Philadelphia rang in 2017 by becoming the largest American city to allow its government to dictate what is and isn’t healthy for its citizens to drink. The maligned “soda tax” went into effect January 1st tacking on a 1.5 cents per ounce tax on any beverage with sugar in it. Philadelphians are now penalized for consuming soda, sports drinks, juices, teas, and even almond milk. What a time to be alive.
Buried under the soda tax news was another major law passed by City Council that impacts all employers in Philadelphia — including sports teams. On December 8, 2016, City Council unanimously passed Philadelphia Bill No. 160840, which prohibits any employer in the city — both public and private — from inquiring into applicants’ wage histories. Mayor Jim Kenny is expected to sign the bill any day now, which will then take effect 120 days after signing.
Philadelphia is now the first U.S. city to ban employers from asking job applicants about salary histories. Prohibiting employers from asking about salary history is supposed to narrow the wage gap for women and minorities. Obviously, time will tell if this law solves that problem.
But how exactly are Philadelphia’s professional sports teams supposed to approach free agency under this new law while attempting to sign athletes, attract coaches, and recruit front office personnel?
Legal Blitz Co-Founder Steve Silver returned to his muckraking days to pen a special feature on a little known NCAA rule that effectively prevents athletes from successfully suing it — particularly when seeking an injunction to stop an erroneous suspension.
In his Vice Sports debut, Silver interviewed former skiing and football legend Jeremy Bloom, Drexel Sports Management Professor Ellen Staurowsky, and a litigator that has gone toe to toe with the NCAA for several high-profile clients, Richard Johnson.
In his piece titled, “How A Little-Known NCAA Rule Shuts Athletes Out of the Legal System,” Silver explores the history and masterful use of the NCAA bylaw known as the Restitution Rule. It is a rule that should concern anyone who believes in open access to the judicial system, impartial judges, and due process for athletes. Read the feature here.
Anyone who has ever read this blog or my pieces for Above the Law know that I fully support gaming in all forms.
In particular, I routinely advocate for nationally legalized sports gambling through the repeal of the problematic and incoherent Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”). Absent Congress completely repealing PASPA, or a Supreme Court reversal via New Jersey’s Hail Mary, we are now left with a system in which Nevada solely enjoys the revenue generated by sports betting, Delaware can offer select parlays, and the rest of the states can ponder why we have such inconsistent gambling laws as they stare at empty coffers.
Americans wager about $150 billion per year on sports betting, and only 3 percent of that is bet in Nevada. What this means is that the rest of the country is missing out on significant revenue that is instead going un-taxed to bookies and offshore websites thanks to a federal law enacted before internet wagering was so prevalent.
This is where creative states like Colorado come in.
Nick Wooldrige, Esq is a nationally-recognized criminal defense attorney based in Nevada. For a personal consultation, you can reach out to him via LV Criminal Defense, 520 S 4th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101, 702-623-6362.
Bookies in Las Vegas may be salivating a little right now, and not because of memories of last week’s Thanksgiving turkey.
Betting on eSports in Nevada may start in a few weeks since the Nevada Gaming Policy Committee has suggested Nevada’s state regulatory bodies permit companies to take bets.
“In my conversations, I feel we possess the organizational infrastructure and won’t require a change in legislation to make this happen,” said Governor Brian Sandoval, the NGPC chairman.
The group approved a referendum telling the Gaming Control Board and Nevada Gaming Commission to move ahead with regulation development. “It is a thing the board has examined. It’s not-problematic and is proper from a gaming perspective,” said Sandoval.
By Doug Fuglsang. Mr. Fuglsang is a licensed attorney in Illinois and Wisconsin with a Sports Law Certificate from the National Sports Law Institute. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Students of Fenwick High School in Oak Park, Illinois learned a tough lesson last week — sometimes the law isn’t fair.
That is exactly what Illinois High School Association (IHSA) attorney David Bressler explained after a Cook County judge refused to grant Fenwick a temporary restraining order and overturn the controversial outcome of a recent IHSA playoff game.
By all accounts the officials clearly botched the ending of the 7a Semi-final playoff game between Fenwick and Plainfield North high schools. Fenwick was up 10-7 late in the 4th quarter. Rather than punt on fourth down with mere seconds left and risk “the DeSean Jackson play,” Fenwick decided to run out the clock with one last play. The QB took the snap and launched an incomplete pass deep downfield as time expired while the ball hung in the air. The officials flagged Fenwick for intentional grounding because there wasn’t a receiver in the area and awarded Plainfield North an un-timed down. Plainfield tied up the game with a field goal sending the game to overtime where they eventually won on a gutsy two-point conversion 18-17.
After the game, however, the IHSA immediately acknowledged the game-official’s mistake explaining Plainfield should not have received the un-timed down and Fenwick should have won 10-7. Yet the IHSA also explained that they are unable to reverse the outcome on appeal because of by-law 6.033 which states that “the decisions of game officials shall be final; protests against the decision of a game official shall not be reviewed by the Board of Directors.”
Fenwick, obviously angered by this miscarriage of justice, sought the court’s help to remedy the situation, but to no avail.
Legal Blitz Co-Founder, Steve Silver, is teaming up with frequent Legal Blitz contributor and Coastal Carolina University sports management professor, Amanda Siegrist, to continue his quest of educating others about college athletes’ due process rights. This time, Silver and Siegrist will have the opportunity to speak at the annual Sports and Recreation Law Association conference in Las Vegas.
Titled, “Thirty Years Later: A Review of Tarkanian, the Supreme Court and the NCAA’s Denial of Due Process,” this presentation will provide an introduction to the concept of due process under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and explain how American law views due process rights in the context of intercollegiate athletics. By examining the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) deliberate decision to forego due process against the advice of its own general counsel, the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988), and recent disciplinary actions against athletes, this presentation will highlight how the NCAA has deprived college athletes of Constitutional rights in the nearly thirty years since the Supreme Court declared that the NCAA was not a state actor. Further, it will explore potential changes to how the NCAA approaches due process in light of recent litigation and scrutiny of the organization’s disciplinary procedures.
If you are in Vegas March 1-4, be sure to stop by!
As more cities reach the harsh realization that public financing for sports venues is always a losing proposition for taxpayers, Philadelphia has now passed a bill aimed at recouping some its money via mandated higher wages at stadiums and arenas.
This week, Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to expand prevailing wage laws to employees or contractors working in “city-subsidized” buildings such as the convention center, hospitals, and stadiums. This also includes many university buildings. The bill will raise the average wage for service workers, such as security guards or janitors, by several dollars an hour.
Per the language of the bill, the following workers will soon see pay raises: “watchman, guard, doorperson, building cleaner, janitor, custodian, porter, maintenance person, handyperson, elevator operator or starter, window cleaner, desk clerk, housekeeper, gardener, [and] groundskeeper and cleaner of public property or the public right-of-way.”
What makes this new law particularly interesting is that Philadelphia was already one of the few municipalities in the country with a prevailing wage law for building services workers. Now, however, more properties and facilities will fall under the purview of a mandatory wage.
By Nicole Leach, Esq., who is a lawyer and former UCLA track star. In 2006, while a student-athlete at UCLA, Leach earned gold on the World Junior 4×400 relay team in Beijing. In 2007 she was the NCAA 400m hurdle champion and represented the US at the World Championships and earned two bronze medals at the Pan Am Games. She was an Olympic Trials qualifier in 2008 and NCAA champion again in 2009. She most recently competed in the Olympic Trials in 2016 and will soon move into legal practice in Philadelphia.
Shaunae Miller’s diving finish to beat Allyson Felix in the women’s 400m final and the US women’s 4x100m re-run have left the public perception of track and field unsound. People have taken to social media and other outlets to label Miller as a “cheater,” Felix as having “settled” and that the US 4x100m relay received “special treatment.” An amateur fan of track and field would likely conclude that the rules of the sport are being made up on the fly.
However, Miller, Felix and all individuals involved in the 4x100m re-run have all acted well within their rights under the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Competition Rules 2016-2017 (IAAF Rules).
But why is it that these athletes are taking such a hit from the world? Why do the outcomes of these recent events feel unfair to most? The most likely answer is that the rules of track and field are foreign to Olympic viewers.
The sport only gets global attention every four years; thus, customary occurrence such as dives and protest seem random and unfair to the seasonal Olympic fan. The world does not know or understand the rules behind the sport. Below is a break down of the rules and traditional philosophies that shed some light on why the recent “random” outcomes are not random at all.
By Frank Darras, Esq. Mr. Darras is the founding partner of DarrasLaw, America’s top disability insurance litigation firm. His firm has recovered nearly $800 million in wrongfully denied insurance benefits for clients of all backgrounds and professions across the nation.
Former NFL defensive back Haruki Nakamura made recent headlines when he filed a lawsuit against Lloyd’s of London and its underwriters. While many speculate this lawsuit could influence how insurance policies deal with brain injuries, one larger aspect to this lawsuit that has been ignored.
The Nakamura lawsuit provides textbook example of how minor claim missteps can make any policyholder subject to insurance bad faith tactics, whether you are an average Joe or the next NFL star.
Nakamura’s career was cut short when he suffered a debilitating concussion during a preseason game in August 2013. The Carolina Panthers released him five days later, and he reportedly suffered debilitating concussion symptoms for months afterward. Nakamura was awarded permanent total disability benefits under the NFL’s Player Retirement Plan in 2015 after it was determined he suffered from chronic post-concussion syndrome.
Nakamura is seeking $3 million – triple the value of his career-ending disability policy – to account for damages, costs, interest, and fees.
Injuries are a part of sports. Period. End of story.
However, in America, when an injury occurs, most people look for someone else to not only blame, but to also sue. In the past two years, personal injury lawsuits arising out of youth sports injuries have crowded the New Jersey dockets.
After issuing two game-changing rulings on civil tort liability for sports injuries in 2014, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division is back at it this month in an interesting case involving youth soccer.
In G.C. v. New Jersey Youth Soccer, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1566, a 12-year-old soccer player sustained a knee injury when a 13-year-old opponent tripped him toward the end of a game. The Plaintiff, G.C. was dribbling the ball toward the goal to take a shot, when the opponent tried to steal the ball. In what sounds like a slide-tackle gone awry, T.U. injured G.C. and drew a yellow card. However, the referee testified that T.U. was making a play on the ball, but ended up kicking G.C. after the shot.
The injured child’s parents sued everyone under the sun including T.U., two other minors, the coaches, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, New Jersey Youth Soccer, Morris County Youth Soccer Association, and many others. Essentially, every entity except the soccer ball itself was named in this lawsuit. G.C.’s parents alleged general negligence along with reckless and intentional conduct warranting punitive damages.
However, the Defendants successfully moved for Summary Judgment, which G.C. then appealed. Judges Marianne Espinosa and Heidi Currier heard the appeal.