I am on my way up to Gainesville, Florida to return to my alma mater (undergrad and law school) and watch the Gators take on the Alabama Crimson Tide.  I can’t wait to see a lot of friends and watch some good football under the lights at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (8 p.m. kickoff).  I will return on Sunday and then it’s off to the new office on Monday.  The new law firm is called Wolfe Law Miami.  It will be myself and Richard Wolfe, a very experienced entertainment law attorney.  Our office space is in Brickell (right next to downtown Miami, Florida) in the penthouse of a beautiful building.  Here are some stories I missed over the past week:

Basketball

• David Falk: “I would bet a lot of money that if we miss one or two games, we’re going to miss the whole season.” [Sports agent Falk says entire NBA season is in jeopardy]
• The ultra-punitive measures alternative [NBA owners budge on hard cap demand].
• Tyreke Evans is being counseled by Arn Tellem and “Team Tyreke” [Don’t Curb Your Enthusiasm].

Shabbat Shalom: Friday Wrap-Up (9/30/11) from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

Last week, the NCAA revealed that it too has begun seriously considering an expansion of its definition of athlete agents.  The NCAA’s Amateurism Cabinet’s proposed changes to the NCAA’s athlete agent definition actually closely resemble the changes made in the state of Tennessee.   The Amateurism Cabinet wants to increase the scope of its athlete agent definition to include the following entities:

1. Anyone who represents or attempts to represent a prospective or current student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or

2. Anyone who seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospect’s enrollment at an institution or a student-athlete’s potential earnings as a professional athlete.

Also like Tennessee, the NCAA is concerned about runners, marketing representatives, financial advisors, and the Cam Newton Loophole.  And it also has a similar “Will Lyles provision” - The cabinet’s proposal expands the definition to include people marketing athletics skills to a collegiate institution for personal gain.  However, the NCAA has made it clear that the personal financial gain will have to be significant enough to warrant the the attention of the NCAA.  Subjective, but I guess some leeway is necessary.

If the NCAA’s Division I Legislative Council approves the Amateurism Cabinet’s athlete agent definition proposal, it will then go up for final approval in April 2012.  If approved, it will go into effect immediately.  Thus, while the new definition will certainly have no role in the 2011-12 NCAA seasons, it could start to have some influence on collegiate sports immediately thereafter.

NCAA Amateurism Cabinet Seeks To Expand Definition Of Sports Agent from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

The entire event took place at the Renaissance Washington, D.C. Downtown Hotel.  It was sufficiently staffed, nicely decorated, and what is absolutely most important for this type of conference – it ran on-time.  But there were at least a couple of no-shows.  The panel titled, “Latest Development in Professional Sports Collective Bargaining” was supposed to be a discussion between Jeff Kessler (Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP) and Bob Batterman (Proskauer Rose LLP), moderated by my good friend Gabe Feldman (Associate Professor of Law and Director, Sports Law Program, Tulane University).  Understandably, Kessler and Batterman did not show for the panel, as they have to be careful about what is said with regards to the NFL Lockout.  The hole was filled well by Gary Roberts (Dean and Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law [Indianapolis]) and Mark Levinstein (Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP).  Other than that, my only problem was that I arrived to no welcome package.  I had to wait about an hour to get the conference materials, but no big deal!

Gary Roberts kicked off the event with a fantastic wrap-up of almost every type of case and issue from the past year that had/has any relation to Sports Law.  The amount of focus on the NFL Lockout in this wrap-up and future panels was unsurprising.  Following that wrap-up was a panel on Media, Publicity, Fantasy Sports & Privacy Rights for Athletes.  Among the items discussed included the huge disparity between males and females with regards to participation in fantasy sports (93% of participants are male), right of publicity vs. first amendment rights, and some thought that courts are now favoring protection of first amendment freedoms over publicity rights.  The male:female ratio at SLA was not as bad as the fantasy sports disparity; maybe closer to 80% male.

The next panel was “Legal Impact of Agent Interference in Intercollegiate Athletics.”  I paid very close attention to the discussion between Anthony Agnone (President, Eastern Athletic Services), Rachel Newman Baker (Director of Agent, Gambling & Amateurism Activities, NCAA), Michael J. Powell (Managing Attorney, Office of the Secretary of State), and Allison Rich (Sr. Associate Athletic Director, Florida State University).  It was great to have Michael Powell on the panel, since his state recently made headlines for the bill its House and Senate just passed, which will allow a Texas state court to put a sports agent in prison for 10 years based on a violation of the bill (if it becomes law).  However, Powell tacitly admitted that his state selectively enforces its athlete agent laws.  While it is technically illegal to reach out to a student-athlete in Texas without being registered as an athlete agent with the state, his office will only tell the agent that such conduct is impermissible and that the agent must be registered.  But then why make it illegal in the first place?  What exactly is the harm of communication?  Further, when I asked Mr. Powell to justify why his athlete agent law provides potential criminal and civil liability for the sports agent who provides the benefit to the student-athlete, but does not hold the student-athlete accountable civilly or criminally for accepting the benefit, he could not provide any justification.  Allison Rich suggested that student-athletes are protected by Agent Days and that they should become more common around the country.  I disagree.  We are all ignorant if we believe that any student-athlete with a glimmer of hope of being drafted will not speak to an agent prior to a scheduled school Agent Day.  And why should student-athletes wait until those Agent Days, often scheduled in Spring just prior to graduation, to start discussions with agents who will potentially hold extreme power over the athletes’ futures?

The first day of the 2011 SLA wrapped up with a Town Hall Debate on the current state & legality of the college BCS system, moderated by Gabe Feldman.  The second day started with a panel on “Ethics for Sports Lawyers,” which ended up focusing heavily on sports agent issues.  One interesting discussion was based on the ethics behind representing coaches and players, management and players, and multiple players on the same team/position, along with the proper way of notifying all clients of the potential conflicts ahead of time.  At one point in time, it felt as though I was sitting through my 1L Professional Responsibility class, learning all the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  But it certainly was not as bad, plus I was able to use my iPad (which my Professional Responsibility professor would not have permitted).  Michael Powell was on this panel, and spoke more about his state of Texas.  In the past, Texas was one of the few states that allowed business to be certified as agents.  That will be no more with the new law that is expected to be signed soon.  A very telling statement by Powell was, “The UAAA (Uniform Athlete Agents Act) says the states are all supposed to cooperate regarding agent regulation.  We are just starting now.”  Increased communication between states investigating the same agents could turn out to be very helpful for the states involved.  Hal Biagas (Executive Vice President, Wasserman Media Group) mentioned that it is near impossible for small agents/agencies to comply with state athlete agent laws.  He said that you need clients to be successful, but that it is extremely difficult to recruit those clients if you are paying all of the fees associated with the compliance with state athlete agent laws.  Michael Powell said that he cannot understand how a lawyer with a very active practice can also find the time to be a successful agent.  Based on Powell’s and Biagas’ statements, it does not seem to be a profession with its doors wide open for new entrants!

The SLA Luncheon was probably my favorite part of the entire event.  The food was great, but the speech was even better.  Ted Leonsis (Owner, Washington Capitals and Washington Wizards) captured the audience’s attention with stories that included a recent pizza delivery where the delivery boy thanked Leonsis for a generous tip, but responded by telling Leonsis that he hopes the Capitals do not choke again next year.  I am fascinated by Leonsis, because he is probably one of the few owners who actually understands the importance of technology and making his teams’ fans feel as though they are a part of the game.  It certainly does not help that he has a storied past with AOL.

Perhaps even better than the Luncheon was the networking.  I was finally able to meet many people who I have spoken to over the years since starting this website.  I thank each and every one of you for the kind words and hope that you continue to be a part of this site.

I will not go into too much detail about the break-out sessions, but hopefully the Teaching Sports Law session will help me as I begin to teach at Indiana University Bloomington in the Fall.  I look forward to hopefully attending SLA in 2012 in San Diego, California.  Until then, be ethical, successful, and tell someone on the SLA executive committee to turn down the air.  I’m still shivering.

Wrap-Up: 2011 Sports Lawyers Association Annual Conference from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

It will never happen.  The NCAA has too much to lose from sports agents having that type of access and control over student-athletes, something that the NCAA would be too scared of forfeiting.  The NCAA benefits from having a platform distinct from professional sports and is most successful if its student-athletes stay in school for four years.  Anything that jeopardizes NCAA control over student-athletes, its maintaining the guise of amateurism, and takes away power from coaches and member institutions (colleges), is something that the NCAA finds worthwhile to fight (see: no-agent rule).  Do not for a second think that the NCAA’s rules and regulations are in place to benefit the student-athletes; they exist to shield the NCAA and its member institutions.  That includes all rules and regulations concerning sports agents.

But let’s assume a system where the NCAA did not control policy regarding sports agents.  From a normative standpoint, is there anything inherently wrong about allowing sports agents to provide any sort of benefit to student-athletes?

How does the student-athlete suffer? Another common topic of conversation at law schools across the country is the issue of paying student athletes.  Almost everyone can agree that student-athletes deserve to be compensated for the value they provide to their colleges, but no one has the master plan to make it work.  How will various colleges afford it?  How will the money be spread across different sports at different schools?  How will we equitably adjust compensation for players who perform on the same team at the same school?  In a system that allows sports agents to compensate players, the players will earn money based on their worth.  Agents will not just throw money at every single player, and if they do, good for the players!  Those who deserve to be compensated will get their fair value.  How exactly does the student-athlete suffer in this situation?  Just as in the current landscape, the athlete will not be required to ultimately sign with any agent who provides benefits.

How does the sports agent suffer? In the current system, the agents who do not provide benefits to student-athletes are at a great disadvantage.  Those individuals abide by rules, regulations, and laws, and end up hurting their practices as those who ignore sports agent rules and laws benefit by effectively competing against a diminished pool of agents (those who also cheat).  Many ethical agents would have no qualms with paying student-athletes if the rules, regulations, and laws allowed for it.  These same agents end up fronting the costs of training the clients that do sign with them, which turns out to be around $20,000 a client, if they are able to beat out the agents who are throwing student-athletes money under the table prior to signing the players.  Generally, I do not think having the money to spend is a problem for agents.  There are two classes of agents who suffer under such a proposed system: 1) the ones who are currently cheating, because they lose their competitive advantage when all agents (including the ethical ones who actually adhere to the laws) are able to compensate student-athletes based on their perceived value, and 2) the agents who do not have the funding necessary to pay student-athletes their “going rates.”

Picture this system in another industry.  What if a small website designer wants to break into the niche of designing websites for professional athletes.  In order to become known and get referrals, that designer offers a professional athlete $10,000 to build his website.  Instead of the athlete paying for a website, the designer offers the athlete money to design it.  Maybe it is a stupid decision, but who are we to judge?  Journalists may write about this “idiotic” website designer, but no regulatory body is going to stop the transaction.  If sports agents are permitted to give benefits to student-athletes, some sports agents will give players much more than they are perceived to be worth, and some sports agents will end up losing money on those investments, but student-athletes will benefit and for the majority of investments made, those sports agents will benefit as well (or else they will financially force themselves out of the business).

Jeffrey Kessler is the co-chairman of the Sports Litigation Practice Group at Dewey & LeBoeuf and is class counsel for the plaintiffs in Brady v. NFL.  Recently, at the IMG World Congress of Sports, Kessler stated that he is “a big believer in capitalism and the free-market,” and said that he has “no doubt that can produce a pro-competitive, efficient outcome.”  Kessler made that statement in regards to the NFL, but it can also be used in this discussion regarding the regulation of sports agents.  I have no doubt that in a free-market where agents were given permission to give benefits to student-athletes, the result would be a pro-competitive, efficient outcome where, for the most part, agents provide benefits to student-athletes based on their future perceived value and student-athletes get compensated for their efforts while in school.  What is the difference between giving a student-athlete $20,000 in his senior year or giving him the same thing by paying for his training, housing, and other living expenses a few days after his team’s Bowl game?

I expect a fair amount of criticism based on this post, and I certainly welcome it.  While rules, regulations, and laws that restrict sports agent actions exist, it is important for agents to follow them; however, there is no reason that we cannot engage in a healthy debate regarding the justification of those laws.

Repeal Sports Agent Laws And Pay Student-Athletes from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

The general rule begins as follows:

An individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing) to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport.

But who is an agent?  Bylaw 12.3.1.1 tells us that an agent can be someone who may represent an athlete in future professional sports negotiations. Bylaw 12.3.1.2(b) is kind of confusing.  It says that a student-athlete cannot receive transportation or another benefit from “an agent, even if the agent has indicated that he or she has no interest in representing the student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation and does not represent individuals in the student-athlete’s sport.”  How do we then determine if the person is an agent or not?  Is it based on being certified in the state where the student-athlete is performing?  Does the person just have to be a licensed athlete agent in any state?  Does the person have to be licensed by any players association?  Or should it just be the players association that the student-athlete will (hopefully) eventually join?

The NCAA would do everyone a favor by clearing up its bylaws by creating precise definitions.  Luckily, the Division I Amateurism Cabinet and the Division I Leadership Council have recently stated that they may make changes to the definition of an agent.  Do not give up hope.

Amongst the potential changes would be to include runners under the definition of agent.  Furthermore, financial planners, marketing representatives, and other client management entities could become included in a new agent definition.  The NCAA may take a page out of the MLBPA’s October 2010 Regulations Governing Player Agents in this regard.

I believe that enhancing the agent definition would be a step in the right direction for the NCAA, not because the NCAA needs to increase the number of words in its manual, but to bring further clarity to an area ripe with confusion.  Educating athletes and educating agents with concise and precise rules and regulations is much better than allowing both entities to operate in a system with little to no clarity.

NCAA May Alter Its Definition Of “Agent” from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

What:

When: April 20-22, 2011

Where: William C. Friday Center for Continuing Education at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (map)

April 20 Panels

• 8:30am – 9:45am: Show Me The Manual! NCAA Regulations, Agents, and Amateurism
  • Jason Belzer — President of Global Athlete Management Enterprises, Inc. (GAME, Inc.) and current agent serving college coaches
  • Barbara Osborne, J.D — Counsel in Ice Miller’s collegiate sports practice and Associate Professor in Sport Administration at The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
  • Marcus Wilson — Assistant Director of NCAA’s Enforcement Staff
  • Brad Wolverton – Senior Editor, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• 10:05am – 11:20am: A View From The Top: Insights from Industry Leaders on the State of College Athletics
  • Jim Delany– Big Ten Commissioner
  • Elson Floyd — President of Washington State University
  • Joel Lulla – Media Rights Consultant
  • Rob Spear — University of Idaho Athletic Director
  • John Swofford — ACC Commissioner

April 21 Panel

• 9:30am – 10:45am: Four Years and Several Scores Ago: An Honest Reflection on the Student-Athlete Experience
  • Dijuan Harris– Former University of North Carolina – Charlotte Basketball Player
  • Scott Krapf – Illinois State University Cross Country Participant and the Missouri Valley Conference’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Representative
  • D.J Looney — Mississippi State University Offensive Lineman and the Southeastern Conference’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Representative
  • Clare Perry — Davidson Field Hockey Player
  • Tierra Ruffin-Pratt — University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Player

April 20 Keynote

• 11:30am – 12:30pm: Academic Keynote
  • Dr. John Singer – Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Texas A&M University - “Until You Do Right By The Black Athlete: A Critical Race Perspective on College Sport Reform Issues”

April 21 Keynote

• 8:30am – 9:15am: Bridging The Gap Keynote
  • Roy Williams – Head Men’s Baskeball Coach, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Further information, including afternoon session topics and contributors, may be found here.

Cost: Professional CSRI Member Registration ($375), Professional non-CSRI Member Registration ($475), Undergraduates and Graduate Students ($105).  Register here.

2011 College Sport Research Institute (CSRI) Conference from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

What: KU Sports & Entertainment Law Symposium

When: Friday, April 15, 2011

Where: Green Hall Room 203

Topics

• Hey, who Tweeted? It wasn’t me!

Social media provides a great forum in which to express oneself, but what free speech rights do collegiate student athletics have within it? May a member institution legally limit student-athlete access to social media? How should athletic departments deal with “ghost tweets” – fake social media accounts and messages attributed to student-athletes, coaches and staff that could make headlines?

• Right of Publicity and Former Student-Athletes

The Ed O’Bannon Case – When do the grant-in-aid rights signed away in college end? Is a former athlete’s likeness forever the property of the NCAA and their member institutions? How will the right of publicity landscape change in the future for student-athletes?

• Death of the NCAA: Could the Super Conference Change the Game?

Could a “Super Conference” system redefine intercollegiate amateurism? What would be the ramifications for student-athletes at institutions that opt out of the NCAA? What would be the ramifications for the NCAA?

• Who Represents the Student-Athlete?

If the grant-in-aid (or scholarship) is a contractual relationship with a NCAA member institution, what power does the student athlete have to negotiate the terms? Who may represent the student athlete without risking NCAA eligibility? Should students fight to be considered employees and unionize? What role should agents play with collegiate athletes? How may the NCAA change such role in the future? How do pro sports league labor negotiations affect the current college student-athletes wishing to enter the pro sports field?

• Big Headache: Ethical Issues Associated with College Football Concussions and Mass Tort Litigation

As research demonstrates the long-term negative effects of damaged caused by repeated head injuries sustained in football, what liability, if any, does the NCAA and member institutions have?  What information and education is being provided to student-athletes by the NCAA, member institutions, medical staff, etc. regarding concussions and the associated risks?  What rights do former student-athletes have to recover for their injuries?

If you have any questions, please email Jade Freeman at Jadefeeman@ku.edu or Libby Harmon at Libby912@ku.edu.

Kansas Sports & Entertainment Law Symposium from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

What: 15th Annual Fordham Sports Law Symposium

When: April 1, 2011 (9 a.m. – 5 p.m.)

Where: Fordham Law School’s McNally Amphitheatre (map)

Agenda

8:30am–9:15am: Registration

9:15am-9:30am: Opening Remarks

9:30am-11:10am: Damaging Impact: The long term health effects of concussions and where future liability might lie.

• Kevin Boothe, Offensive Lineman, New York Giants
• Dr. Micky Collins, Ph. D, Assistant Director, UMPC Sports Medicine Concussion Program
• Marc Edelman, Assistant Professor, Barry University’s Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law
• Chris Nowinski, Co-founder and President, Sports Legacy Institute; Author, Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis
• Cy Smith, Partner, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

11:10am-11:20am: Break

11:20am-1:00pm: Agents, Amateurism and Accountability: Legal and ethical questions arising from the relationships between lawyer/agents and the amateur athletes seeking their representation

• Jean Afterman,Vice President, Assistant General Manager, New York Yankees
• Jared Fox, NFL Agent, SportStars, Inc.
• Richard Karcher, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law and Sports, Florida Coastal School of Law
• Josh Luchs, Former NFL Agent
• Fernando Tamayo, Associate, Coffey Burlington; Former International Scouting Coordinator, Boston Red Sox

1:00pm-2:00pm: Lunch

2:05pm-2:55pm: Keynote Speaker - Howie Roseman, General Manager, Philadelphia Eagles

2:55pm-3:00pm: Break

3:00pm-4:40pm: Collective Bargaining Agreements in Sports: Impending negotiations, potential lockouts, and the main sources of conflict between owners and unions

• Gregg Clifton, Partner, Jackson Lewis LLP
• Anthony Dreyer, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
• David Feher, Partner, Dewey & LeBoeuf
• Jeffrey Mishkin, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
• Michael Weiner, Executive Director, Major League Baseball Players Association

4:40pm-5:00pm: Closing Remarks

Cost: Free. Lunch available for $10. 6 Non-transitional, Professional Practice NYS CLE Credits available for $85 ($50 for Fordham Law alumni and public interest attorneys). Register here.

15th Annual Fordham Sports Law Symposium from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

What:

When: Friday, March 25, 2011 (9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.)

Where: Ames Courtroom (9:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.) and Austin West (1:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.)

PANEL #1 – AMATEURISM PANEL - 9:30-10:40am

Different sports entities answer the question “what it means to be an amateur” in different ways.  This panel takes a “comparative” approach to amateurism and look at how domestic and international sports organizations and entities (e.g., NCAA, IOC, and other sports regulatory bodies) define “amateurism.”  This panel will discuss how each type of organization defines “amateur” differently, and ask, normatively, what is the best way to define “amateurism”

PANELISTS:

• Roger Abrams (Northeastern University Law School)
• Jeremy Bloom (World Champion Skier)
• Christian Dennie (Barlow, Garsek & Simon LLP)
• Paul Haagen (Duke University)
• Michael McCann (Vermont Law School and SI.com)
• John Nichols (Penn State University and Co-Chair of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics)

PANEL #2 – CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT PANEL – 10:50am-12:00pm

Over the past year, the landscape of college athletics has been dramatically altered with the movement of numerous teams to new conferences, including Nebraska to the Big 10, Colorado and Utah to the Pacific 10, Boise State to the Mountain West, and Brigham Young to independent status.  This raises issues about amateurism and the role of the NCAA in either facilitating or impeding conference realignment. This panel will explore legal and ethical issues related to amateurism and the role of the NCAA in conference realignment.

PANELISTS:

• Greg Byrne (Athletics Director, University of Arizona)
• Kristi Dosh (Taylor English Duma LLP and Forbes.com)
• Patti Ohlendorf (VP of Legal Affairs for the University of Texas at Austin)
• Patrick Rishe (Webster University and Forbes.com)
• Jason Russell (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom)
• Glenn Wong (UMass Isenberg School of Management)

SPORTS LEGACY INSTITUTE LUNCHEON - 12:00-1:00pm

The mission of the Sports Legacy Institute is to advance the study, treatment and prevention of the effects of brain trauma in athletes and other at-risk groups.  SLI was founded on June 14, 2007 by Chris Nowinski and Dr. Robert Cantu in reaction to new medical research indicating brain trauma in sports had become a public health crisis.  SLI has formalized groundbreaking neuropathological research by partnering with Boston University School of Medicine to form the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.  SLI President and CEO Chris Nowinski and other panelists will discuss SLI’s research and community outreach efforts and address the concussion crisis as it relates to intercollegiate athletes.

PANELISTS:

• Dave Bergeron (Stanford University, NFL)
• Peter Carfagna (Harvard Law School)
• Matt Henshon (Princeton University, Harvard Law School)
• Isaiah Kacyvenski (Harvard College, NFL)
• Pete Kendall (Boston College, NFL)
• Chris Nowinski (Harvard College, WWE, SLI President and CEO)
• Dave Zucker (Harvard Law School)

PANEL #3 – ATHLETE-AGENT PANEL - 1:10-2:20pm

The relationship between player agents and college athletes remains a hot topic for colleges, players, agents, players’ unions, and state governments.  Assuming we want to retain a model in which student-athletes are amateurs, how should colleges, unions, and states prevent agents from engaging in impermissible relationships with athletes?  More importantly, what role should colleges and universities play in assisting student-athletes who “go pro” in sports? This panel will discuss the athlete-agent issue by exploring agent regulation, how student-athletes and agents interact under the current regulatory regime, and what programs are in place to assist student-athletes who “go pro” in sports.

PANELISTS:

• Peter Carfagna (Harvard Law School)
• David Cornwell (DNK Cornwell)
• David Dunn (Athletes First)
• Dan Fitzgerald (Brody Wilkinson PC, Connecticut Sports Law Blog)
• Jason Levien (Agent and Former General Counsel, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Manager of the Sacramento Kings)
• Mike Zarren (Assistant General Manager of the Boston Celtics)
• Warren Zola (Boston College)

PANEL #4 – LITIGATING AGAINST THE NCAA – O’BANNON/KELLER/AGNEW LAWSUITS - 2:30-3:40pm

Three pending class action lawsuits (O’Bannon v. NCAA, Keller v. EA Sports, and Agnew v. NCAA) have the potential to forever change college sports.  The O’Bannon and Keller lawsuits attack the NCAA’s licensing practices as violations of antitrust laws and the players’ rights of publicity, while Agnew’s lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s 37-year-old practice of giving one-year scholarships.  This panel will explore the merits of the pending lawsuits and the potential impact of a successful outcome for any of the plaintiffs.

PANELISTS:

• Steve Berman (Hagens Berman)
• Gabe Feldman (Tulane University Law School)
• Rick Karcher (Florida Coastal School of Law)
• Ron Katz (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
• Jon King (Hausfeld LLP)
• Ed O’Bannon (Former NCAA Men’s Basketball Player and Lead Plaintiff in O’Bannon v. NCAA)
• Libby Sander (Chronicle of Higher Education)

PANEL #5 – BCS PANEL - 3:50-5:00pm

The Bowl Championship Series has been attacked by legal scholars, state attorney generals, and other interested parties as violating federal antitrust law.  In 2010-11, however, non automatic-qualifying schools took home a record $24.7 million.  Additionally, Playoff PAC recently submitted a report to the Internal Revenue Service challenging the tax-exempt status of the Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar Bowls and arguing that the three BCS bowls should not be considered Section 501(c)(3) charities.  This panel explores the antitrust and tax issues associated with the BCS.

PANELISTS:

• Marc Edelman (Barry University’s Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law)
• Brian Frederick (Sports Fan Coalition)
• Alan Fishel (Arent Fox)
• Nathaniel Grow (University of Georgia)
• Stephen Ross (Penn State University Law School)
• Mark Shurtleff (Utah Attorney General)
• Katie Thomas (New York Times)

KEYNOTE SPEAKER – SONNY VACCARO - 5:00-6:15pm

Cost: Free. Register here.

Harvard Law School 2011 Sports Law Symposium from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

• Jimmy Sexton – Co-Founder, SportsTrust Advisors
• Tom Condon – Football Agent, CAA
• Rick Smith – Agent, Priority Sports
• Mark Levin – Director of Salary Cap and Agent Administration, NFLPA
• Ray Anderson – VP of Football Operations, NFL
• Julie Roe Lach – VP Enforcement, NCAA
• Rachel Newman Baker – Director of Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities, NCAA
• Stacey Osburn – Associate Director of Public and Media Relations, NCAA
• Mike Slive – SEC Commisioner
• Larry Scott – Pac-10 Conference Commissioner
• Multiple Pac-10 Athletic Directors
• Pat Haden – Athletic Director, USC
• Dave Roberts – VP Athletic Compliance, USC

I believe the most forward thinking idea proposed by Haden at the Summit was to hire a recent graduate “to act as an ombudsman who can be a counselor and be viewed as independent.”  If Haden and other Athletic Directors want this particular plan to be effective, they will have to choose someone for each campus who is close enough with the players to gain access when appropriate, but cannot be afraid to report violations.  Furthermore, I think the last thing this person would provide is newfound trust between student-athletes and school administrators.  How can a department claim that someone it employs is also independent?  Instead, the new ombudsman may further the divide and cause student-athletes to become more wary of administrators’ motives.  However, I agree that something must be done to curb violations, and this particular idea may be a good starting point.  Haden also talked a bit about using “extenders.”

Dave Roberts also talked about the use of “extenders” to help educate players.  And he recognizes that the education needs to occur at a very early stage.

Talk is great.  Actions are better.

University of Southern California’s Agent Summit from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules