The Sports Law Guru

Entries from December 2008

Potential Criminal & Civil Liability for Andre Smith & Agent

December 31, 2008 · Leave a Comment

If you’ve read the sports page over the last few days you’ve undoubtedly heard about Alabama’s suspension of their star offensive tackle Andre Smith just days before the Sugar Bowl. While Alabama has not confirmed the reason for the suspension, it has been widely speculated that Smith had discussions with an agent regarding his future in the NFL.  If true, such discussions are a big no-no in the eyes of the NCAA and are likely the reason for Smith’s suspension.  If you look around the internet you’ll find all kinds of articles attacking Smith and wondering how in the world he could be so stupid as to talk to an agent a week before what would’ve likely been his final collegiate game.  Afterall, all he had to do was play the final game and then he could have openly talked to any agent he wanted to.  You’ll also find a few articles discussing slimeball agents and how these types of things go on all the time and give agents such a bad name.  One even went so far as to rank sports agents below personal injury attorneys with respect to slimeballyness….

alabama-logoThere is, however, an angle to this story that hasn’t really been discussed.  That is the issue of potential civil and criminal liability for Smith and the, as-yet unknown, Agent.  You see, Alabama is serious about its amateur sports and in order to maintain the legitimacy of its amateur sports it is has adopted the Alabama Uniform Athlete Agents Act (the “Act”).  Essentially, the Act requires any agent doing business in Alabama to register with the state.  It also contains certain restrictions upon the activities that an agent can and can’t engage in.  Alabama adopted its Act in the current form in 2001, and is one of approximately 30 states that have adopted similar acts.

For example, in addition to requiring the agent to register with the State, the Act states that an agent may not “(1) Give any materially false or misleading information or make a materially false promise or representation. (2) Furnish, directly or indirectly, any thing of value to a student-athlete before the student-athlete enters into the agency contract.  (3) Furnish, directly or indirectly, any thing of value to any individual other than the student-athlete or another registered athlete agent.” (Alabama Code § 8-26A-14(a)).  It also goes on to state that a student-athlete may not, “(2) Accept anything from an athlete agent without first entering into a contract in conformity with this chapter.” (Alabama Code § 8-26A-14(d)).

In addition to regulating the conduct of agents, the Alabama statute prescribes significant criminal penalties for both student-athletes and agents that do not follow the terms of the Act.  Section 8-26a-15 of the Alabama code makes a violation of the Act by an agent a class B or C Felony, depending on the type of violation.  Class B Felonies can carry a sentence of up to 20 years, while Class C convictions can be up to 10 years.  Violations by student-athletes are Class C misdemeanors and carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 70 hours community service.  While it is highly unlikely that a single incident would result in a 20 year prison sentence for an agent, the point is that Alabama clearly wasn’t messing around when it created the Act.  …and they didn’t stop there.

Alabama also provides civil remedies to universities who are harmed by the actions of the agent and student-athlete.  Alabama Code § 8-26A-16(B) allows the university to recover “losses and expenses incurred because… the educational institution was injured by a violation of this chapter or was penalized, disqualified, or suspended from participation in athletics by a national association for the promotion and regulation of athletics, by an athletic conference, or by reasonable self-imposed disciplinary action taken to mitigate sanctions likely to be imposed by such an organization.”  So what does that mean?  Well, it could mean a whole lot of things.  Here’s a likely scenario – suppose a university is sanctioned by the NCAA and is unable to compete in post-season bowl games the following year.  That would also mean the university would have to forego all of the revenue that goes along with it, including TV revenue.  Given the economic impact of college football bowl games, the result of such a sanction could clearly be measured in the millions of dollars.  All of those damages can likely be traced back to the improper contact between the agent and student-athlete, and the agent and student-athlete could be sued by the university for all of the lost revenue!  I sure hope the agent negotiated a big NFL signing bonus…

While the Andre Smith situation will likely not cause any direct harm to Alabama as they appear to be doing a good job of self-policing so that the NCAA doesn’t have to step in, lessons can still be learned.  There can be significant civil liabilities for student-athletes and agents who try to skirt the rules to get an unfair advantage.  Time will tell if there will be any criminal charges brought in this matter.  However, yesterday the Alabama Attorney General did say that they were investigating the matter.  Given Alabama’s track record, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if we see a criminal complaint once the identity of the agent is revealed.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Telmex F1?

December 29, 2008 · Leave a Comment

carlos_slim_helu

Carlos Slim

Yesterday it was widely reported that Carlos Slim had agreed to purchase the assets of Honda’s now defunct F1 team.  For those that don’t follow Forbes’ list of richest people in the world, Mr. Slim is #2.   While Slim is involved in a variety of business from restaurants to retail to manufacturing, he is best known in the sports world as the owner of Telmex. Telmex is Mexico’s largest mobile telecom provider and has long been a sponsor of motorsports at just about every level. Currently their most high profile sponsorship is Chip Ganassi’s Grand-Am operation.

Earlier today Speedtv.com published a report in which both Honda and Slim vehemently denied that Slim had agreed to purchase the team.  Telmex stated that the reports of Slim’s purchase were “baseless and totally false.”  In addition, Honda boss Ross Brawn was quoted as saying, “any suggestion that Slim or his company Telmex are close to finalising a deal is not true.” Now, I’ve been around the block a few times and if there’s one thing I’ve found to be true in motorsports (other than the fact that every rich guy thinks he can promote a street race…) is that when both sides to a negotiation are passionately denying something, you can just about guarantee that it is in fact true.  As the saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

I sincerely hope that Slim does buy the team.  F1 desperately needs an infusion of new ideas and solid financial support.  Too often in the past new teams have come into F1 underfunded and lacking respect in the paddock.  F1 is a boys club and Slim/Telmex would fit right in.  The deal makes perfect sense.  Slim is known to be a bulldog and while he would not run the day-to-day operations of the team, he would provide the financial stability that is necessary to be respected in F1.  Further, he would have the clout to stand up to Bernie Ecclestone, Max Mosley and the other F1 bosses — something that is desperately needed in F1 right now.   The deal makes sense for Honda as well.  Surely Honda is looking for a purchaser with a solid financial position and long-term outlook on the team.  Slim has the bottomless pot of money and Telmex’s involvement in racing should serve as a testament to Slim’s commitment to motorsport.

Keep denying it guys – to me it only confirms the strength of the rumor.  Is it too early to start thinking about the return of a Mexico GP?  Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez anyone?…

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Is Vince Young INVINCEABLE?

December 23, 2008 · 3 Comments

According to this article from SportingNews.com, Vince Young has filed a lawsuit against Rodney Vannerson, Enos Cabell and Tom Roberson related to the trademarks “VY” and “INVINCEABLE”.   Apparentlly, Vannerson, Cabell and Roberson applied for trademarks related to these nicknames immediately following Texas’ Rose Bowl win in 2006.  Young says he has been known as VY since childhood and was given the nickname INVINCEABLE while at Texas, but Tennessee fans are lobbying to take it away (…ok, I may have made  that last that part up, but you have to admit he hasn’t done much lately to earn the nickname).  Young further claims that his inability to use the nicknames in advertising, particularly with Reebok, has harmed him financially.

vince-youngThere aren’t a lot of facts available as the complaint was just filed, but this sounds like a pretty straight-forward Right of Publicity case.  The Right of Publicity is a common law right that was first established by the 1953 case, Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir. 1953).  Haelen acknowledges an individual’s right to control the public use of their name, likeness and identity.  Many states have taken this common law right and expanded it through statute.  Further, the case Ali v. Playgirl, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 723, 728 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) expands the Right of Publicity to specifically include nicknames.  In Ali, Muhammad Ali sued Playgirl Magazine over its publication of a photo of a nude black man with the title “The Greatest”.  Ali successfully argued that the “The Greatest” was his nickname and that this use infringed on his right to control his likeness.

In order to succeed in a Right of Publicity case there are certain factors that must be evaluated.  These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the plaintiff must prove that their likeness was used without consent and the plaintiff was in some way injured by the defendants use of their likeness.  In addition, some jurisdictions also require that the defendant’s use be for a commercial purpose.

Given this general framework, let’s take a look at Young’s case.  The easy elements first.  Was Young harmed by the defendant’s use of VY and INVINCEABLE?  Well, it sure seems that way.  If Reebok wanted to use the trademarks on his behalf and now is unable to, there certainly is some harm.  While it may not be  terrible harm (he’s still got a sponsorship with Reebok afterall!, there is still some injury.  Second, was the defendants’ use for a commercial purpose?  Well, we really don’t know, but presumable they didn’t spend the money on the trademark application just so that they could say they owned the trademark…. For our purposes, I think we can assume the defendants had an intent to financially profit from the trademark.  Did they have Young’s consent to use and trademark VY and INVINCEABLE?  Based on the facts presented by Young, it sure doesn’t appear that they did.

If we accept Young’s version of the facts as being true, it seems pretty clear that Vannerson, Cabell and Roberson violated Young’s Rights of Publicity.  However, at this point we only have one side of the story.  Clearly there is a reason that this dispute resulted in litigation and wasn’t resolved through negotiation.  Thus, I’ll have to reserve final judgment until I see all of the facts.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Another Blow for Detroit, Belle Isle GP Canceled

December 19, 2008 · Leave a Comment

ESPN reported last night that the 2009 Detroit Belle Isle GP has been canceled due to the faltering economy.  The event featured IndyCar, ALMS and Speed World Challenge.  Yet another example of tough economic conditions affecting the sports industry.  It’s really too bad, Detroit desperately needs something positive.  It’s football team is 0-14 and the American auto industry, which is the foundation of the area’s economy, is on the brink of collapse.

castronevesWhile it’s sad, it’s also predictable.  Street races like the Detroit GP are incredibly expensive to stage, as the entire facility infrastructure must be built and taken apart on an annual basis.  That means truckload after truckload of concrete block, fencing, bridges, etc.  Usually on a very tight schedule; sometimes just six weeks from laying the first block to removing the final one.  I can tell you from experience, that without a rock solid national title sponsor (they didn’t have one)  and a slew of local/regional sponsors (not really any of these either), the event will be a financial disaster.  While large attendance numbers are great for TV, they’re just not nearly enough to offset the tremendous costs of such an event.  While I have no specific information to back this up, I would venture to guess that ticket revenue for last year’s event was likely less than $4 million.  Add some corporate hospitality revenue to that and you might get to $5 million.  With an annual budget which is likely in the $7-11 million range, the business case for the event just simply doesn’t exist.  …unless of course, you have a large corporate sponsors kicking in $2+ million and a host of other local sponsors totalling another $2+ million.  In the current economy, particularly in Detroit, these sponsors are few and far between.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Assumption of Risk: Soccer Denied Protection… America’s Pastime Still Safe?

December 18, 2008 · 4 Comments

The ruling Monday by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc. throws a bit of a monkeywrench into the long standing doctrine that “there is no legal duty to protect or warn spectators about the ‘common, frequent, and expected’ inherent risks of observing a sporting event such as being struck by flying objects that go into the stands.” (Allred at P.7, quoting Marquette Sports Law Review).  In this case the Plaintiff, Teresa Allred, was attending a women’s professional soccer match (betcha didn’t know that existed, did you?) and was struck in the head by an errant shot during warmups while she was sitting in the stands.  Ms. Allred was injured; unfortunately, the case doesn’t identify the extent of her injuries.  In true American fashion, she sued the soccer league for negligence…

The trial court dismissed the case by applying the traditional rule outlined above.  The most common application of the “No Duty” rule is applied in baseball.  The analysis is pretty simple.  Attendees at baseball games understand that there is a risk that they may be struck by an errant ball and assume the associated risk.  The are presumed to understand the risk, because it is so patently obvious from the nature of the game that a ball could fly into the stands and hit someone.  Even more simply — It’s America’s pastime, everyone understands it.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court and reversed the decision, sending the case back to the trial court to continue.  The simple reason – soccer is NOT America’s pastime.  Ok, it was a little more than that.  …but not much.  The Court of Appeals stated that it may not be true “that a reasonable person attending a soccer match would possess such particularized knowledge” so as to understand the risk. (Allred at P.13).  Really?  Is it not pretty obvious that a soccer ball could fly into the stands?  Sure, soccer isn’t America’s pastime, but the last time I checked there were more kids in America playing youth soccer than any other sport.  Soccer Mom, anyone?  Seems to me that this court may be a bit out of touch.  Americans may not intimately understand soccer, but they certainly know that there is no Star Wars-style deflector shield keeping the ball out of the stands.

In all seriousness, I feel bad for Ms. Allred, but genuinely hope that this ruling does not stand.  The traditional rule is a good one and was established for good reasons that apply equally well to soccer and baseball.  To further erode the protection provided to sports leagues and facility owners does nothing but artificially increase the cost of the sport.  And we all know that increased costs just result in higher ticket and merchandise prices for the fans.

Oh, I almost forgot… Guess where Ms. Allred was sitting?  …In the stands directly behind the goal, or course!

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , ,

New F1 Engine Program to Cut Ferrari’s Budget by 1/2…. Only $250,000,000 by 2012

December 17, 2008 · Leave a Comment

I found this article over at itv-f1.com to be interesting.  In the article Ferrari president, Luca di Montezemolo, praises F1’s decision to create a standard engine program featuring Cosworth engines beginning in 2010.  Under the standard engine program, teams will pay approximately €7,000,000 per annum, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the ferrari-logoamount most teams spent on engines in 2008.  Under the new standard engine program, teams will have the right to opt out and create their own engines, so long as the engine is of equal power as the standard Cosworth power plant.  Ferrari will undoubtedly create their own engine and, according to Montezemolo,  likely would have pulled out of F1 if the spec engine had been mandated for all teams.  It is anticipated that four or five other teams will also opt out of the program and utilize their own proprietary engines.

The part of the article that I found most interesting is the impact that the standard engine program will have on Ferrari’s costs.  Even though Ferrari will not be using the standard engine, Montezemolo anticipates that in 2010 alone they will save 50% based on historic engine expenses.  This savings is primarily based on the fact that the 2010 standard engine program produces slightly less power output compared to 2008 and, thus, is less expensive to develop and maintain.   Ferrari estimates that by 2012 the standard engine program will save them 50% of their entire budget!  Ferrari’s annual budget for 2008 was reportedly in excess of $500,000,000.  That means F1’s cost cutting will save Ferrari $250,000,000 per annum by 2012, even though they’ve opted out of the spec engine program.   The savings, as a percentage of overall budget, are most assuredly even greater for the teams utilizing the spec Cosworth engine.  Assuming similar savings across the entire F1 paddock, the impact is enormous — nearly $1,000,000,000 per year!  Sure, that’s a rounding error in the Big Three’s bailout request, but it’s some serious coin to those without legacy pension expenses…

Speed certainly doesn’t come cheap, but I venture to guess that only the most astute observer will be able to visually differentiate the speeds of Ferrari’s cars on a $500,000,000 budget vs. those on a $250,000,000 budget.  Sure, there will be some that say F1 should be an unlimited class, but the fact is that without significant cost reductions there would very shortly only be two cars on the F1 grid, and both would be emblazoned with the prancing horse.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

AmLaw Agrees With The Guru

December 16, 2008 · Leave a Comment

It looks like I’m not the only one who thinks the NFL’s “arbitration” process is a bit of a sham.  Here’s an article from yesterday’s Am Law Daily discussing the issue.

The column also addresses the uncertainty facing the Arena Football League and their cancellation of the 2009 season.  For what it’s worth, I think the AFL is an important property.  American football doesn’t really have a true minor league.  Sure, there are various and sundry semi-pro leagues, but nothing like the NBDL for the NBA or minor league baseball system for MLB. While, there are plans for a new minor league called the United Football League to begin play in 2009, I’m seriously questioning the viability of that enterprise.  We all remember the XFL, right?  Launching a new sports property, let alone rebuilding one with some brand equity such as the AFL, is an incredibly expensive undertaking – especially in a down economy.  The AFL is a unique property that serves a niche market. I’m really hoping that the AFL’s current struggles aren’t the “canary in the coal mine” for other sports properties, both minor league and major league.  History has shown us that minor league franchises are the first to suffer when the economy turns south.

I have long been a proponent of smaller leagues adopting a single entity approach, whereby the league owns (or has  a controlling interest in) all of the teams and holds the contracts to all of the players.  Such a structure allows the league to control costs much more effectively and develop marketing and sales platforms which are  much more efficient than each team handling its own marketing.  In addition, the overall administrative costs are reduced, as the executive tier of the organization is focused at the league level and not spread across many teams.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Impartial Arbitration in NFL?

December 12, 2008 · Leave a Comment

As I’m sure you’ve read on every sports website, yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson upheld the NFLPA’s injunction against the NFL.  This means that the five players which the NFL is attempting to suspend for testing positive for a banned substance, bumetanide, will be permitted to continue playing – likely for at least the remainder of the season.  Bumetanide is a diuretic that is often used to mask steroid use.  However, in this case it was found in a popular supplement called StarCaps, which is used by players to cut nfl-logoweight.  From the evidence currently available, it appears that none of the players knew Bumetanide was in StarCaps and none of them was using the supplement to mask steroids.  However, the NFL was aware that StarCaps contained Bumetanide, but did not inform the players or NFLPA of their findings.  Instead, they tested the players, found the banned substance, suspended the players,…. then told them, “by the way, StarCaps contains Bumetanide – GOTCHA!” …Well, maybe it didn’t quite go down that way, but you get the drift.  The NFL knew the substance was contained in the product and, whether intentionally of not (I personally find it highly unlikely that it was intentional), failed to tell the NFLPA, as they had done in the past when banned substances were found in other supplements.

Ok, now that I’ve repeated the story from every sports journalist in the country you’re surely asking, “tell me something I don’t know?”  Well, the part of this story that I find the most interesting is the NFL’s internal arbitration procedure.  You see, prior to this case making it into the U.S. court system, it was evaluated by an arbitrator who determined that the NFL was correct in suspending the players for violating the league’s anti-doping rules.  So, who was the arbitrator?  None other than the NFL’s Chief Legal Officer, Jeffrey Pash…  I’ve worked with several sports leagues over the years and, unfortunately, this is a relatively common practice, but that surely doesn’t make it any more impartial!  For a league like the NFL to utilize it’s own CLO as an arbitrator in a suspension appeal that it itself is trying to enforce is just a bad practice.  It’s not as if the NFL is small-time league that can’t afford to retain a neutral third party arbitrator, many smaller and more progressive leagues do this all the time.  Heck, when I was General Counsel for the Champ Car World Series, I surely didn’t evaluate appeals.  Intead, I would bring in a panel of three neutral arbitrators to hear the case.  I submit that this is exactly what the NFL should be doing.   Afterall, the public demands impartiality in sports leagues when it comes to on-field activities, shouldn’t it be the same off the field?

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.

Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Sports Betting Revenue = New State Income Source?

December 10, 2008 · 2 Comments

History has shown that with just about every downturn in the economy, there is a corresponding movement for government to look for new sources of revenue.  Afterall, when people are unemployed or underemployed tax revenue is reduced and governments face budget shortfalls.  The Federal government’s newfound interest in underreported Sales & Use Taxes over the last year or so is my favorite example of this phenomena.  What about State government’s?  Their revenues are slumping too.  How are they going to raise additional revenue?  Well, there seems to be a movement within several states to legalize (…and TAX of course) sports betting.

Contrary to popular belief, sports betting is illegal in every U.S. State except for Nevada and, on a very limited basis, Montana.  Even in those States where it is legal, it is heavily restricted.  “What a minute,” you say – “I can bet on sports (now wouldn’t that be a great name for a website?) over the internet anytime I want.”  While that may be true, it is still illegal.  Just ask the Brit who founded betonsports.com.  I think you can still find him in a Texas prison…

There are a multitude of laws that make sports betting illegal.  The primary one is the 1992 Professional and Ameteur Sports Protection Act (28 U.S.C. §3702) (“PASPA”).  Under PASPA, it is “unlawful for… a government entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, pursuant to the law or compact of a government entity, a …betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based… on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are intended to participate…”  The practical effect of this is that no State can pass a law authorizing sports betting.  However, PASPA does provide an exception for horse/dog racing and also grandfathers in those States which previously had legalized some form of sports betting.  Thus, since Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana previously had legalized sports betting, they are free under PASPA to pass laws permitting and regulating it.  Lucky for them!

And guesss what?  Next month, the Delaware General Assembly will likely be considering legalizing some form of sports betting in order to capitalize on their grandfathered status and raise some much needed additional revenue for the State.  Why not, the economics of legalizing sports betting are a no-brainer.  According to the State of Nevada, $92 Million was wagered legally on Super Bowl XLII.  Compare that to the $8 BILLION which USA Today estimates was was illegally wagered on Super Bowl XLII and you can see that there is a lot of black market cash that State governments would love to get their hands on.

Now here’s the rub.  Suppose you’re New Jersey and you want to legalize sports betting in your state.  Which, incidentally, is what New Jersey wants to do.  Afterall, they’ve got Atlantic City; a natural fit for sports books.  Sorry, no can do – PASPA forbids it!  Let’s get this straight — Delaware, which hasn’t had sports betting for over 30 years, can legalize it, but New Jersey, a magnet for gamblers, can’t?  Interestingly enough, that’s exactly the case.  You see, PASPA was enacted to generally prohibit sports betting across the country, but it was recognized that to outlaw sports betting in Nevada would have a devastating impact on the economy.  Hence, the carve out.

Because of this unequal treatment, New Jersey and other states are now faced with the uphill battle of legalizing a practice which is is illegal at the Federal level and subsequently convincing Congress to change the law so that they can engage in a practice which is perfectly legal in other states.  Maybe I’m dense, but I just don’t get it.  Why would the Federal government pass a law like this?  I understand that they want to restrict sports betting, but by allowing it in Nevada, they’ve set the precedent that it’s really not against public policy.  Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that Nevada is just a Federally sanctioned den of hedonism designed to protect the rest of the country from itself…. Nah…  In any event, wouldn’t it have made more sense for PASPA to generally outlaw sports betting, but acknowledge that State’s could pass contrary laws?  That way, the Feds could accomplish their goal, but the State’s would still all be on equal ground.  Especially when it comes to taxing their citizens…

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks?  Let me hear about it.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

General Liability?

December 8, 2008 · 3 Comments

This past week I was invited by WSIB Motorsports Insurance and Chubb Custom Insurance to speak to a group of race track owners and operators in Reno, NV.   The tracks represented were oval tracks from all around the country, most of which are members of ASA.  It was a great event and I would like to thank WSIB, Chubb and ASA for their hospitality.  The topic of my presentation was primarily related to the enforceability of exculpatory agreements — waivers and releases to the general public — and I’ll write more on that topic in the future.  What I want to discuss here is Commercial General Liability (“GL”) insurance.  What is it?  What isn’t it?

contactusMost people hear the word insurance and tune out immediately.  It’s one of those things that you don’t really pay attention to until you need it.  GL insurance is particularly that way.  People hear the word “General” and they think, “hey, I’ve got general coverage, so I’m protected for everything.”  They think that “General” means the policy is a catch-all policy.  Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth.  GL insurance is actually VERY specific!  Let me explain.

GL insurance is liability insurance.  That is, it protects you and your company from legal liability.  In order for the insurance to be applicable, you must be found to be liable either through a lawsuit or under a contract.  Some liabilities that GL insurance usually protects against arise from: a) bodily injury (physical injury to a person), b) property damage, c) personal injury (generally non-physical injury, such as libel or slander), and d) advertising injury (generally intellectual property infringement).  Still not completely clear?  Here are some hypothetical examples:

Suppose that a guest at your race track gets her foot run over by one of your employees driving a golf-cart in a busy pit-lane prior to a race.  The injured guest sues you for negligently operating the golf-cart.  The court rules that you were neglient, but since the guest signed a waiver prior to the event, the court determines that you are not liable for her injuries.  Does your GL insurance pay for her injuries?  Not a chance!  The court found you to not be liable, so there is no coverage.

Next, same facts as above, except that the guest didn’t sign a waiver.  Yes, in this case, your GL insurance would pay, as you were negligent and found to be liable.  …see how important waivers are.  Now you have a claim on your record, which I’m sure the insurance company will remember when calculating your next renewal rate!

Those are pretty simple, but here’s one that trips up a lot of people.  Suppose one of your employees is driving a forklift in your paddock area and crashes into your control tower causing $100,000 in damage!  Does your GL policy cover the damage?  Nope.  Remember, this is a liability policy.  It was your employee, your forklift and your tower – you can’t be liable to yourself, so the policy won’t pay a dime.  Hopefully you’ve got a big bank account or property insurance policy to cover this.

Once again, same facts, except that your forklift operator ran into a race team’s transporter.  This is property damage to a 3rd party and you were at fault.  Thus, absent some sort of waiver barring the claim, your GL insurance will cover the damage, as you were negligent in your operation of the forklift.

As you can see, the key to understanding the basics of GL insurance is that it only covers injuries or damage to third parties, which are caused as a result of your negligence  and for which you are found liable.  It does not cover damage to you, your employees or your property.  There are other insurance policies which are designed to cover those types of claims.

There you have it; the basics of GL insurance.  Surely it’s more complicated than that?  Well, of course it is.  You see, your GL insurance policy also has a long list of potential liabilities that are excluded.  In fact, the way the policy is written it is usually two or three pages explaining the policy and then another twenty-five pages of exclusions!  All GL policies are different and, thus, you really should compare policies from different insurers before purchasing one, but here are some of the most common exclusions.  Of course, most of them can be removed for an additional fee or by buying a separate policy…

  1. Alcohol Sales – Most GL policies do not cover claims related to the sale or distribution of alcohol.
  2. Employer’s Liability – Bodily injury to an employee in the course of employee’s employment is not covered.  Worker’s compensation and Employer’s liability policies are needed for this.
  3. Even though you may have an endorsement on your policy which is applicable to your particular business (e.g. auto racing, triathlon, basketball tournament, etc.), there are generally some exclusions from the policy for certain activities that commonly occur at sports & entertainment events.  For example, aerobatic activities, carnivals & street fairs, fireworks, demolition derby or vehicle jumping are generally not covered under GL policies, unless specific inclusion is made for them.

As you can see, there are usually several exclusions from your GL policy that have the potential to create large gaps in your coverage.  As such, it is imperative that you read your policies and go over them with your insurer in order to ensure that you understand what is, and what is not, covered.

Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks?  Let me hear about it.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , ,