By Greg Dexter, a 3L at the Temple University Beasley School of Law and Emeritus Member of Temple Law Review
 Professional golfer Robert Allenby struck a spectator in the head with a wild tee shot at the Australian Masters in 2010. Golf is a game marked by courtesy and sportsmanship, where players routinely call penalties on themselves. One state appellate court described golf as “contemplative and careful, with emphasis placed on control and finesse, rather than speed or raw strength.”[1] The court further observed that “[a]lthough the game of golf certainly presents significant dangers, these dangers are more psychological than physical.”[2]
But golf is not entirely without its physical dangers. Errant golf balls are capable of causing severe injury or death. In 2002, Dr. Azad Anand was struck in the eye by a playing partner’s wayward golf ball, causing retinal detachment and permanent vision loss.[3] More recently, in the fall of 2010, sixty-nine-year-old Hiroshi Tango was struck in the back of his head by a golf ball and pronounced dead nine days later. While golf is not necessarily a dangerous undertaking, it is clear that accidents do happen. When these accidents happen, the legal question arises: will the injured golfer be entitled to compensation? And who will foot the bill?
Continue reading →
By Cyle Kiger, a junior at Minnesota State University and SportInLaw.com author.
 UFC star Mauricio “Shogun” Rua lands a brutal punch on Lyoto Machida. Each Friday, The Legal Blitz features an article from our good friends at Sport-In-Law in our effort to fulfill our promise to provide the most comprehensive sports law content on the Web. This week’s feature deals with how the UFC’s continued expansion and takeover of its competitors might bring it closer to being considered an unlawful monopoly even though the Federal Trade Commission has ended its investigations for now.
The (FTC) has closed its non-public investigation of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). After the UFC merged with four of its competitors, the FTC was reviewing possible violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Strikeforce, viewed as the UFC’s closest competitor in North America, was the UFC’s latest merger.
Continue reading →
 Judge John Cleland (right) ruled on Monday that Jerry Sandusky (left) can visit his grandchildren and that his trial will be held in State College On Monday, a Pennsylvania judge made two pre-trial rulings that favored Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky is a former Penn State football coach, now charged with over 50 counts of child molestation. Judge John Cleland denied the State’s request to limit Sandusky to his home, and restrict access to his young grandchildren. The prosecution also sought to move the trial out of Centre County, which is home to Penn State University. Judge Cleland denied this motion as well, but added that he would reconsider this decision if selecting a jury proved difficult.
Widener Professor Wesley M. Oliver helps explain some of the legal principals and concerns surrounding Judge Cleland’s rulings on Monday. Professor Oliver teaches Criminal Law and Criminal procedure at Widener Law’s campus in Harrisburg, PA. Professor Oliver has frequently represented the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Association of Federal Defenders as amicus curiae in matters before the United States Supreme Court. He has taught criminal law at Harvard, Tulane and McGill. Continue reading →
By Spencer Wingate, a legal assistant for Brock & Scott PLLC in Charlotte, NC and SportInLaw.com author.
 Each Friday, The Legal Blitz features an article from our good friends at Sport-In-Law in our effort to fulfill our promise to provide the best sports law content on the Web. This week’s feature deals with a trademark infringement claim between the NFL and Who Dat, Inc., the company that claims to have coined the popular New Orleans Saints catch phrase.
Who Dat?, Inc. has reached a settlement with the NFL/New Orleans Saints over their trademark dispute. The settlement effectively dismisses the lawsuit and means the two will work together. From this point forward, all merchandise with the catch phrase will be co-branded by both parties.
Continue reading →
 Eli Manning and Justin Tuck celebrate their Super Bowl XLVI victory over the Patriots. Super Bowl XLVI provided plenty of material for the Monday morning radio and television talking heads: Coach Belichick purposefully allowing the Giants to score, the lack of any funny commercials, Mario Manningham’s amazing catch in the game-winning drive, the Patriot receivers’ inability to catch anything and Mrs. Tom Brady publicly blasting those cement-handed receivers.
Yet the hot topic at the water cooler concerned the halftime show. In keeping with recent tradition, the NFL took out its Rolodex of 1980s stars and called up Madonna for this year’s lip-synching spectacle. But it was rapper M.I.A. who stole the show by aiming a middle finger salute directly at television cameras that caused the king of fines, Roger Goodell, to hyperventilate and threw the FCC into red alert. The last time a Super Bowl halftime performer went rogue — the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction — CBS got smacked with a $550,000 fine by the FCC that has since been vacated in Federal Court.
If the FCC caves into the family values lobby pushing for another hefty fine, who will be left footing the bill? NBC, the NFL or M.I.A.?
Continue reading →
 Former All-Pro center Courtney Hall is now taking on the business world with his JD/MBA from the University of Chicago. There is nothing wrong with professors, but when it comes to sports law issues, who better to ask than a former NFL center turned lawyer? This is why we here at The Legal Blitz were thrilled to catch up with four-time All-Pro lineman Courtney Hall. Hall spent eight years as the starting center for the San Diego Chargers, captaining them to the Super Bowl in 1995. He was also a NFL Players Association team representative. After hanging up his cleats, the Rice University graduate headed to the University of Chicago where he earned a JD and MBA. Since then Hall has worked at law firms and in investment banking. He co-founded and is currently Managing Director of Hillcrest Venture Partners. He is also a member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board.
Hall recently took some time to answer some of our questions about his career, the latest NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, concussions and how 1L year is tougher than two-a-days in the sun. But now the ball is in your court as you too can ask Courtney questions. Send your sports law questions to contact@thelegalblitz.com and we’ll forward them to Hall for another installment of “Ask the All-Pro.”
Continue reading →
By Cyle Kiger, a junior at Minnesota State University and SportInLaw.com author.
 Landon Donovan (left) battles for the ball against the Mexican National Soccer team. Each Friday we here at The Legal Blitz are going to feature an article from our good friends at Sport-In-Law in our effort to fulfill our promise to provide the best sports law content on the Web. This week’s feature deals with a trademark infringement claim between Soccer United Marketing and Cacique Distributors.
Soccer United Marketing brought an action on Jan. 30 against Cacique Distributors for breach of contract. According to Soccer United Marketing’s (SUM) website, “it is the preeminent soccer business company in North America.” Major League Soccer, the United States Soccer Federation, and the sponsorship rights for the Mexican National Team’s games played in the United States are among the many entities SUM owns the rights to.
Cacique Distributors, the defendant in the case and California dairy distributor, entered into an agreement with SUM on February 2, 2010 for sponsorship rights with the Mexican National Team when it played in the United States. The parties agreed that Cacique Distributors could use the team trademark that is owned and controlled by SUM and field boards during the games. The contract also stated that the defendant could advertise itself as the “Official Sponsor of the Mexican National Team.”
Continue reading →
By Robbie Salaman, 3L at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
 Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are arguably two of the greatest tennis players of all time. A looming players strike, however, might soon cast a shadow on their stellar careers. In their sure-to-be Hall of Fame careers, Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal have faced each other twenty seven times with Rafa edging Roger 18 times. Their latest chapter was another instant classic as Nadal pulled out a grueling four-set victory in the 2012 Australian Open semifinals. But the Federer-Nadal rivalry could soon go from the tennis court to an actual courtroom as labor strife is growing among professional tennis players. Nadal recently blasted Federer –- the ATP Players Council President — for failing to speak out against pro tennis management.
Nadal is not alone in his view. Player anger has been brewing for years over a number of hot-button issues, including the length and overcrowding of the tennis schedule and the low percentage of prize money awarded to players. The problem reached its apex when players threatened to boycott the 2012 Australian Open. In fact, reports surfaced that a majority of players voted in favor of a strike — perhaps a sign of trouble to come for the pro tour. Continue reading →
In December of 2011, Floyd Mayweather Jr., one of the world’s best boxers who has a bravado and ego large enough to match his 42-0 record, pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery charges to avoid a felony conviction. He was subsequently sentenced to 90 days in jail. Then something curious happened — earlier this month a Las Vegas Justice of the Peace postponed Mayweather’s sentence to allow him to fight in a Cinco de Mayo bout against a yet-to-be-named opponent because of the significant economic impact the fight would have on the Las Vegas economy. Mayweather is now expected to report to jail sometime in June.
So just how did Floyd “Money” Mayweather temporarily get out of jail and back into the ring?
Continue reading →
 In the aftermath of Dan Wheldon’s death, IndyCar will not return to Las Vegas Motor Speedway in 2012. Courtesy: Jennifer Stewart/US Presswire In light of the tragic death of IndyCar racer Dan Wheldon this past year, The Legal Blitz elected to investigate some of the courtroom consequences that could theoretically surface in its aftermath. In the event of any accident of this sort, substantial money awards may be involved and various parties may be at risk of lawsuit. The range of defendants is often restricted by the terms of waiver contracts, which many racers or other professional athletes sign to release the league or other entity from certain liability.
In the context of a dangerous activity such as professional car racing, waiver contracts are often upheld by the courts because of the valuable consideration in the exchange: the right to participate
Continue reading →
|
|
