March and April are two of the busiest and most exciting months for sports fans.  Between the NCAA Men’s and Women’s basketball tournaments, the NFL draft, and Major League Baseball getting underway, there is always something to watch on TV.  These months also bring NCAA hockey playoffs and, inevitably, the conclusion of seasons for those that do not make it further.  With the end of the NCAA hockey season comes signing of players to professional contracts.  This is a pivotal moment in many players’ careers because, much like a football player declaring himself eligible for the draft, once a hockey player makes the decision to forgo collegiate eligibility, there is no turning back.

One of the most discussed players in the coming days and weeks will certainly be Jordan Schroeder from the University of Minnesota.  Schroeder was drafted #22 overall in the 2009 draft and fans of the Vancouver Canucks know him as a future franchise forward.  According to recent reports, Schroeder will inform both the University of Minnesota and Vancouver of his decision by the end of this week.  While Schroeder had mild success at the collegiate level, he admits that it he was disappointed with his production.  After a successful two-year career with the U.S. National Team Development Program (USNTDP) and an equally successful three-time campaign representing the U.S. at the IIHF World Junior Hockey Championships in 2008, 2009, and 2010, Schroeder will almost certainly have success at the NHL level.

If he decides to sign an NHL contract, Schroeder will definitely not be the only NCAA Division I hockey player to make the early jump to the professional ranks in the coming weeks.  Several players have already decided to turn pro and are already playing at minor league levels, and for some, the NHL level.  For example, Casey Wellman, a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts, signed with the Minnesota Wild earlier this week and should see playing time by sometime this weekend.  Wellman followed the path of the starter for the Los Angeles Kings and Olympic backup, Jonathan Quick, who left UMass as a sophomore in 2007.  Soon to follow Wellman to the pros is James Marcou, a junior and also from UMass, whom is reported to be signing a professional contract in the coming weeks.

With turning pro, there are several factors for players to weigh.  Under NCAA Article 12.1.2, student-athletes are prohibited from being paid for playing their respective sport.  This means that a once a player turns pro and starts receiving compensation for playing time, there is no turning back to a collegiate career, even if their pro career is unsuccessful.  While there is a certain allure to being paid to play, players must also keep in mind the best interests of their future development.  All of this information is certainly a lot to consider for a player that is generally around 20 years-old.

On Monday, March 15, the NCAA did its best to assist student-athletes with the decision process by issuing an informational memo to “Men’s Ice Hockey Student-Athletes with Remaining Eligibility.”  Almost every player in the position to turn pro will have an advisor during this process, which is permitted by NCAA rules.  The March 15 memo informs players that an advisor may not “contact teams on [their] behalf to arrange private workouts or tryouts,” but may provide other valuable advice during the process.

An NCAA hockey player’s decision to turn pro is unique in that unlike with the NFL, where players must wait several months between deciding to turn pro and actually being able to play, hockey players that make the same decision, can play almost immediately for a professional team.  For some players, this means going right to the NHL, for others this means starting at other minor league levels, such as the AHL or ECHL.  The professional level at which they play will be a combination of their skills, their player contract, and certain NHL CBA stipulations.

Regardless of whether Schroeder turns pro, this is an exciting time for players that want to see their careers taken to the next level.  What other players do you think will leave early for the pros after their hockey season ends?

Football

• NCAA ban aside, football coaches may want to think twice before selecting Dez Bryant [Bryant comes with a caveat emptor tag].
• Mike Ornstein vs. Bill Henkel [Wilson: Marketing reps confirm altercation at combine].
• Yes, the NFL has to follow state laws when they are applicable [The Star Caps Saga Continues].
• Please read what Head Coach Marvin Lewis had to say about the NFL Combine [Inconsistent Measureables].
• Some will over spend, some will go the cheap route, others will pretend there is still a cap [NFL free agency begins Friday without cap].

Baseball

• Never seen Garrett Broshuis pitch, but I am sad to see him leave the game [Suitcase Chronicles: Not Crash Davis].
• Some love for Arn Tellem as a baseball agent [Hideki Matsui in Anaheim: "Man, I feel comfortable here"].

Soccer

• So now that Major League Soccer and its players’ association is not bound by a collective bargaining agreement… [McCarthy’s Musings: The Friday Five Explains The Demise Of The MLS CBA].

At the time salary arbitration was first implemented in 1973, Charlie Finley, a former owner of the Oakland A’s, said: “We’ll be the nation’s biggest assholes if we do this.” Citing Charlie Finley’s disapproval and the massive pay increases of first-year salary arbitration eligible players, many sports writers, such as Maury Brown, the founder and president of the Business of Sports Network, have concluded that “salary arbitration almost exclusively benefits the players.” See Breaking Down How Salary Arbitration Functions in MLB.

In his recent blog entry, Debunking Salary Arbitration Myths – Part 1, Jay Reisinger, a partner at Farrell, Reisinger & Stallings and manager of the firm’s sports law practice, discredited the notion that MLB’s salary arbitration system favors players and hurts owners. Mr. Reisinger revealed that, by focusing on the huge raises of first-year salary arbitration eligible players, that position is misleading. According to Mr. Reisinger, an accurate understanding of the salary arbitration system also acknowledges the equally significant benefits conferred upon clubs.

For instance, clubs exercise a certain amount of control over arbitration eligible players. Clubs can tender or non-tender the player, at their discretion, depending on the player’s expected salary in the arbitration system. If the player’s expected salary in arbitration is higher than his value to the club, the club can non-tender the player and make him a free-agent. If, on the other hand, the player’s expected salary in arbitration is roughly equal or lower than his value to the club, the club can tender the player a contract. If the player is unsatisfied with the offer, his only recourse is to submit his salary to final and binding arbitration. Basically, from a club’s perspective, arbitration is a low risk affair because the club has already determined that the player’s expected salary in arbitration is roughly equal or lower than his value to the club.

Another major benefit discussed by Mr. Reisinger is that clubs are protected. The key criterion in salary arbitration proceedings is the comparative baseball salaries of players “with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group” above that of the player going to arbitration. In essence, the arbitration panel tries to determine where the particular player fits within a very narrow market of players which does not include players who have accrued significant raises through free agency. Clubs, therefore, are shielded from free market forces and their inflationary effect.

Rather than a system that benefits players and hurts owners, Mr. Reisinger sees the arbitration system as a necessary compromise between two parties pursuing divergent interests through collective bargaining. Generally clubs want competitive balance and bargain for a protectionist regime that includes more restrictions on player mobility and player compensation. Players want to increase their earning capacity and bargain for a laissez faire approach. Ultimately, how good or bad the salary arbitration system is depends on your point of view, and on how well you deem the system to be protecting your specific interests as a club owner or a player. As a baseball fan, one can only hope the league and the players union avoid a strike or lockout by reaching an agreement once the current CBA expires.

In order to truly understand the salary arbitration system, it helps to look at its role as part of MLB’s larger monetary structure. Ed Edmonds, the Associate Dean for Library and Information Technology at Notre Dame Law School, explains the impact of salary arbitration on a MLB player’s salary life cycle and, consequently, on a team’s roster in his Marquette Sports Law Review article A Most Interesting Part of Baseball’s Monetary Structure – Salary Arbitration in its Thirty-Fifth Year (Fall 2009 Volume).

As Mr. Edmonds points out, the current CBA divides all players into three groups: 1) players controlled under the reserve clause, 2) players eligible for salary arbitration prior to free agency, and 3) free agents. What sets each group apart is the amount of leverage each group has with respect to their employer or potential employers. Players controlled under the reserve clause have no leverage. They are bound to one team and play for around the league minimum. That player’s salary bears no resemblance to the player’s market value. Mr. Edmonds offers Tim Lincecum as an example. Lincecum received $405,000 in 2008, his first year in the majors (the league minimum was $390,000). After putting up dazzling numbers (18-5 record with a 2.62 ERA and 265 strikeouts in 227 innings pitched), Lincecum only managed to increase his salary to $650,000 in 2009.

Free agents are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Being able to consider multiple offers gives free agents substantial leverage, which they can use to drive up their price tag. To illustrate the effect of free agency status on a player’s salary, Mr. Reisinger compares C.C. Sabathia to Tim Lincecum in his blog entry. Even though Lincecum is statistically similar to Sabathia, Lincecum recently signed a two-year, $23 million contract that will cover his first two arbitration eligible years, meanwhile Sabathia will make $23 million in the 2010 season alone.

Salary arbitration eligible players “occupy the middle group between players with no leverage and those . . . with substantial leverage.” The arbitration process offers them an opportunity to earn a significant raise yet their compensation remains below market value. One example Mr. Edmonds uses is Prince Fielder. In 2007, his second year of Major League service, Fielder was 3rd in the MVP race. Fielder earned salary of $670,000 in 2008. After another outstanding campaign in 2008 and armed with the leverage of salary arbitration, Fielder signed an $18 million, two-year contract prior to the 2009 season.

It’s true, the salary arbitration process usually results in substantial raises for first year eligible players (e.g., Fielder received $6.5 million in 2009 – a 870% raise). However, the substantial raise a player experiences once he is eligible for salary arbitration is a function of the suppressed salaries he received in his first 3 seasons without leverage. In 1973, Charlie Finley and other owners enjoyed considerable restraints on player mobility and player compensation. Then the time to compromise arrived. The current arbitration system is a result of that compromise.

Armando Velasco is a second year law student at Tulane Law School, where he is pursuing a certificate of specialization in sports law. He is the Chair of the Tulane Sports Law Society’s National Baseball Arbitration Competition and a Junior Member of the Sports Lawyers Journal, volume 17. This upcoming summer he will be a summer associate at Goldman, Antonetti & Córdova, PSC.

One hot topic at the Games is whether the NHL should shut down again for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. This is the fourth Olympics that have included NHLers and each time the question of continued participation comes up. There are pros and cons to each side, but I personally hope the NHL continues to come to the Games.

On one side, it is easy to understand the concerns of owners and management. They invest a lot of money in these players, and having them play in the Olympics is a significant risk. The Ottawa Senators Stanley Cup hopes went out the window when Dominik Hasek was injured in the Czech Republic’s first game at the 2006 Olympics in Torino. He never played for the Senators again. The 2 week break in the season can also kill momentum. A team that was playing well before the break may not want the interruption.

However, participating in the Olympics is usually seen by most players as a huge honour. It brings together the top players from each country in a tournament like no other. The NHL break can also serve as a much needed rest period for players who may need time to rest up from nagging injuries.

In all likelihood, the NHL will likely end up going to Sochi. And even if the league decides not to, one of its biggest stars has already stated he is going. Alex Ovechkin has publicly stated that he will be competing for his home nation in 2014, no matter what the consequences. That might be reason enough for the league to head to Sochi.

I believe the NHL will end up going to the next Olympics, but there will be a new Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiated before they take place, so what happens with that is anyone’s guess. But the tournament only happens once every four years, and it is exciting for the players and fans alike. Hopefully it will continue.

The 2010 Winter Olympics are in full swing in Vancouver right now with thousands of athletes proudly donning the colors of their countries.  However, one group of athletes that want to participate might not even have the opportunity to try out for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

With the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) set to expire at the conclusion of the 2010-2011 season, the debate over whether NHL players will be permitted to participate in 2014 Olympics remains to be decided.  Both Commissioner Gary Bettman and several owners have openly voiced their disapproval over the current arrangement, in which the entire NHL shuts down for a two-week period in order to accommodate player involvement in the games.  However, not participating in the Olympics beyond this year could be harmful to the competitive level of play on the United States and several other countries’ behalf.

The Problems with Participation

Commissioner Bettman argues that participation in the Olympics results in an unnecessary strain on the players, the schedule, and NHL fans.  He also believes that the league receives little positive impact from the Olympics when the games are played outside North America.  Meanwhile, the owners argue that permitting their star players to participate in the Olympics risks team success and can compromise player injury liability clauses.

There is no doubt that both the Commissioner and the owners raise valid points; however, it is from a selfish standpoint.  Commissioner Bettman’s point on the strain on players presumably is based on the same reasoning as the owners:  If a player is injured during the Olympics, his team will subsequently be severely harmed.  The same point is well taken from owners, who believe that if a player of Alexander Ovechkin’s caliber were injured, arguably, the chances of the Washington Capitals competing at the same level would be decreased for the length of any injury.

Commissioner Bettman’s arguments regarding burdens on the schedule and the fans are also valid from the same self-serving perspective.  It is true that scheduling a two-week break in the middle of an 82-game schedule does make for tricky planning.  Teams must play compressed schedules and one team, the Vancouver Canucks, were forced into a 14-game road trip due to the Olympics taking place on their home ice.  This surely results in empty arenas and no money brought in for NHL events during this time.  Further, despite being several years removed from the NHL lockout of 2004-2005, new fans are only now beginning to tune into weekly national broadcasts.  Thus, from the NHL leadership’s perspective, the Olympics are a large risk.

Potential Answers

One potential way to ease the strain on players is to consider what can be done in individual player contracts.  As mentioned here on SAB last August [The Cost of Representing Your Country], players raised fears that if they were injured at Olympic training camps their teams would not insure them —and rightfully so, as some clubs have clauses protecting themselves against this liability.  If a player wants to participate on his country’s behalf, why not base it on an individual level.  Teams could take a strong stand in the upcoming CBA discussions that if a player wants to play in the Olympics, he must contractually agree to give up certain money and release the team of liability if an injury occurs during that period.  From the NHL leadership standpoint, this will shift the burden to the players, who will be forced to choose between financial gain and representing their country.  Such an idea could lead to discontent, but it might at least serve as a starting point in negotiations.

Aside from contractual arrangements, one answer that should not be considered is non-participation by the NHL.  Such a decision would substantially harm the already fragile public persona of the NHL in the United States.  Non-participation would be harmful for several reasons.

1. To counter Commissioner Bettman’s point regarding the little positive impact the NHL gains from the Olympics when the games are played outside North America, participation arguably boosts NHL notoriety outside of North America.  The NHL already participates in its own regular-season games outside of North America and has plans to continue these games to open several upcoming seasons.  If Commissioner Bettman truly believes that the NHL gains little by permitting its players to play for their country rather than an NHL team in an international venue, he is sorely missing an opportunity for more league exposure.  Rather than a hindrance, participation surely gains fans that want to see how certain players are doing prior to and after Olympic play.  While from an immediate revenue perspective, Commissioner Bettman may not see gains in the NHL coffers.  However, in all likelihood, it will result in the same or more revenue from the current NHL games taking place abroad in the long run.
2. Not permitting players to participate could result in resentment between players and the league.  Several high-profile players have already made it publicly known that they intend to participate in the 2014 Sochi games regardless of being given permission.  This includes the current face of the NHL, the wildly popular Russian-born Ovechkin.  If several high-profile players pack their bags for two weeks to play in the Olympics, leaving teams to find alternatives in their absence, the NHL will suffer more than if the league as a whole shuts down.  Down the road, a non-participation scenario could lead players considering the NHL to consider instead playing in leagues such as the KHL, whom permits Olympic participation.
3. The most important reason that non-participation is not the answer is the effect it will have on the United States level of Olympic play.  Currently, the entire U.S. squad is made up of NHL players.  The same can be said for Canada.  However, several other countries are able to put together very strong teams with experienced non-NHL players because leagues other than the NHL permit Olympic participation.  While Canada may be able to field a team of non-NHL players and remain as competitive as they are currently, the U.S. does not have that same luxury.

In all likelihood, if the NHL does not participate, players will come from the collegiate ranks.  While the likes of the “Miracle on Ice” roster did come from the NCAA, the level of competition in international play has changed drastically since that point in time.  Putting even the top Division I players up against experienced former NHLers playing in the KHL would result in a less competitive U.S. team.  This is nothing against the players that might be chosen, but outside of competition in the NCAA, many of these players will have little experience against the faster, stronger, and seasoned veterans from other countries.

While non-participation by the NHL in the Olympics may result in parity for certain countries, it would not continue the strong play of the United States.  Some may argue that non-NHL players would be hungrier or more determined— this remains to be seen.  Regardless of where others stand on this topic, whether the NHL will permit its players to participate will certainly be a point of negotiation for both sides at the expiration of the current CBA.

What are your thoughts?  Is continued participation in the Olympics beneficial to the NHL?

With the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl XLIV in Florida this year, it is hard to imagine any more star power in the Sunshine State.  However, the 2010 UF Sports Law Symposium defied the norm and did exactly that, bringing some of the top names in the sports industry to Gainesville.

The symposium was titled “Bargaining Collectively,” and covered all areas of collective bargaining agreements in the MLB, NBA, and NFL. For those of you unable to attend or watch the event LIVE on ustream, here is a brief recap of each of the panels.

The moderators for each panel took slightly different approaches on how to conduct the sessions.  This was a great idea and kept the audience and panelists on their toes and active during the discussion.  Dr. Harvey Schiller, President of the IBAF and CEO of GlobalOptions Group started the symposium off with a bang, addressing the crowd of around 60 or more with some opening remarks on professional sports and CBA’s.

Following Dr. Schiller’s opening remarks and a fifteen-minute food and networking break, speakers for the first panel on MLB collective bargaining issues began taking their seats.  The panelists in attendance were Marc Edelman, Gabe Feldman, Bob Ruxin, Nick Ohanesian, and UF Law Professor Thomas Hurst, who served as the moderator.

Mr. Hurst introduced the panel and gave a brief introduction of each of the four astonishing panelists before giving them the floor one at a time to speak.  Each panelist addressed a different issue relating to major league baseball and the current CBA that will expire on December 31^st of 2011.  Mr. Ohanesian (Resident Officer at the Jacksonville Resident Office of the NLRB) gave a transitory recap of the labor law process and layed down the foundation to discuss collective bargaining issues.  Following Mr. Ohanesian was Bob Ruxin, Harvard Graduate and astute author of An Athletes Guide to Agents, with contributions by SAB’s own Darren Heitner (this is my plug for everyone to go out and buy the book).

Mr. Ruxin led off with the story of Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale’s decision to negotiate their contracts with the Dodgers together in 1966.  After an amazing season by both players, Dodgers management met with the two separately and used their demands against each other. The two stars then sat down for dinner and discussed their contract issues, when Drysdale’s first wife, Ginger, suggested that they negotiate together.  Like any good husband would do, Don listened to his wife and the dynamic duo battled the Dodgers together.  Koufax and Drysdale did not like management’s stance on their contracts and they decided to not report to spring training.  In the mean time, the Dodgers trashed the two stars and their tactics and staged a public relations war against the two in the media.  After four weeks, Koufax told Drysdale he could negotiate new deals for the both of them. Koufax ended up getting $125,000 and Drysdale $110,000, which were the two highest salaries in baseball at the time.  This story is important because it represented one of the first situations in baseball where contracts were collectively negotiated between players and management.  The ramifications and fallout from that deal opened up the eyes of everyone involved in MLB and helped create the first ever collective bargaining agreement in professional sports in 1968 (emphasis added).

Following Mr. Ruxin, Gabe Feldman addressed the group. Each speaker had about 10-15 minutes to speak, which was followed by questions from the audience. The four panelists complimented each other very well and hit on many of the major areas that will be mentioned at MLB collective bargaining negotiations.

All four panelists had some great points to interject.  This session also included some additional commentary from Donald Fehr, the former Executive Director of the MLBPA, who was sitting in the audience enjoying his time and waiting for his turn to speak at the closing ceremonies.

I could obviously write much more about the great comments and suggestions the panelists made during the MLB discussion as well as the rest of the symposium, but in order to save time, I will leave you with a semi brief recap of the remaining panels.  If you have any questions about the symposium feel free to ask Darren or myself any questions (email: zakurtz@gmail.com or Twitter: @zakurtz).  Darren will also be posting video of the event as it becomes available.

After the conclusion of the MLB session, it was time for the NBA to step into the spotlight.  The moderator for this panel discussion was UF Professor, Mark Fenster.  Mr. Fenster took a different approach and directed questions to the panel and specific panelists.  The panelists in this session included Sports Illustrated Legal Analyst and Vermont Law School Professor Michael McCann; renowned author and advisor Marc Isenberg; sports litigator Alan Milstein, and Patrick Muldowney, attorney from Baker Hostetler and counsel for the Orlando Magic.  This panel discussed recent news such as Gilbert Arenas’ gun issue, Brandon Jennings and the “one and done” rule and ended with a discussion on revenue sharing and other possible issues that could cause an NBA lockout.  All of the individuals on this panel were not afraid to share their opinions and beliefs, even if they differed from other panelists.  This caused for some great debates and passionate discussions.  The brilliant minds of Michael McCann and Marc Isenberg worked well together and seemed to agree on many issues…more specifically, revenue sharing and the role of the NCAA on future NBA athletes.  Patrick Muldowney was viewed as the “pro-league” representative, although he did render neutral opinions that covered both sides throughout the discussion.  Professor McCann discussed his research regarding arrests of NBA players and their age, stating that no correlation exists between younger NBA players and arrests (Check out the Sports Law Blog for Professor McCann’s article on this topic).  Overall, the energy from these professionals was great and was certainly palpable by the audience.  Although the NFL panel covered more interesting topic areas to me, the NBA discussion was my favorite panel to listen to.  Not only were the debates exceptionally intelligent, but also each of the four speakers were very spirited while arguing their side.

Last but certainly not least was the NFL panel discussion.  This panel consisted of eight individuals, and like the previous two discussions, the amount of knowledge on the subject areas was overflowing from the UF Law School covered tables.  The moderator was a UF Levin College of Law professor Jeffrey Harrison.  Panelists were Ralph Cindrich of DeBartolo Sports & Entertainment; former VP of the Green Bay Packers and President of the National Football post, Andrew Brandt; J.I. Halsell, salary cap analyst and expert formerly with the Washington Redskins; Ryan Morgan, President & CEO of Morgan Advisory Group; Glenn Schwartzman, CEO of Alliance Sports Management; J. Richard Burnoski, President and CEO of Empire Sports Agency; and Paul J. Healy, Agent/Advisor and Partner at Healy Stone & Zahler.

Mr. Harrison had his own unique approach to moderating his panel.  Mr. Harrison posed several questions throughout the hour and fifteen-minute pane, and allowed any/all panelists to chime in on issues they were familiar with.

Ralph Cindrich kicked off the last panel by showing a marketing video that he and the DeBartolo Sports team made for Notre Dame safety Tom Zbikowski.  Cindrich went on to talk about how new media outlets such as YouTube are being used by agents to market unknown athletes and even stars with notoriety.  He mentioned that NFL scouts and managers actually do watch these videos.  Using Rex Ryan’s 27 views of the Zbikowski video is a prime example.

This star studded panel tackled the hard issues relating to the upcoming collective bargaining agreement that ends in March of 2011.  The panel unanimously agreed that the owners and NFLPA are unlikely to come to a decision by the end of this March, thus making this next season an uncapped year.  This would mean that the NFL would act like the MLB, with no ceiling or floor in regards to team salaries.  According to the panel, the players are asking for transparency and want to see the books.  They are asking management to take less than the 18% they currently are taking.  Both of the requests are unlikely to be accepted, which will most likely bring an uncapped year to the NFL.

Salary cap expert J.I. Halsell and Andrew Brandt discussed the ramifications of an uncapped year.  Halsell mentioned that this would drastically decrease the number of unrestricted free agents.  The uncapped year will add two more years to player’s contracts, making them unrestricted free agents in six years instead of the usual four years that we are accustomed to.  Mr. Brandt followed with a discussion on revenue sharing and discussed the wide disparity between teams in baseball and how that could occur in the NFL next year.

Glenn Shwartzman, J. Richard Burnoski  or “Bruno” and Paul Healy also discussed the role of agents during collective bargaining agreements.  The three took turns discussing how important it is to communicate effectively with your client right from the start.   Bruno mentioned that if an uncapped year is a likely possibility, like it is here, the agent may handle the players contract differently.  Healy discussed the ability to have players paid over a 30 week period instead of the more traditional 17 week period, which would help tremendously if a lockout were to happen.

Overall, the large NFL panel worked great together and covered almost all areas that I was interested in learning about.  They even threw in some helpful hints to future agents about being honest and truthful at all times with your client, even if it is something he may not want to hear.  The panelists all agreed that they would rather lose a client, than take on someone with unrealistic goals or visions of themselves or their agent.  The panel concluded with a Q and A session that was very informative.

After three great panel discussions, the symposium was finally ready for the great Donald M. Fehr to address the crowd.  The insightful words of Mr. Donald Fehr were an amazing way to end a great symposium.  Mr. Fehr worked as the MLB Players Association’s Executive Director for 26 years.  He recently (2009) passed the title over to Mike Weiner.  During his tenure with the MLB, Mr. Fehr successfully negotiated two collective bargaining agreements with the MLBPA and the league (2002 and 2006) and has a tremendous amount of knowledge in the areas of collective bargaining, contract administration, grievance matters, arbitration issues, and pensions and health care matters.

Mr. Fehr is an amazing speaker.  He not only discussed the many different areas that would be covered in collective bargaining agreements, but was able to connect with the majority in the room (law school students) and all others through his use of specific comparisons and diagrams on the white board.  He began his dialogue talking about the draft and recited one of my favorite comparisons of the day to describe how ludicrous the whole draft thing really is.  He compared the teams taking part in the draft with prestigious law firms and the college or draft eligible athletes with the law students.  He compared the fairness of the draft system on NCAA student athletes with a hypothetical situation where law students could only get a job offer from one of thirty possible law firms.  The law firms would interview with students, research the top students, test the students, and rank them or choose them based on those tested areas.  The students who were picked by those thirty schools would be lawyers while ALL others have to choose something else.

As I mentioned throughout this article, all the panelists were very insightful.  I could not possibly recap all the great speakers or discuss the conference in its entirety.  That is why everyone reading this should plan on attending next year’s symposium at UF and find out for themselves what all the fuss is about.

I would like to thank Darren, Adam and the rest of the UF EASLS crew for putting together such a wonderful symposium.  I would also like to thank all the wonderful speakers who dedicated much of their time and energy to the symposium. It certainly was a success to everyone.

Finding a professional athlete work during a lockout might amount to getting him on teams in other countries or minor leagues in North America. This strategy was widely used during the last NHL lockout in the 2003-2004 season. Players like Chris Chelios played with fringe minor league teams close to home and family while others like Joe Thornton, who went to the Swiss Nationalliga, gave a boost to European leagues across the pond.

Agents and advisors learned from the 2004 lockout and came up with strategies to maintain cashflow to their client in the event of a future lockout. With the current NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement expiring after the 2011-2012 season (unless the players use their option to extend it), agents are negotiating a very practical provision into newly signed contracts. The Lockout Provision calls for a player to receive his signing bonus in the year in which a lockout could occur.

Milan Lucic is the beneficiary of this new provision. Lucic recently signed a three-year, $12.25 million contract extension. Most of the buzz about this extension centered around the fact that Lucic will be paid over $4 million in each year of his contract, yet he only tallied 69 points in his two NHL seasons. Obviously, Lucic got a great deal and should be very happy with his agent’s work here. But Lucic can also play the next couple seasons without the insecurity of possibly not getting paid after the 2011-2012 season; that’s because the Boston Bruins agreed to pay Lucic a $1 million signing bonus in 2012.

Not only does the Lockout Provision provide players with financial security in a time of job insecurity, it may also enhance the NHLPA’s bargaining position during CBA negotiations. If the Lockout Provision becomes more common in contracts, the NHLPA can use the fact that some players will be paid regardless of whether they play as leverage.

My reading of Matthew’s piece is at a very apropos time.  I just placed my first basketball client overseas, and earlier today, discussed a possible NCAA rule change that would allow high school graduates to play professionally overseas and retain their student-athlete eligibility.  I believe that the rule change would open the NBA up to even more competition against the international market; athletes will be more comfortable with traveling across the ocean to play in a foreign country if they have previous experience playing there before college.

Matthew’s premise is that basketball competition overseas is now credible, which serves as a big threat to the NBA under its current collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  The The Union of European Leagues of Basketball (ULEB) and its exclusive Euroleague have been able to acquire strong talent from the United States in the past few years.  While the NBA does not allow any athletes under the age of 19 to play its game, FIBA (the entity in charge of creating rules and regulations in Europe), allows 18-year-olds to play in the ULEB.  FIBA does not regulate player contracts or salary caps, but teams may be bound by their country’s or European Union’s labor laws.  No salary cap means that players will be valued properly…remember rumors of Kobe Bryant considering going overseas…purely because the NBA’s salary cap restricts his ceiling.

Other benefits of playing overseas include the creativity that owners are able to use to secure players.  They often offer cars, residences, rent, and flights in their contracts.  Sometimes, players are even given the right to become partial owners of their team and can sell advertising space on their uniforms.  And then compare the Euro to the U.S. Dollar.

Meanwhile, the NBA implements a salary cap, allows owners the possibility to have restricted free agents, and tells 18-year-olds ready to play after high school, that they have to wait a year.

Epps says that a free agent transfer agreement with Euroleague is not plausible.  It would be challenged in U.S. and EU courts.  Instead, Commissioner Stern might want to consider expanding into Europe now, and create a few NBA teams across the Atlantic Ocean to compete in an NBA Europe.  I believe that an NBA Europe is an interesting idea, but it would have to be totally distinct from the NBA in the U.S.  Although there could be a “World Championship” between the winner of the NBA Finals and NBA Europe Finals.  That would make for some good T.V.

Another solution: Get rid of this one-and-done rule!

Walsh stated in another tweet, “NHL benefits w [sic] Olympic participation and players bear all risk!” It certainly seems that way. With varying degrees of success, the NHL is able to use the Olympic tournament as a showcase for the game. Although Gary Bettman and the owners say they dislike shutting the league down for two weeks in February every four years, the Olympics are quite a spectacle for the league. I don’t have any facts to back this up, but I have to assume that somehow the league benefits financially from the players participating in the Olympics. All 82 regular season games are still played, so there is no lost revenue from games not being played. The Olympic tournament is the ultimate display of skill, as the very best players in the world play against each other in a short, do-or-die format. From a fan’s perspective, it is probably the best hockey there is. How could the NHL not benefit from this?

A team’s fear that an injury may occur, though, is quite reasonable. In 2006, Dominik Hasek’s groin injury suffered during the Olympics quite probably cost the Ottawa Senators a shot at the Stanley Cup that year. However, is it really necessary for the NHL to suspend a player injured at one of these camps? Players train harder in the offseason now than ever before. They have to come to training camp in September in tip top shape. Would the same player be suspended if he was injured during an off ice training session or during a pickup game of ball hockey with friends? Some contracts may stipulate this, but I don’t know if the majority of them do.

Hockey Canada has secured extra insurance for players taking part in its Olympic Camp. The National Hockey League Players’ Association has also told participating players that they may want to purchase extra insurance on their own in case of an injury. While the likelihood of an injury is low (they aren’t going to be going full tilt at these camps), making sure that your client is protected (and his contract) is sound thinking for an agent.

In June, I wrote an article describing the future implications of the “decade deal” as I called it, on the National Hockey League. A player typically signs a deal longer than ten years for tens of millions of dollars. There are elements of risk and reward for each side. The team gets the player signed at a lower salary cap number than the player might have got on the open market, but a contract that long can sometimes weigh a team down (eg. the New York Islanders and Rick DiPietro). The player takes a little less money per year, but has the security of knowing that his contract is guaranteed for the long term, and if it is bought out, he still receives a significant portion of his salary.

Late last week, word surfaced that the NHL was probing the long-term deals that were signed by Chris Pronger and Marian Hossa shortly after the free agency period began on July 1st. Hossa signed a 12 year, $62.8 million contract with the Chicago Blackhawks, while Pronger signed a new 7 year, $34.9 million with the Philadelphia Flyers shortly after being traded from the Anaheim Ducks. Hossa’s cap number is just over $5 million per year and Pronger’s is just under $5 million. However, both players will earn the vast majority of their money in the first years of the deal. Under Hossa’s deal, he will earn just $3.5 total million in the final three years of the deal. Pronger will earn just $1.5 million total in the final two years of his deal. If not for those years, the players’ cap hits would be much higher.

The league is concerned that these types of deals violate the “spirit” of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since they will be earning far less money in the later years of the contract than the earlier years, it has been predicted that both players will choose to retire since they will have most of their money made. The league is investigating to determine whether this was considered by the teams before the deals were signed. If it is found that this was part of the negotiations, the Hawks and Flyers could face heavy fines and could possibly lose draft picks.

While it is unlikely that any stiff action will come out of the league’s investigation, it again raises the likelihood that this issue will be addressed in the next round of CBA negotiations. Gary Bettman has stated that he does not believe that these types of deals do not circumvent the salary cap, but all signs point to several heated discussions when the league and players’ association meet to begin negotiations within the next two years. It is up to the individual teams to determine how they spend their money, but if the league has its way, there will likely be one more restriction in place to limit spending and maintain parity.