Sports Archives - Page 4 of 4 - The National Law Forum

Let the NFL Season Begin: Judge Overturns Arbitration Award Suspending Tom Brady

Tom Brady will begin the 2015 NFL season as the starting quarterback of the New England Patriots for the 14th consecutive season following U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman’s grant of the National Football League Players Association’s motion to vacate NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s July 28, 2015, arbitration award imposing a four-game suspension on Brady. This forestalled the suspension before it was scheduled to take effect on September 5.

Judge Berman found the NFL failed to show it applied Article 46 of its collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA fairly and consistently.

This decision is the fourth time a legal authority has challenged the NFL’s application of Article 46, following U.S. District Judge David Doty in the Adrian Peterson case, former Federal Judge Barbara Jones in the Ray Rice arbitration, and former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in his opinion regarding the Saints players in Bountygate.

While judges rarely vacate arbitration awards, Judge Berman identified specific problems with the Brady arbitration hearing held by Goodell, including denial of access to key witnesses, which can be grounds to vacate an arbitration award. He found problematic the denial of NFLPA attorneys’ request to question NFL general counsel Jeffrey Pash, who edited the Wells Report before its release.

In addition, Judge Berman criticized Goodell for using the League’s collectively bargained steroid punishment policy to justify the suspension. Recognizing that the policy’s procedures are irrelevant to the allegations made against Brady, Judge Berman wrote that the steroid policy “cannot reasonably be used as a comparator for Brady’s four-game suspension for alleged ball deflation by others.”

Judge Berman also found decisions cited by the NFL to support confirming the arbitration award to be distinguishable. While Article 46 authorizes the League to use Goodell as the arbitrator for player appeals, Judge Berman concluded the “law of the shop,” requiring fairness and consistency, prohibits Goodell from rendering a decision that may have been compromised by bias.

The next phase of this litigation has already begun. The NFL recognizes that a motion seeking a stay of Judge Berman’s decision would require a showing of “irreparable harm,” and its argument would fall short on this score.

The NFL filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit within hours of Judge Berman’s decision.

Therefore, the immediate impact of Judge Berman’s decision is that Tom Brady can play in the first four games of the upcoming NFL season. Indeed, because of the Notice of Appeal, Judge Berman’s decision does not yet have precedential authority. However, the long-term effect of Judge Berman’s decision is far-reaching and considerable for the NFL, the NFLPA, and any private arbitral process governed by a collective bargaining agreement.

The NFL’s appeal faces the burden of convincing two appellate judges that Judge Berman misapplied the law.

Each case presents unique issues and facts, appellate courts typically do not reverse district court judges on their orders to vacate or confirm arbitration awards. The NFL likely will rely on strong legal precedent discouraging federal judges from interfering with a private arbitrator’s decision. In his 40-page decision, Judge Berman reasoned that the NFL failed to provide notice to Brady that being aware of deflated footballs and obstructing an investigation were misconduct justifying a four-game suspension. The NFL will undoubtedly argue that the “lack of notice” argument is irrelevant where the collective bargaining agreement gives the Commissioner complete authority to evaluate the definition of “conduct detrimental” to the League and to issue punishments based upon that determination. This is the authority provided by the NFLPA to the Commissioner under the current collective bargaining agreement and the NFL will argue it was not required to provide such “notice.” The NFL likely will also stress that Judge Berman’s decision to vacate Brady’s suspension reflects a complete disregard of judicial precedents confirming arbitration awards.

Clearly, this matter is not about Tom Brady, deflated footballs, or even NFL’s investigation. Rather, the appeal is about the NFL seeking to protect its internal arbitral process. Indeed, 38-year-old Tom Brady may even be retired by the time the appeals are ultimately resolved and a final determination is made.

Should the Second Circuit affirms Judge Berman’s decision, it will create a stronger precedent for the NFLPA to challenge future discipline issued through the NFL’s arbitral process. The Second Circuit’s precedent also will have potential far-reaching implications on all employers who utilize a private arbitration governed by a collective bargaining agreement, especially in light of the broad authority afforded to the Commissioner in the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement.

Article By Gregg E. Clifton & Benjamin A. Tulis of Jackson Lewis P.C.

NFL vs. Brady: NFL Wins Initial Venue Battle

Round One of Deflategate has concluded…it’s now time for Round Two.

The initial battle over judicial forums between the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) to find the most favorable venue to support their legal position has ended with U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle ordering the NFLPA’s Petition To Vacate The Arbitration Award rendered by Commissioner Roger Goodell(Goodell) to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Within hours after Goodell upheld the four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, the League’s Management Council had launched a preemptive strike against the NFLPA by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the NFL is headquartered, seeking to confirm Goodell’s “Final Decision on Article 46 Appeal of Tom Brady.” (Article 46 of the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining contract allows discipline of a player for conduct “detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”) . The case has been assigned to Judge Richard Berman and he already has ordered the NFLPA to respond to the NFL’s filing by August 13^th, well before the standard period to answer a complaint.

Brady and the NFLPA attempted an end run around the New York action in the historically player-friendly federal district court in Minnesota. They filed a Petition To Vacate Goodell’s Arbitration Award. Relying on a history of success in this venue, Brady and the NFLPA sought to vacate Goodell’s award. They were blocked, however, on July 30th when the Minnesota court said the Brady and his union must do battle with the NFL in New York in light of the league’s earlier, first-filed suit.

Absent any change in the NFPLA’s litigation, Brady and the NFLPA may be expected to respond to the NFL action directly, contending (as they attempted to do in Minnesota) that Goodell:

disregarded the “law of the shop” which requires NFL players to have advance notice of potential discipline,
disregarded the “law of the shop” that conduct detrimental discipline be fair and consistent,
denied Brady access to evidence and witnesses central to his appeal and his rights to a fundamentally fair hearing, and
was incapable of serving as an impartial arbitrator as a result of his handling Brady’s initial discipline and appeal.

Specifically, the NFLPA asserts that there was no direct evidence of Brady’s culpability cited in the report prepared by NFL-appointed investigator, attorney Ted Wells, and his investigative team, and that Goodell’s discipline was based on a “general awareness” standard created by the Commissioner to justify an “absurd and unprecedented punishment”. The NFLPA also asserts that no NFL player has ever served a suspension for “non-cooperation” or “obstruction,” as Goodell has imposed upon Brady.

The NFLPA had hoped that its action would be heard before U.S. District Judge David S. Doty, in Minneapolis. In February, Judge Doty vacated an award in the Adrian Peterson child abuse disciplinary matter when he determined that the discipline issued to Peterson was inappropriate for lack of notice and that the discipline imposed was based upon a policy that didn’t exist at the time of the Peterson’s alleged rule violation. But Brady’s case was assigned to Judge Richard Kyle, instead, who “perceive[d] no reason for this action to proceed in Minnesota.”

Here, based on its previous Minnesota claims, the NFLPA had hoped to reprise a similar argument on behalf of Brady. Now the union will be forced to assert those arguments in the NFL’s selected venue. The union will assert similar arguments to U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman and allege that Brady was never informed he could be punished for his refusal to turn over his cellphone to Wells and his team. It may also ask the New York court to vacate the Goodell arbitration decision before the Patriots’ regular-season opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers — or issue an injunction that allows Brady to play.

The dual filings of the NFL and NFLPA presented an interesting legal issue: which lawsuit has priority? Typically, when federal judges are faced with the issue of deciding which of twocompetinglawsuits filed in separate federal jurisdictions has priority, they usually invoke the first-to-file rule. While this rule is not codified, the rule is generally considered an appropriate case management mechanism within the federal system. In general, the first-to-file rule gives priority to the first action filed over the subsequent action. The general judicial interpretation of the rule gives the decision making authority of the precedence of the first filed action to the district court judge assigned to that suit.

Federal courts have applied exceptions to the first-to-file rule if its application would create an injustice upon the party that filed the second action. One such exception that presents a strong argument against giving the first filed suit priority is the “anticipatory suit” exception. The purpose of this exception is to discourage procedurally unfair suits filed to frustrate settlement discussions, or to engage in brinkmanship, or to transform a party from defendant to plaintiff not to pursue a claim or right.

One specific rationale that supports the application of “anticipatory suit” exception is the court’s pursuit of procedural fairness. This specific rationale reflects the general judicial concern that a plaintiff should not lose its choice of the forum because the defendant anticipated the impending suit and preemptively struck by filing suit first in a different court.

Here, Judge Kyle specifically acknowledged that the NFL’s filing of the New York action “triggered application of the first-filed rule.” Judge Kyle acknowledged that the rule recognizes “comity between coequal federal courts and promotes the efficient use of judicial resources by authorizing a later-filed, substantially similar action’s transfer, stay or dismissal in deference to an earlier case”.

Judge Kyle concluded that the actions filed in Minnesota by the NFLPA and the NFL’s action filed in New York were almost duplicative and that the two cases and the issues presented in both were “flip-sides of the same coin.” In conclusion, Judge Kyle stated that the “cases are part and parcel of the same whole and should be heard together in the most appropriate forum: the Southern District of New York, where the arbitration occurred, the Award issued, and the first action concerning the Award was commenced.”

While acknowledging the order that the case should be heard in New York, NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler stated, “We are happy in any federal court, which unlike the arbitration before Goodell provides a neutral forum, and we will now seek our injunction in the New York court.”

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

The Redskins Decision: Much Ado About (Probably) Not Much

I’ve been having fun listening to commentators – most of whom appear to know little or nothing about trademark law – expound on last week’s decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel six trademark registrations for variations of the wordREDSKINS as the name of Washington, D.C.’s pro football team. One observer described it as a “landmark” decision, and several have prophesied that it marks “the beginning of the end” of the team’s controversial nickname.

The decision may turn out to have significant impact on the team politically and in terms of public relations. But legally…not so much.

Into the Time Machine

Many of the “beginning of the end” analyses treat the TTAB decision as a referendum on current public opinion about the Redskins name issue. A spokesman for the National Congress of American Indians, which supported the plaintiffs, said, “I don’t know how the team doesn’t recognize at this point that it’s not just a small group of Indians anymore. It’s more than that. People and fans and the country itself are saying, ‘Let’s just change the name.’”

Maybe they are – but the TTAB decision has nothing to do with that. As the dissenting judge (it was a 2-1 decision) wrote, “To be clear, this case is not about the controversy, currently playing out in the media, over whether the term “redskins,” as the name of Washington’s professional football team, is disparaging to Native Americans today.” The task before the TTAB was not to render a judgment on the propriety of naming a football team the Redskins. Rather, the task before the TTAB was to conduct a kind of time-machine research project: to determine, as a matter of empirical historical fact, whether the term Redskins was considered offensive by a “substantial composite” (not necessarily a majority) of the Native American population at the time when the first of the REDSKINS registrations was granted – in 1967.

In performing this task, the Board was limited to the evidence placed in the record by the parties. It didn’t do any independent research or fact-finding of its own, and it was not allowed to take “judicial notice” of any information that may have come its way by other means. This procedural limitation is crucial to understanding why the decision may be vulnerable to being overturned on appeal.

“Déjà Vu All Over Again”

It is important to bear in mind that we have passed this way before. In 1999, in a case called Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., the TTAB canceled the very same six trademark registrations for the very same reason: that the word “redskin” was considered disparaging by Native Americans at the time the registrations were granted. Pro Football appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and won: the court overruled the Board’s decision, holding – bear with me, this is the important part – that the evidence concerning the disparaging nature of the term “redskin” in 1967 was insufficient. The petitioners then appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court – without disturbing the ruling on insufficient evidence. The six registrations – which had remained intact throughout the appeal process – were thus definitively preserved.

Flash forward. The case decided last week, Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., was essentially a re-run of Harjo, with different plaintiffs but with essentially the same evidence. The parties stipulated that all the testimony, expert reports, affidavits, and other documents from Harjo would be received into evidence in Blackhorse as well, and the new petitioners made a strategic decision not to add any substantial new evidence.

Same Evidence, Same Result?

This appears to have worked well in the TTAB: the same tribunal, asked to decide the same issue by examining the same evidence, came to the same conclusion.

But the same strategic decision may backfire in the appellate courts. Note what happened in Blackhorse: the petitioners went into court armed solely with a body of evidence that a higher court had already ruled was insufficient. As the dissent inBlackhorse wrote, “The consequence of petitioners’ decision to rely on the same evidence [that was] previously found insufficient to support cancellation[,] without substantial augmentation[,] is that the evidence before the Board in this case remains insufficient as well.”

Will the appellate courts agree, and overturn the Board’s decision a second time? The picture is clouded by the fact that, owing to an intervening restructuring of the federal court system, the initial appeal might be heard this time by the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Virginia, rather than the District of Columbia. Will the new court agree with the old? Only time will tell. But the petitioners may have a hard time persuading anycourt that a body of evidence already deemed insufficient had somehow grown in stature merely as the result of growing 15 years older.

The initial aftermath of Blackhorse, however, will be much the same as that of Harjo. The TTAB has already stayed execution of the Blackhorse decision on the assumption that Pro Football will appeal. So the six REDSKINS registrations will remain in full force and effect throughout the appeal process, which could take several years (as it did last time).

What Impact?

Let’s suppose that Pro Football’s appeal ultimately fails, and that the six registrations are, finally and definitively, canceled. What then? The fact is that the impact of such an outcome on the Washington Redskins team would likely be far less than many observers have suggested.

For starters, the team would not need to change its name. The TTAB decision does not cancel the REDSKINS trademarks, only the federal registrations for those marks. To be sure, federal registration provides important benefits. But as my trademark law students could tell you, under U.S. trademark law rights ultimately come from use of a mark in commerce, and even unregistered marks can become quite strong by virtue of long-standing and widespread use, substantial investment in advertising and promotion, and strong “name recognition” among the public. By any of those measures, REDSKINS is a very strong mark indeed, and Pro Football would not find it difficult to enforce its common-law trademark rights against infringers.

Purely as a matter of legal and economic reality, the post-cancellation world of the Washington Redskins might not look much different than the current one.

IP Rights and Censorship

All this, of course, addresses only what may happen as a result of what is done in courts of law. The court of public opinion is a different matter. Blackhorse appears to have triggered significantly stronger public reaction than Harjo, which may help bring other forces to bear on the situation.

One thing that has not changed is my conviction that deciding issues of this nature is not a job for the Trademark Office. The judges who decide cases in the TTAB are experts on trademark law. They shouldn’t be expected to be experts on the kinds of social and political issues that drive cases like this one, or even on the kind of historical research questions such cases present. Nor do they have the opportunity to submit fact issues to a jury, which might be better positioned to render a verdict about what is or is not “immoral” or “scandalous.”

The Lanham Act is the only intellectual property statute that includes a censorship provision. Why do we feel it is improper to place a government “stamp of approval” (the ® symbol) on a trademark that is “immoral” or “scandalous,” when we have no qualms about placing another such symbol (the © symbol) on copyrighted pornography or hate speech, which we do all the time?

The Redskins case raises many interesting, and important, issues. But none of them are really trademark issues. That’s why their ultimate resolution will likely have little to do with what happened in the Trademark Office last week.

Article By:

John C. Blattner

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Do Public School Athletic Leagues Have To Admit Private Schools?

Liberty Christian Academy (LCA), a private high school in Lynchburg, Virginia, has filed an antitrust action against the Virginia High School League (VHSL), a non-profit organization of public high schools in Virginia. The lawsuit was filed June 2, 2014 in the Charlottesville Division of the Western District of Virginia.

The VHSL organizes public schools into districts and regions for purposes of conducting athletic competitions and statewide playoffs. LCA filed its lawsuit because, as a private school, LCA is barred from membership in the VHSL and claims to be unable, with limited exceptions, to schedule athletic games with the nearby public schools. LCA complains that it has to travel far distances to play games against inferior opponents. LCA argues that the VHSL’s rules are akin to a group boycott and constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The relevant markets alleged in the Complaint are the markets for commercial exhibition of high school football contests and basketball contests in Virginia.

Although some states allow private high schools to join their public high school athletic leagues, other states have separate private and public leagues, such as Virginia, Maryland and Texas. In the lawsuit, LCA argues that the prohibition on non-public high school membership in the VHSL has no pro-competitive purpose and cannot be justified on any claimed basis that it is necessary to promote fair on-field competition. I suspect that the ability of private schools to recruit and give scholarships to football and basketball players from a wide geographic area (unlike public schools who have to find players within their own geographic district) would be one of the reasons for the VHSL’s rule.

The Complaint’s reference to the “integration of public and private schools into one athletic association” appears to suggest a strained analogy to civil rights and the racial integration of public schools in Virginia. LCA should be very careful in suggesting any such analogy, given that LCA was specifically founded in 1967 as a segregation academy in response to the integration of public schools in Virginia. There is no small amount of irony in LCA’s complaint that it is being excluded and segregated from public school athletic competition.

Several public high school athletic programs are described in the Complaint. These schools are very familiar to my ears: T.C. Williams in Alexandria, famous from the movie Remember the Titans; football powerhouse Oscar Smith High School in Chesapeake; and Brookville High School outside Lynchburg, my fathers’ almar mater and the arch rival of my high school, Jefferson Forest.

Article By:

Jason C. Hicks

Of:

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Northwestern Scholarship Football Players Found to be Employees Eligible for Union Representation

Peter Sung Ohr, the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election pertaining to the effort of the Northwestern University football players to unionize. The Regional Director found that scholarship football players at Northwestern University are “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and eligible for union representation. The Regional Director found appropriate a bargaining unit composed of “all football players receiving a grant-in-aid football scholarship and not having exhausted their playing eligibility.”

The Regional Director used the common law definition of employee in reaching his decision. Under the common law test, a person is an employee if he performs a service for another, under a contract of hire, for compensation, and is subject to the other’s right of control. He found the following:

The scholarship football players perform a service (playing football) for compensation (a scholarship)
The scholarship players’ commitments to play football in exchange for the scholarship constitutes a contract for hire
The scholarship players are under the control of the University for the entire year, including in-season and out-of-season workouts, restrictions on their entire personal life and detailed regulations players must follow at the risk of losing their scholarship

The Regional Director decided the NLRB’s 2004 Brown University decision, in which the NLRB found graduate assistants not to be employees of the university, to be inapplicable here because playing football is not part of the players’ academic degree program. However, he wrote that even if the Brown University test was applied, the scholarship football players would be found to be employees. He noted:

The scholarship players are not primarily students due to the 50-60 hours a week during the season that they devote to football
The scholarship players’ football “duties” do not constitute a part of their academic degree requirements
The academic faculty does not supervise the players’ football duties; rather, coaches who are not part of the faculty do so
The grant-in-aid football scholarship is not need-based like the financial aid other students receive but is given solely in exchange for playing football

The Regional Director rejected two additional arguments made by the University:

He decided the scholarship football players are not “temporary employees” (who are generally ineligible to participate in collective bargaining) because they work more than 40 hours a week during the season, work year round, expect to work for 4-5 years and play football as their prime consideration
He did not include the “walk-on” players in the bargaining unit. He found that they are not employees within the meaning of the NLRA because they do not receive a scholarship and are not subject to the conditions for its receipt

The University now has until April 9, 2014 to file a Request for Review to appeal the Regional Director’s ruling to the NLRB in Washington, D.C.

Article By:

Gregg E. Clifton

Paul V. Kelly

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

New Antitrust Suit Takes Aim at NCAA Model

The NCAA’s amateurism model is once again under fire — this time in an antitrust lawsuit filed by sports labor attorney Jeffrey Kessler. Kessler, on behalf of four named current men’s basketball and football players (Clemson football player Martin Jenkins, Rutgers basketball player Johnathan Moore, Texas El-Paso football player Kevin Perry, and University of California basketball player William Tyndall), alleges the NCAA and the five major conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12 Conference, the Big Ten Conference, the Pac-12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference; these conferences currently include 62 member institutions) have entered into “cartel agreements” that unlawfully cap the compensation paid to student-athletes.

The suit seeks to eliminate current NCAA and conference amateurism regulations and create a market where institutions compete for the services of men’s basketball and football players in a less regulated way. This would be a major shift from the NCAA’s current amateur model to one similar to free agency in professional sports that would permit student-athletes to attend the highest bidding institution.

“We believe that the business has grown so big in Division I men’s basketball and in the football championship series system that we believe that judges, jurors, the public, the media and many in college sports themselves recognize that change has to come,” Kessler told The Wall Street Journal.

Currently, student-athletes are eligible only to receive tuition, room and board, and course-related books from the institutions they attend. The suit refers to these limitations as “an artificial and unlawful ceiling.”

The current restrictions on student-athlete compensation also are characterized in the suit as a “patently unlawful price-fixing and group boycott arrangement.” The suit alleges the NCAA and its member institutions “have lost their way far down the road of commercialism, signing multi-billion dollar contracts wholly disconnected from the interests of ‘student athletes,’ who are barred from receiving the benefits of competitive markets for their services even though their services generate these massive revenues.”

Valuing the current broadcast rights for the NCAA Tournament at $11 billion and the College Football Playoff at $5.64 billion, the suit alleges student-athletes are not sufficiently rewarded for the financial success of men’s basketball and football.

“The main objective is to strike down permanently the restrictions that prevent athletes in Division I basketball and the top tier of college football from being fairly compensated for the billions of dollars in revenues that they help generate,” Kessler told ESPN. “In no other business — and college sports is big business — would it ever be suggested that the people who are providing the essential services work for free. Only in big-time college sports is that line drawn.”

The suit questions why coaches, and not student-athletes, should benefit from the massive, and growing, revenues of college football and men’s basketball. It says that, “flush with cash and unable to compete for athletes on the basis of financial remuneration, colleges have directed their resources and competitive efforts to, among other things, the hiring of head coaches, instead of players.”

The suit seeks to permanently enjoin the alleged antitrust violations and to recover individual damages for the named plaintiffs.

Michael Ackerstein also contributed to this post.

Article by:

Gregg E. Clifton

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

NCAA Compensation Cartel Allegations Take Center Court – National Collegiate Athletics Association

On March 17, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), alleging that capping compensation to college athletes violates Sherman Act Section 1.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Division I college football and men’s basketball players, and named five major conferences within the NCAA as co-defendants: the Atlantic Coast (ACC), Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12, and Southeastern (SEC). The suit alleges that “Defendants have entered into what amounts to cartel agreements with the avowed purpose and effect of placing a ceiling on the compensation that may be paid to these athletes for their services.” Currently under NCAA rules, colleges may only compensate student athletes with a “full grant-in-aid” (the amount of tuition, room and board, and textbooks).

The complaint goes on to state that the NCAA “rules constitute horizontal agreements” among the defendants who drafted and agreed upon the rules, yet “compete with each other for the services of top-tier college football and men’s basketball players.” In addition to monetary damages, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that would allow colleges to freely negotiate with and compensate student athletes. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

Article By:

Young Cynn

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery

Does March Madness = Workplace Madness? Some Thoughts on the Legality of NCAA Bracket Pools and the Tournament’s Effect on the Workplace

With the Olympics now behind us (were they ever in front of us?), this time of year usually marks the sports netherworld between the Super Bowl and the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament, which is better known as March Madness. This lull provides employers with an excellent opportunity to contemplate the issues that March Madness creates in their workplace. We explore some of those issues below.

Participating in a NCAA Bracket Pool: Everyone Else Does It, So Why Can’t We?

Nothing presages the coming of spring like the NCAA Tournament, and concurrently, perhaps nothing is as ubiquitous in the American workplace during this time period as NCAA bracket pools. Estimates of participating Americans are in the 50-60 million range and we can totally understand why. Even President Obama completes a bracket each year (he even picked last year’s winner correctly). And we expect those numbers to go up because of contests like these: Quicken Loans is offering a $1 billion prize to anyone who completes the perfect bracket. The chances of doing that: 1 in 9.2 quintillion (9 with about eighteen zeroes after it, or the same odds of the Knicks winning the NBA Championship this year. Please come to New York Phil Jackson. Please.).

The typical workplace bracket pool scenario involves an email attaching a bracket or an embedded link to a website that requires you to sign up for and complete an online bracket; think: ESPN.com or cbsports.com (whose home page even promotes “co-worker” participation). Sometimes these e-mails are sent office-wide, other times they are limited to a select group of employees. The typical entry fee can range from $5 to $20 per bracket, with the winner collecting the biggest payout and the second and third place finishers collecting more moderate sums. Some brackets also return the last place “winner” his or her entry fee (see: probably you at least once in the last 10 years). The pool “manager” may also take a cut for dealing with the administrative burden (including having to stop by your cubicle at least twice a day for your entry fee). Of course, all this varies from pool to pool. We’ve heard of pools where the winner gets to donate the collected entry fees to the charity of his or her choice (awwww). We’ve heard of pools going in the opposing direction: $1,000 per entry, winner takes all (grrrrrr). Overall, close to $2.5 billion is wagered on the tournament.

But is any of this legal? The results are mixed. On the federal level, probably not; on the state level, it depends on the state. Participation in a bracket pool may violate at least two federal laws. NCAA bracket pools that are conducted across state lines (i.e. a company pool involving offices from several states) or which are managed online (the vast majority), could violate the Interstate Wire Act of 1961. There is a “fantasy sports” exception to that law, but bracket pools don’t seem to fit within that exception since they require the individual to bet on the outcomes of the games. Participation in these bracket pools may also violate the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which prohibits wagers on sports anywhere, except in certain grandfathered states (Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana).

On the state level, while most states ban gambling, their gaming laws provide exceptions for so-called “social” or “recreational” gambling. While the particulars vary, to qualify for these exceptions: (1) all of the money in a pool must go to a winner or a charitable organization (i.e. the “house” does not receive any of the proceeds); (2) there must be a maximum amount a person can wager (like a $20 entry fee), and (3) the pool must be limited to a certain number of people with pre-existing relationships (like co-workers). Thus, in certain states, NCAA bracket pools that meet these requirements may be permissible. In Wisconsin, by contrast, NCAA bracket pools are illegal without exception. Sad, considering the Badgers are set to make a serious run at the NCAA Championship this year.

Based on the above, especially because of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the simplest and safest approach for (non-Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana) employers would be to prohibit NCAA bracket pools in the office. But realizing that this will likely not be the majority approach, if you are an employer comfortable enough to allow your employees to run an NCAA bracket pool, we would recommend setting certain parameters, including: (1) requiring employees to complete paper brackets instead of participating online, (2) prohibiting bracket pools that will result in employees participating in offices located across multiple states; (3) prohibiting employees from using company e-mail or printers to administer the pool; (4) limiting the entry fees (i.e. $20 or less), (5) ensuring that the collected entry fees are distributed to the winner(s) (or charitable organization) and no portion goes to the house; and (6) threatening discipline if any employee pressures any other employee to participate in a bracket pool. Another option altogether is to allow your workers to participate in a bracket pool for free, with the winner collecting a prize.

Watching the Games: Everybody Else is Watching, So Why Can’t We?

Completing a bracket is one thing, but watching the games is where the fun really begins. You wake up Thursday morning annoyed that there’s still five hours before the first game tips off. Wait, this is 2014, not 2000; the tournament now boasts of 68 teams and starts on Tuesday with the “First Four” play-in games. But in reality, the tournament “starts” on Thursday, and in anticipation, your employees (and maybe even you) have probably done the following:

(a) downloaded the CBS Sports app onto their computer, tablet or mobile device that will allow them to stream the games into their workspaces

(b) arranged to watch some games at an “extended” lunch with some co-workers

(d) All of the Above

(e) None of the Above (because, instead, they are busy binge-watching the first three seasons of Game of Thrones before the April 6 Season 4 premier)

Regardless of how your employees (or you) would answer that question, the point is that come Thursday (and Friday) they will probably be focused on something unrelated to their job. And when their focus is elsewhere, job productivity suffers. And boy does it suffer. According Challenger Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm, this equates to $134 million in lost productivity on just the first two days of the Tournament alone where at least 3 million employees will spend between 1-3 hours watching games at work and2/3rds of all workers will track games during the workday. We wouldn’t be surprised if this number climbs again this year as CBS continues to make it easier to stream games live. (And if it really wants that number to climb, it needs to offer a better “boss button” than the one it offered last year. And on that front, when are we going to see a lawyer-friendly boss button – maybe one that clicks away to a draft brief or a redlined employment agreement? C’mon already. But we digress.)

So we know that lost productivity is an issue. But what about the related issue of employee morale? A survey conducted last year by OfficeTeam found that 20% of managers believe that the NCAA tournament has a positive effect on employee morale. Only 4% believed it had a negative effect and 1% didn’t know what effect it had. Perhaps the most shocking statistic is that 75% of the managers surveyed believed that it had no effect whatsoever.

To us, the result of the productivity-morale equation is employer-specific and depends on the nature of your workplace and your business goals. For example, we can certainly see how management at an accounting firm may grow uneasy at a lack of focus from its employees as their clients’ tax filing deadline nears. At the same time, we can also see how management at this firm (perhaps if it’s located by Syracuse or Kentucky) may want to convert this into an employee appreciation moment, gather its employees in a conference room for an extended lunch and game-viewing session and take a breather from their overwhelming workloads (and maybe be lucky enough to catch a top-5 all time buzzer beater.)

Employees in downtown Richmond, Viriginia probably had trouble focusing on their work in 2011.Only you can best gauge what will motivate your workforce against how it will affect your bottom line. If you could care less about employee morale or don’t think it’s a factor, then consider blocking access to the streaming site or mobile app, remind employees of your acceptable computer use policy, and threaten disciplinary action as necessary. If you are concerned about lost productivity, but want to maintain or enhance employee morale, consider allowing employees to wear or display items related to their favorite college teams that day (whether it is Villanova, Wichita St. or “Anyone but Duke”). Consider designating certain times where employees are “free” to check scores, or consider going further and allowing employees a time and place to watch games. By tuning break-room television sets to the NCAA tournament and possibly adding pizza or popcorn to the mix, it represents a cheap investment that may boost employee morale and reduce some of the short-term productivity losses while producing long-term productivity gains.

All right, that is all. We hope this helps you prepare your workplace for the upcoming NCAA tournament so that when it’s over you can proudly belt out One Shining Moment, including…

And when it’s done

win or lose

you always did your best

cuz inside you knew…

(that) ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU REACHED FOR THE SKY

ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU KNEW

ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU WERE WILLING TO TRY

ONE SHINING MOMENT….

Article by:

Michael S. Arnold

Robert Sheridan

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

What Do You Get When You Cross March Madness With Insurance?

A chance to win one billion dollars. Quicken Loans and Berkshire Hathaway recently announced that they are teaming up to award one billion dollars to be shared by persons who correctly predict the winners of every game in this year’s men’s college basketball tournament. Quicken is running the competition and paying Berkshire Hathaway an undisclosed premium to insure the prize.

While this may be one of the largest promotions tied to a sporting event, it is just another example of a growing trend.

For example, during the 2013 Super Bowl, Beyonce’s halftime performance was just a precursor to a larger celebration for certain customers of Gardiners Furniture Company (“Gardiners”), a furniture company with locations in the Baltimore, Maryland area.

