps. For example, an employer could plan a celebratory work event on the Monday after Super Bowl Sunday. Employees will be itching to talk about the ins and outs of the game and the hot new commercials anyway—they may as well do it around a football-shaped cake while wearing their favorite team’s jersey.

3. Online instant replays.

Employees are not just watching games online; they are also streaming them on social media platforms. Last year, Twitter started carrying live streams of professional football games both on its site and on its app. In 2015, Facebook launched a Super Bowl news feed consisting of a live feed, photos and videos from media outlets, posts from users’ “friends,” live scores, and other ways to interact within the Facebook community. As employees watch games online and on apps, in addition to using the company’s email to communicate, companies might experience performance degradation in their computer networks.

This is a good time to remind employees of your company’s Internet use policies as well as any policy on the appropriate use of company-issued devices such as smartphones and tablets. Whichever course employers take, they should be sure to enforce their technology policies uniformly.

With a little foresight and planning—and a few carefully implemented policies—employers can avoid the blitz when it comes to the Super Bowl and workplace productivity.

ARTICLE BY Hera S. Arsen of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

© 2017, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Supreme Court Set to Settle Dispute over Washington Redskins Trademark Registration

Football Washington Redskins TrademarkThere has been another twist in the story of the long battle by Native American interest groups to obtain revocation of the U.S. registration of the infamous Washington Redskins trademark. This is another step in the 20-year journey that began with the initial challenges to the team name.

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Federal Court’s ruling in the case of Lee v Tam. That case involved a rock band called “The Slants”. The leader of the band, Simon Tam, appealed the denial by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the band’s request for trademark registration of the band’s name. The US PTO had denied the band’s application on the grounds that it was offensive to Asian-Americans.

The Federal Circuit Court sided with the band and overturned the US PTO’s ruling. The Court stated that the government “cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.” This decision is summarized in more detail in our prior blog posts on that ruling.

The ruling by the Federal Circuit Court was particularly important to Native Americans and tribes because it was contrary to the prior ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court in a case challenging the Washington Redskins trademark. In that case, Pro-Football, Inc. v Amanda Blackhorse, et al, the Court had sided with the US PTO on the same issue. The Court found that the Redskins trademark was disparaging and invalidated its federal trademark registration.

That case is still pending. Thus, the ruling by the Supreme Court on the validity of the US PTO ruling in Lee v Tam will have important consequences (indeed, it will most likely be decisive) for the Pro-Football case.

The Supreme Court, as in almost all actions granting certiorari review, did not state any reasons for its action, but it is typical for the Supreme Court to accept cases involving issues of national impact when there has been a split in the lower courts. It is good to see that the high court appreciates the importance of this controversial matter, and we will all have to wait and see what the result will be.

ARTICLE BY Fred Schubkegel of Varnum LLP

© 2016 Varnum LLP

Warning: Don’t Use Trademarked Olympic Hashtags, Images

Olympic hashtagsWith all of the hype and public attention paid to the Olympics, you and your employees should be aware of the rules that govern the use of hashtags and images related to the Olympic games. The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have historically been very aggressive in policing any use of the Olympic trademarks, images, and hashtags. This year’s games are no exception.

In the last few weeks, the USOC has sent a number of letters to companies that sponsor athletes (who now happen to be Olympians) but have no sponsorship relationship with the USOC or the IOC warning them not to discuss the games on their corporate social media accounts. Companies have specifically been told that they cannot use the trademarked hashtags “#Rio2016” or “#TeamUSA” in any of their postings. The letters also warn companies not to reference Olympic results or to repost or share anything from the official Olympic social media accounts, this includes use of any Olympic photos, logos, or even congratulatory posts to Olympic athletes. While media companies are largely exempt, all other commercial entities should carefully monitor their social media accounts for any Olympic commentary.

Olympic trademarks are the subject of intense legal protections around the world and the IOC and USOC will pursue alleged offenders regardless of their size. In fact, previous enforcement actions have ranged from trademark suits against small restaurants with the word “Olympic” in their names to issuing cease and desist letters to companies that used trademark hashtags such as #Sochi2014 during past games. Guidelines about Olympic brand usage can be found by clicking here.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer E. Hoekel & Donna Frazier Schmitt of Armstrong Teasdale

© Copyright 2016 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

NFL Commissioner’s Powers Affirmed in Eighth Circuit Ruling on Adrian Peterson Suspension

Adrian PetersonNFL-appointed Arbitrator Harold Henderson’s decision to uphold Commissioner Roger Goodell’s suspension of Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson for alleged child abuse was proper, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled. NFL Players Association v. National Football League et al., No. 15-1438 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016).

The decision marks a further affirmation of Commissioner Goodell’s authority and almost unlimited power to discipline players pursuant to the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement between the League and its players association.

As Boston College Law Professor Warren K. Zola commented, “The power of the NFL commissioner strengthens as 8th Circuit determines ‘fundamental fairness’ is subordinate to collective bargaining.”

The Eighth Circuit’s decision overturned U.S. District Judge David Doty’s February 2015 decision vacating Arbitrator Henderson’s decision to uphold Goodell’s suspension of Peterson for the remainder of the 2014 season after Peterson pled no contest to a charge of misdemeanor reckless assault child abuse charges in November of that year.

The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) had filed a grievance against the NFL on Peterson’s behalf following the suspension, asserting that Peterson should have been disciplined under the League’s prior conduct policy, which authorized only a maximum two-game suspension. Goodell’s appointed arbitrator rejected that argument and upheld the suspension.

The NFLPA had argued before the Eighth Circuit that Judge Doty had properly ruled that the League misapplied a domestic abuse policy enacted after Peterson’s alleged wrongful conduct in violation of the League’s collective bargaining agreement. A three-judge Eighth Circuit panel disagreed, reversing Judge Doty’s decision and concluding the district court had improperly vacated Arbitrator Henderson’s decision upholding the suspension.

The Eighth Circuit stated,

“We conclude that the parties bargained to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator, and the arbitrator acted within his authority, so we reverse the district court’s judgement vacating the arbitration decision.”

ARTICLE BY Gregg E. Clifton of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

800-Meter Champion Berian Eventually Outpaces Nike Endorsement Suit… Or Did He?

runners, corporate sponsorsWorld 800-meter champion Boris Berian is seemingly capable of out-running just about anything these days. Berian is just a year removed from sprinting out of a McDonald’s kitchen and into track lore – essentially trading a fry cook apron for track shorts and blowing away the competition en route to gold at the 2016 world indoor championships. Some months later, the American track star appears to have, at least for the moment, finally put some distance between himself and his former sponsor with the news last month that Nike has decided to drop its breach of contract lawsuit against the soon-to-be Olympian. So, why did Nike split with this up-and-coming track star?

The relationship between Berian and Nike started, as these things typically do, quite harmoniously. After an unexpected second place finish at the Adidas Grand Prix in June 2015, Berian, until then having attracted attention largely for his previous work as a McDonald’s fry cook, caught the eye of several suitors hoping to sponsor him, ultimately selecting the Oregon shoe giant because it came in with the highest offer.

Yet just as quickly as runner and corporate sponsor fell in love, they puzzlingly split. As early as January 2016, Berian was spotted racing in New Balance gear. At the time, Berian’s agent explained that his client’s contract with Nike had expired and that any contractual restrictions against signing another footwear endorsement contract had lapsed.

If the middle distance champion thought he had left Nike in the dust, he was quite mistaken. In April, Nike dashed to court and filed a breach of contract lawsuit. (Nike USA Inc. v. Berian, No. 16-00743 (D. Or. filed April 29, 2016)). Berian was served with notice of the suit seemingly during the only time Nike could catch him: while the runner stood still and watched others compete at a track meet in Los Angeles.

In the complaint, Nike claimed that it had a right of first refusal to match a $125,000 sponsorship deal that Berian had signed with New Balance. Nike further alleged that it had exercised its right of first refusal and matched the New Balance offer, which included $125,000 a year plus a performance bonus, and that therefore Berian had breached the endorsement deal in eloping with New Balance. Nike further asserted that its offer was a match even if it contained reductions (which Nike stated are standard in track and field endorsement contracts) because the New Balance offer was only a brief term sheet (with omitted reductions) and not a complete contract. As a result of the alleged violation, Nike sought an order enjoining Berian from entering into an endorsement relationship with any Nike competitor and from competing while wearing or otherwise endorsing any Nike competitor’s product. Nike claims that it would suffer irreparable harm if Berian is allowed to compete in a competitor’s product, particularly in an Olympic year.

In a response in opposition to a motion for an expedited hearing and discovery on the injunction issue, Berian maintained that he had not breached the deal because Nike did not truly match New Balance’s offer. The crux of Berian’s argument focused on the insertion of the reductions clause in Nike’s offer that allowed Nike to reduce Berian’s compensation in certain circumstances relating to performance, as opposed to New Balance’s offer, which did not contain any reductions.

Nonetheless, in early June, Nike obtained a temporary restraining order barring Berian from wearing New Balance products.

That temporary victory, however, came with rather limited fanfare, a reaction that perhaps served as an indicator of what awaited Nike, both in the courtroom and out. Inside the courthouse halls at oral argument, the judge set to rule on the injunction request reportedly appeared skeptical of the merits of Nike’s case. That perceived skepticism also took the form of criticism in the court of public opinion, with members in the track community decrying the proverbial Goliath for singling out a modern-day David.

Within several weeks, however, Nike had changed course, deciding to drop the suit altogether, in the process adding another chapter to what had quickly become a tumultuous saga. Nike, while maintaining the validity of its breach claims, stated that it opted to drop the suit to eliminate any distraction for Berian who was preparing for the Olympic trials. Berian placed second in those trials and earned a trip to the Rio Olympics at summer’s end. And he did so wearing a New Balance kit.

Ironically enough, Berian’s performance in the trials means that the saga continues into the present.

Nike is the official sponsor of USA Track and Field and, as such, all track and field athletes representing the United States at the Rio Olympics will be outfitted in Nike-branded national team attire in competitions, award ceremonies, official press conferences, and other official team functions.

Berian’s prize, then, for securing a trip to Rio by placing second at the trials?

Glory, sure. And a clean Nike uniform to don at the starting line.

ARTICLE BY L. Robert Batterman, Michael Cardozo, Robert E. Freeman, Howard L. Ganz, Wayne D. Katz and
Joseph M. Leccese of Proskauer Rose LLP

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

No Going Back – Rejection of Promotion Offer Not a Failure to Mitigate

soccer players.jpgGibbs -v- Leeds United Football Club concerned the former Assistant Manager of the Club who took his £330,000 constructive dismissal claim to the High Court so as to sidestep the compensation ceiling in the Employment Tribunal.

Having fairly easily established the fundamental breach of contract necessary to win his claim against Leeds, Mr Gibbs then faced two more difficult questions about his compensation. First, how do you provide for mitigation where you know the dismissed employee is going to get a bonus from his new employer, and when, but don’t know how much it will be?  Second, is it a failure to mitigate that the employee declines to accept an offer of improved employment terms from the old employer?

On the first point, the Judge reviewed the options of (i) estimating the bonus figure (but thereby certainly being wrong in one party’s favour of the other) or (ii) delaying the compensation award until the bonus amount were known, but thereby racking up interest charges for Leeds and denying Mr Gibbs receipt of his money. Note that part of the relevant bonus was due to be paid by Mr Gibbs’ new employer, Tottenham Hotspur FC, little more than four months after the High Court’s decision, at a time of low prevailing interest rates and when Mr Gibbs was safely in receipt of a salary from Spurs and so had no immediate need for the money. Nonetheless, this was still felt to be hardship enough all round to leave that option on the bench.

The Judge chose instead to order that:

  • the full amount of the £330,000 award should be paid to Mr Gibbs’ solicitors to be held in an interest-bearing account;

  • the parties should then agree how much of that could be released to Mr Gibbs (i.e. leaving at least enough in the account to cover any likely bonus award from Spurs); and

  • the rest would be offset against that bonus, with the bonus amount going back to Leeds and the balance to Mr Gibbs, plus interest in each case.

All very sensible and the fact that this was a High Court case in no way prevents a similar Order (or agreement between the parties) being made by the Employment Tribunal where there is a need to reflect an uncertain future receipt in the amount of a settlement or compensation award.

On the second point, was it a failure by Mr Gibbs to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses when he rejected Leeds’ post-resignation offer to stay at Elland Road as Head Coach/Manager? The Judge gave this allegation a fairly short shrift – having found the Club guilty of a repudiatory breach of Mr Gibbs’ contract, it could not fix things so easily.  Though the new role would have been more senior and presumably better paid, the damage caused to Mr Gibbs’ credibility among players and staff by the Club’s earlier treatment of him made it reasonable for him to refuse.  He could have taken the chance that Leeds would change its behaviour towards him, but he was not obliged to do so.  Bear in mind also the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Cooper Contracting -v- Lindsey which stressed just how high is the hurdle of showing a failure to mitigate, and also Buckland –v- Bournemouth University in 2010. There the Court of Appeal decided much against its own better judgment that once the employer was guilty of a repudiatory breach of contract, it could not “mend” that breach by profuse apologies and other appropriate steps afterwards, even if those measures would have undone all or most of the harm caused in the first place.

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
  • See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/no-going-back-rejection-promotion-offer-not-failure-to-mitigate#sthash.ueEsoJnq.dpuf

California Court to PGA Tour Caddies: You'll Get Nothing and Like It!

As the full swing of the PGA season rounds the corner, and with the azaleas blooming at Augusta, the trusted confidants of golf’s premier players have already missed the cut.

Last month, the District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit filed against the PGA Tour by a group of 168 caddies contending that the Tour may not require them to wear shoulder-to-thigh length “bibs” during tournaments, many of which feature the name of the golfer for whom the caddie works (on the back) and the names and logos of tournament sponsors (on the front) (Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 2016 WL 928728 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016)). Among other arguments, the caddies alleged that the Tour missed the fairway and violated their “right of publicity” by using them as “human billboards” for tournament sponsors without compensation.

California, like many other states, recognizes both a statutory and a common law right of publicity. In California, to state a claim for common law misappropriation in violation of the right of publicity, a plaintiff must allege that defendant used the plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity without plaintiff’s consent, to the defendant’s advantage, causing harm to plaintiff. The caddies argued that they had never consented to the Tour’s use of their “likeness and images” in connection with the corporate-sponsored bibs during television broadcasts of tournaments. Lawyers for the caddies estimated the value of chest-front advertising on caddie bibs at $50 million per Tour season, of which the caddies received no cut.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the caddies’ lawsuit last month with prejudice, writing that “(t)he caddies’ overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not.” The court’s ruling relied heavily on the contract that each caddie must sign with the Tour to work an event. The form contract provides that “(c)addies shall wear uniforms…as prescribed by the host tournament and the PGA TOUR,” but does not explicitly require a caddie to wear a tournament bib. The caddies argued that the contract’s particular silence as to bibs precludes the Tour from requiring the caddies to wear the advertisement-laden smocks between the ropes. As a matter of contract interpretation, Judge Chhabria cited the general rule that even where disputed contract language appears ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved as a matter of law where context reveals that the language is susceptible to only one interpretation. The court found context in the caddies’ own admission that the Tour has required them to wear bibs for decades as the primary part of their “uniform.” Therefore, concluded Judge Chhabria, the only reasonable interpretation of the contract is that caddies agreed the Tour could make them wear bibs.

Resting upon this interpretation of the Tour contract, the court ruled that the critical element in the caddies’ right of publicity violation claim was not satisfied, namely, a lack of consent. Because the court interpreted the caddie contract as requiring the caddies to wear bibs, and when read with a provision of the contract whereby caddies assign to the Tour their “individual television, radio, motion picture, photographic, electronic … and all other similar or related media rights” with respect to their participation in Tour events, the court concluded that the caddies consented to the use of their images at tournaments, including any logo on the bibs. Thus, tapping in an easy two-foot putt, the court dismissed the caddies’ claim relating to the right control the commercial use of their likenesses.

Even if the district court’s decision is upheld on appeal, all is not lost. Caddies still possess a long game and can always individually negotiate with sponsors to endorse products and place advertisements on other highly visible parts of the uniform, such as hats and shirt sleeves. Further, the court apparently did find some merit in the caddies’ allegations of poor treatment by the Tour, which may earn them a few strokes in the court of public opinion. So, they got that going for them, which is nice.

Article By Litigation Practice Group of Proskauer Rose LLP

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

California Court to PGA Tour Caddies: You’ll Get Nothing and Like It!

As the full swing of the PGA season rounds the corner, and with the azaleas blooming at Augusta, the trusted confidants of golf’s premier players have already missed the cut.

Last month, the District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit filed against the PGA Tour by a group of 168 caddies contending that the Tour may not require them to wear shoulder-to-thigh length “bibs” during tournaments, many of which feature the name of the golfer for whom the caddie works (on the back) and the names and logos of tournament sponsors (on the front) (Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 2016 WL 928728 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016)). Among other arguments, the caddies alleged that the Tour missed the fairway and violated their “right of publicity” by using them as “human billboards” for tournament sponsors without compensation.

California, like many other states, recognizes both a statutory and a common law right of publicity. In California, to state a claim for common law misappropriation in violation of the right of publicity, a plaintiff must allege that defendant used the plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity without plaintiff’s consent, to the defendant’s advantage, causing harm to plaintiff. The caddies argued that they had never consented to the Tour’s use of their “likeness and images” in connection with the corporate-sponsored bibs during television broadcasts of tournaments. Lawyers for the caddies estimated the value of chest-front advertising on caddie bibs at $50 million per Tour season, of which the caddies received no cut.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the caddies’ lawsuit last month with prejudice, writing that “(t)he caddies’ overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not.” The court’s ruling relied heavily on the contract that each caddie must sign with the Tour to work an event. The form contract provides that “(c)addies shall wear uniforms…as prescribed by the host tournament and the PGA TOUR,” but does not explicitly require a caddie to wear a tournament bib. The caddies argued that the contract’s particular silence as to bibs precludes the Tour from requiring the caddies to wear the advertisement-laden smocks between the ropes. As a matter of contract interpretation, Judge Chhabria cited the general rule that even where disputed contract language appears ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved as a matter of law where context reveals that the language is susceptible to only one interpretation. The court found context in the caddies’ own admission that the Tour has required them to wear bibs for decades as the primary part of their “uniform.” Therefore, concluded Judge Chhabria, the only reasonable interpretation of the contract is that caddies agreed the Tour could make them wear bibs.

Resting upon this interpretation of the Tour contract, the court ruled that the critical element in the caddies’ right of publicity violation claim was not satisfied, namely, a lack of consent. Because the court interpreted the caddie contract as requiring the caddies to wear bibs, and when read with a provision of the contract whereby caddies assign to the Tour their “individual television, radio, motion picture, photographic, electronic … and all other similar or related media rights” with respect to their participation in Tour events, the court concluded that the caddies consented to the use of their images at tournaments, including any logo on the bibs. Thus, tapping in an easy two-foot putt, the court dismissed the caddies’ claim relating to the right control the commercial use of their likenesses.

Even if the district court’s decision is upheld on appeal, all is not lost. Caddies still possess a long game and can always individually negotiate with sponsors to endorse products and place advertisements on other highly visible parts of the uniform, such as hats and shirt sleeves. Further, the court apparently did find some merit in the caddies’ allegations of poor treatment by the Tour, which may earn them a few strokes in the court of public opinion. So, they got that going for them, which is nice.

Article By Litigation Practice Group of Proskauer Rose LLP

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Entrepreneur’s Spotlight: South Loop Strength and Conditioning (Chicago, Illinois)

South LoopWelcome to the latest installment of Entrepreneur’s Spotlight on the Health and Fitness Law Blog.  In this series, we look at successful startups and ventures in the health and fitness industry and interview the hard-working entrepreneurs behind these companies to discuss how they did it and what they learned along the way.

Today, the spotlight is on South Loop Strength and Conditioning (“SLSC”).  SLSC is one of the most popular CrossFit gyms in the greater Chicago area, and is located at 645 S. Clark Street in Chicago, Illinois. For more information on what sets SLCS apart from other gyms in Chicago (and nationwide), please check out its website at http://southloopsc.com/.

SLCS is co-owned and operated by four individuals.  We met with one of the original founders, Todd Nief, to listen to his story.  As you will read below, Todd originally did not have a background in fitness, but he has gone on to obtain a wide variety of certifications, including the following:

  • Certified CrossFit Trainer (CrossFit Level 3)
  • CrossFit Specialty: Movement & Mobility, Running, Powerlifting, Kettlebell
  • DNS “A” Course (Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization)
  • DNS Exercise Level 2 (Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization)
  • FMS Level 2 (Functional Movement Systems)
  • OPEX CCP Level 2 (Formerly OPT)
  • Poliquin BioSignature Level 2
  • POSE Running Coach
  • Precision Nutrition Level 1
  • SFMA Level 2 (Selective Functional Movement Assessment)
  • USA Weightlifting Level 2

Due to the abundance of information Todd was willing to share, we have decided to break this interview into a two part series.  This is Part I of II.  Part II of II will be posted next week.  If you want to learn more or have questions for Todd, he can be reached at todd@southloopsc.com.

Enjoy!

South Loop

H&F Law Blog: You made the transition to CrossFit owner a few years ago.  Could you please tell us a little bit more about how you made the transition from Environmental Consultant to Gym Owner?

Todd Nief:  This was an entirely accidental transition. I had been doing CrossFit on my own for a few years – mostly training out of a Bally’s. So, I was the weird guy doing weird stuff that I should not have been doing and attempting to lift weights that I had no business lifting. I mostly followed workouts from www.crossfit.com but I also had gone in to CrossFit Chicago to receive a bit of instruction.

I had started going in to Atlas CrossFit on occasion so that I would be able to do workouts with a lot of weight dropping (they did not like that at Bally’s) as well as things like ring muscle-ups. I was not expecting to coach there, but, after being around a bit, I started working with some of the beginner classes there right around the time that I was laid off from my consulting gig.

After spending about a year at Atlas, I wanted to run a facility based upon what I considered to be best practices in coaching and training. So, I started looking into what it would take to open a gym and began heading down that path. Within the CrossFit community, there is a lot of glorification of the gym owner (which makes sense from a business model perspective as well…), so it never seemed that impossible to get into the gym business – especially after seeing some of the back-end of what a successful gym looked like

H&F Law Blog: What was the hardest part of going into business for yourself?  Who did you look to for advice when you first started out?

Todd Nief: Well I certainly had absolutely no understanding of business, sales or marketing. I was a coach and a musician with a chemical engineering degree – as well as a negative attitude towards business based upon a youth spent in punk, metal and hardcore.  So, the most consistently challenging thing for me has been overcoming my own negative and maladjusted thoughts surrounding what it means to own a business and what it means to promote yourself, take money from people, and hold others accountable to your principles (employees, clients, business partners, investors, etc).

We also opened probably about 9 months too late to really reap the benefit of “early adopters” to the CrossFit program. The gyms that opened about a year before us basically had to do nothing to attract clients, since they were some of the first gyms in the city and all they had to do was open up and put “CrossFit” on the door. There was a whole city of people learning about CrossFit and searching out gyms. By the time we opened, there was a certain level of saturation and a lot of the early adopters had already found a home.  So, we were in a position where – to have success out the gate – we would have needed to open at scale and have an understanding of marketing, positioning, sales funnels, and customer experience. Instead, we opened in a little hallway on the second floor of another gym with an attitude towards sales and marketing that resembled a depressed vegan sixteen-year-old talking shit about McDonald’s (I was that teenager).

And, man, we also really got kicked around on the real estate market quite a bit (leases falling through, leases not being countersigned, lack of respect from landlords, etc.)

H&F Law Blog: What was one thing you expected would be easy in owning or managing the business that was actually much more difficult than anticipated?

Todd Nief: I do not know if “easy” is the right word, but the CrossFit community has a lot of cultural push towards a meritocracy of marketing that I think is, at best, misguided and, at worst, disingenuous and pandering.  The assumption is that, by providing a great service to your clients and getting them results, they will do all the marketing for you and you can focus on coaching. This may work in an early adopter environment, but, as soon as the market reaches a certain level of saturation, this is an impossible way to exist and grow a business.

So, I got into the business to coach, and now my main role is understanding how to grow the business – by understanding how to communicate with potential clients and how to reach them.  I do not think I ever thought that marketing was easy, but I also underestimated how much marketing I would be doing.

H&F Law Blog: Conversely, is there anything that you expected would be difficult that turned out to be very easy to manage or figure out?

Todd Nief: This is a tough question for me, since I think that I generally assume that most things will be “difficult” but that I also trust myself to be able to figure them out.

I think that a lot of businesses have a lot of challenges around hiring, finding the right people, and raising cash when they need it. We have certainly had some frustrating, bizarre, and sketchy endeavors in all of these arenas, but we have also had some insanely fortuitous occurrences here as well – one employee leaving and another walking in the door within a few days, one investor flaking out and another reaching out within a few weeks, one lease falling through and another falling into our lap, etc..

Picture--Crossfit Gym

H&F Law Blog: It is my understanding that there are a few different owners of SLSC, and these owners have slightly changed over time without any hiccups in the business.  Speaking from our experience as outside general counsel to gyms with multiple owners, conflicts come up all the time between owners of gyms and we are often asked to interpret poorly drafted or virtually non-existent Operating Agreements or Shareholder Agreements (drafted by other attorneys, of course!).  How has South Loop Strength and Conditioning managed to have multiple owners (including some transition of owners), while running one of the elite CrossFit facilities in Chicago?

Todd Nief: Fortunately, one of my partners is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, so he was able to get us set up with a pretty sturdy operating agreement when we started the business.  The business started as three of us, and there are now four; over four years we have removed one partner from the operating agreement and added two.

While the operating agreement did make these processes pretty clear in terms of what removal and addition of partners looks like, I think one of the biggest things here has been maintaining a level of respect between partners.  Even when one of our original partners was dissociating (which does not tend to happen if things are going swimmingly), there was never any bad blood and things never became unprofessional in that process. The operating agreement pretty clearly stated that we would buy out his shares for an agreed upon fair market value, so we crunched some numbers, went back and forth on a few things, and came to an agreement pretty quickly.  In terms of adding partners, it was a situation where two people came along at the right time that had an interest in the business and the right skillset to jump in and move us forward, so – similarly – we hashed out agreements that we thought were fair and amended our then-existing agreements.

[Note from Aaron Werner (Health and Fitness Attorney/Interviewer): Be sure you have a very clear and enforceable Operating Agreement (LLCs) or Shareholders’ Agreement (Corporations) when starting or buying a business with other people.  If you are raising outside capital, you need to be very careful about the securities laws involved concerning fundraising and documenting the business deal with your investors.  Be sure to work with an attorney well-versed in Operating Agreements/Shareholders’ Agreements/Other Fundraising Documents.]

H&F Law Blog: What advice do you have for other people that are going to go into business with other co-owners of a gym or studio?  What characteristics in your own business partners makes your partnership work so well?

Todd Nief: This is a somewhat challenging question since I think that this is somewhat similar to hiring – and there are many books and courses and videos and seminars and masterminds on this topic.

There are all kinds of things you can do to vet people, but the only consistent thing that works seems to be working with them to see what happens. Sometimes you make good calls, and sometimes you make bad calls.  And, similarly to hiring, sometimes you meet the right person at the right time, and then you can end up starting some gym together and having to figure out a bunch of stuff that no one ever told you before.

People say all kinds of corny stuff about vision and mission and whatnot, but that is all kind of inspirational quote fodder as far as I am concerned. I think there are basic understandings of how human beings should relate to each other that are essential for an effective partnership – most important is honestly probably generally treating other people with respect, whether that is clients, employees, or your other partners. Once contempt, deceit or manipulation enter a relationship, it can be impossible to salvage.

So, my advice would be to work with people before you enter into a partnership with them so that you know what you are getting into.

To be continued next week…

Article By Aaron D. Werner of Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered
© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2016. All Rights Reserved.

USCIS Proposal May Increase Strike Zone for Professional Athletes

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed new guidance for adjudicating O-1 visa petitions for athletes and other individuals of extraordinary ability in certain fields. If the proposal becomes effective, athletes will have greater flexibility in satisfying the O-1 visa criteria.

Under current USCIS regulations, an athlete may qualify for an O-1 visa by demonstrating extraordinary ability in his or her field in one of three ways: (A) by reason of a nomination or receipt of a significant national or international award; (B) by meeting a certain number of listed criteria; or (C) by submitting “comparable evidence” when the listed criteria in part (B) do not readily apply.

Part (A) is fairly straightforward. For example, winning a Gold Glove award would qualify the athlete. The same goes for league MVP or an Olympic gold medal. If an athlete does not meet Part (A), Part (B) requires meeting at least three of the USCIS criteria,  such as receiving lesser but still nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, being written about in major media, making athletic contributions of major significance, being employed in a critical capacity for a prestigious organization, and commanding a high salary.

If an athlete does not meet Part (B), then Part (C), the catch-all “comparable evidence,” aka “alternate but equivalent,” should be considered. But here’s the rub: the regulatory text is not clear as to exactly when comparable evidence may be considered. Can applicants go directly to Part (C) or must they meet a certain number of the Part (B) criteria before comparable evidence could be considered? Moreover, must an athlete show that all or a majority of the Part (B) criteria do not readily apply?

The proposed guidance attempts to clarify this ambiguity, stating that comparable evidence can be considered on a criterion-by-criterion basis. That is, to an athlete need not first satisfy a minimum number of the Part (B) criterion before moving on to Part (C). An athlete must show only that any single criterion does not readily apply to his or her field before offering comparable evidence as to that criterion, as well as why the submitted evidence is “comparable” to the Part (B) criterion listed in the regulations. In addition, a petitioner relying upon comparable evidence still must establish the beneficiary’s eligibility by satisfying at least three separate evidentiary criteria, as required under the regulations.

According to the proposal, even if awards aren’t given for the league’s best on-base percentage or for singlehandedly increasing ticket sales, it’s certainly comparable evidence. It’s time to start thinking outside the batter’s box. This proposed guidance would make the path to an O-1 visa a little clearer.

Article By Gregg E. Clifton of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016