Baltimore Ravens return man Jacoby Jones took the second half kickoff one hundred and eight yards for a touchdown. As part of a Super Bowl promotion, Gardiners promised to give free furniture to customers who purchased furniture between January 31, 2013 and 3 p.m. on Super Bowl Sunday if a player returned a kick for a touchdown at the start of the game or after half-time. As a result of Jones’s dash, Gardiners gave away approximately $600,000 of free furniture.

Gardiners’ customers were thrilled and, according to Kasee Lehrl, the advertising and marketing manager at Gardiners, the company was “just as happy.” Kelcie Pegher, Gardiners Furniture Refunds $600,000 in Furniture on Super Bowl Bet, Carroll County Times, Feb. 6, 2013. That is because Gardiners reportedly paid $12,000 for an insurance policy in case the store had to follow through on its end of the promotion. According to Gardiners co-owner Gary Mullaney, it was worth every penny for the publicity and the winning feeling it gave his customers. Ron Dicker, Gardiners Furniture Store Loses $600,000 Super Bowl Bet on Baltimore Ravens Kickoff Return, The Huffington Post, Feb. 6, 2013. No doubt, Quicken and Berkshire Hathaway are enjoying similar publicity linked to their March Madness tournament.

Promotions tied to sporting events or other events of chance are limited only by the imagination of marketing teams. Some of the most common examples include:

Hole-in-one competitions;
Shoot the puck games;
Basketball shots;
Soccer or football kicks;
Sweepstakes; and
Scratch and win games

Contests such as these continue to increase in popularity and are becoming a staple of marketing departments. The size of the awarded prizes also continues to grow, resulting in an increased demand for prize indemnity insurance.

Prize indemnity insurance is a category of contingency insurance that works by transferring the risk of somebody winning the prize from the promoter to an insurance company. The insurance company calculates the cost of the insurance coverage based off of the probability of a winner. In case you were wondering, the chances of somebody predicting all sixty-three games in the men’s college basketball tournament accurately is approximately 1 in 9.2 quintillion (eighteen zeroes).

Typically, insurance carriers charge policyholders a premium of approximately five to twenty percent of the value of the prize being offered. However, the premium will vary based on the type of promotion and the statistical likelihood of the customers winning. The three most significant factors in determining the premium level are: (1) the difficulty of the promotion; (2) the number of attempts to win; and (3) the value of the prize.

Instead of keeping cash reserves to cover large prizes, the promoter pays a premium to the insurance company, which then reimburses the insured should a prize be given away. As a result, in exchange for the premium payment, there is no risk on the insured that the prize will be awarded.

As marketing departments increasingly utilize promotions such as these as another arrow in their advertising quiver, it is important that risk managers work in concert with their marketing department to ensure that financial risks to the company are properly managed. Increasingly, that includes purchasing prize indemnity insurance.

So remember, get your bracket in on time and GO BLUE!

Article by:

Jason S. Rubinstein

Of:

Gilbert LLP

Fan Death Re-Emphasizes MLB Ballpark Safety

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding risk, death and baseball…

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that have unfortunately converged to become a grave concern for Major League Baseball this season. One fan recently died in Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas, while reaching over a railing for a ball. Last summer, another fan fell 30 feet and fractured his skull.

Rangers Ballpark, the site of a recent fan death that has caused all MLB teams to re-evaluate fan safety.

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that This, combined with some other high-profile incidents at ballparks in recent years, has led all teams to reconsider the height of their safety railings and ponder other potential solutions to keep spectators safe.

Yesterday, ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program featured a great investigative report into the matter. You can watch Texas Rangers owner/legend Nolan Ryan discuss the controversy here. And below is the opening paragraphs of their written story.

Ronnie Hargis remembers his right hand brushing Shannon Stone’s shorts as he tried to grab the 6-foot-3-inch firefighter who went over a front-row railing in Section 5 of Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

But Hargis missed. Stone’s 6-year-old son Cooper, who had been standing next to Hargis, saw his dad fall 20 feet to the concrete below. Stone, 39, died about an hour later.

Even though Hargis struggles to come to terms with the events of July 7, he does not believe that the 33-inch railing that Stone fell over was too low. He joins a cadre of fans who disagree with the Rangers’ decision to raise all front-row railings to 42 inches in response to Stone’s fall and two other falls before it.

As officials with other Major League Baseball ballparks say they’re currently reviewing their railings, baseball fans are divided on whether to raise the railings, keep them where they are, or implement alternative safety measures, such as nets.

It isn’t just the Worldwide Leader who is interested in how teams are keeping fans safe, however.

Tag: Sports

Let the NFL Season Begin: Judge Overturns Arbitration Award Suspending Tom Brady

Like this:

NFL vs. Brady: NFL Wins Initial Venue Battle

Like this: