Connecticut Sports Law

The Boston Red Sox closed their spring training with an off-field drama demonstrating that professional sports and business go hand-in-hand.  The Sox players, apparently miffed that coaches and team staff members would not receive a stipend to travel to Japan for the opening day, staged a boycott of the team’s last spring training game.  The boycott lasted over an hour before it was resolved and the Sox took the field.  The situation raised many questions and prompted many confusing reports.  The following attempt to break down the issues:

1. What was the dispute about?  When the Red Sox players agreed to play their opening series in Japan, the Major League Baseball Players’ Association (the “Players’ Association) negotiated a payment of $40,000 to each player.   The players, based on a conference call with the Players’ Association last October, believed that coaches and team staff would also receive the payment.  However, such a provision was missing from the written agreement.
2. How were Coaches and Staff Left Out?  The Players’ Association, as its name suggests, represents players, not coaches and staff members.   However, the players believed that the provision to pay the coaches and staff was negotiated and included in their agreement with Major League Baseball.  Red Sox manager Terry Francona apparently told his coaches and staff that they were in line to receive the stipend.  The Players’ Association, however, left the provision out of the written agreement.
3. How was the dispute resolved?  The players formed a unified front and negotiated directly with Sox management, which agreed to fund the payments, which amount to nearly $600,000.  Ultimately the Red Sox expect to be reimbursed at least in part by Major League Baseball and/or the Players’ Association.

Beyond the pure intrigue, his dispute invoked a basic common law rule of contracts.  A written contract embodies the complete agreement between the parties and cannot be modified or challenged by additional, oral terms.  This concept, referred to as the parol evidence rule, is perhaps best described by Sox first baseman Kevin Youkilis:

“I think the next time we know going forward that when you have these conference calls, you have to get it in writing.  It’s the easiest way to do stuff.” (emphasis added)

 With the resolution of the dispute, word is that Commissioner Bud Selig will not discipline the Sox players for boycotting their last spring training game for over an hour.  I assume that the Commissioner has more pressing matters to handle.

Here is an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune, on a timely topic - March Madness.  The article discusses the legality of NCAA tournament pools, specifically those run on social networking sites such as facebook.com.  Las Vegas attorney Anthony Cabot was interviewed for the article and stated that an online pool is illegal should it meet the following two requirements:

One is if “people pay” to play and the other is if they “win a prize in a game of chance as the result of an event they are not participants in. Such as sports wagering.”

“So if you’re doing something where people are paying money for the opportunity to win a prize, then there’s a strong possibility they could be violating the laws of a majority of states,” he said. “There is no question this raises legal issues. … It’s a pretty straightforward situation.”

Of course, the question most people are concerned with is whether they will actually be prosecuted for participating in an office pool.  Typically, the answer is no - it is not worth the government’s resources.  However, an online pool has the potential to attract an unlimited number of participants, and involve gambling transactions that cross state lines.  Thus, the online pool appears to carry greater risk.  The bottom line is that any pay-to-play pools are illegal and carry the inherent although somewhat minor, risk of prosecution.

Last week, UConn Athletic Director Jeff Hathaway provided a public acknowledgement of one of the worst kept secrets in Connecticut sports: UConn is engaged in discussions with Notre Dame to play a series of 10 or 11 football games.  To most UConn fans, the initial announcement caused great excitement.  In the last 7 years, UConn obtained Division I-A status, moved into a new stadium,  played in 2 bowl games (Motor City and Meineke Care Car Bowls) and has even produced a few NFL players (Dan Orlovsky, Alfred Fincher and Deon Anderson).   Now, UConn is on the verge of landing a series with arguably the most storied collegiate football program in the country. 

Notre Dame, however, insists upon a minor condition before agreeing to a series with UConn.  UConn is more than welcome to play in South Bend, in the shadow of the Golden Dome and Touchdown Jesus; but Notre Dame will not visit Rentscher Field and the packed house that would have awaited the Fighting Irish.  Under the proposed agreement, UConn could play their home games at either Gillette Stadium or the new Giants Stadium.  Notre Dame, over the course of a 10 or 11 game series will not visit Connecticut for a single game.  Upon hearing this news, the excitement of UConn fans quickly faded. 

In response to fan unrest (and perhaps political posturing), State Senator Gary Lebeau, D-East Hartford, drafted House Bill 5878, which would prohibit any UConn home football games to be played out of state.  The purpose of the bill, according to LeBeau, was to force Hathaway to  appear before the General Assembly and explain why UConn would enter into such a seemingly one-sided agreement.  Hathaway appeared before the General Assembly and defended the proposed series on the basis that it was worthwhile for recruiting and public relations. 

 Some thoughts on the situation:

1. Why Notre Dame?  When asked to describe the mystique of Notre Dame, Lou Holtz once replied: “If you were there, no explanation is necessary.  If you weren’t, no explanation is satisfactory.”  “Wins, Losses and Lessons,” Lou Holtz.  Whether or not you agree with Holtz’s assessment that Notre Dame is a special place, it is without a doubt unique in the world of collegiate football.  Notre Dame’s television contract with NBC, independent status and broad fan base are without compare.  In addition, there is a key difference between playing Notre Dame and another top program - UConn has a very good chance of actually beating Notre Dame.  Obviously a series with a program such as USC would be much less appealing, as UConn would likely have a tough time competing.  Not only would UConn have a legitimate chance to beat Notre Dame, but it would be playing on national television, providing a great recruiting tool for football players, other athletes and regular students. 
2. What about the fans?  A Notre Dame series is bad for the fans, no doubt about it.  Fans will be forced to travel to Foxboro or the swamps of Jersey to see UConn play a “home” game.  Notre Dame fans would likely equal or outnumber UConn fans at either venue.  Ticket prices are sure to increase for these games.   It appears that UConn has weighed the recruiting and public relations benefits against the unhappiness of the fans - recruiting and public relations prevailed.
3. The Bob Kraft Factor:  Members of the General Assembly appear particularly upset by the possibility of UConn being forced to rent Gillette Stadium from Robert Kraft, who famously (at least in Hartford) reneged on his promise to move the Patriots to Hartford when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not satisfying his demands in connection with the construction of a new stadium.  Ultimately, Kraft worked out his differences with the Commonwealth and the Partriots stayed put.

The General Assembly’s intervention is interesting on a number of levels.  First, it presents a somewhat awkward situation with the althletic department being second-guessed by the legislature.  Second, if the bill progressed it would be interesting to ascertain the economic ramifications for Connecticut and the City of East Hartford, if it were to lose 5 home games over the course of 10 years.  Third, if the bill passed, it might empower other legislators to meddle in the affairs of UConn athletics leading to a potentially uneasy existence between the General Assembly and the UConn athletic department.

UConn Women’s Basketball Coach Geno Auriemma has responded to ESPN’s report that UCONN violated NCAA rules by arranging a tour of ESPN headquarters for Maya Moore.   Clearly, Coach Auriemma found the fact that ESPN broke the story of violation that occurred at their own facility curious and motivated by ESPN’s own self-interest:

It’s a story that has been rehashed by ESPN to serve its own purposes,” Auriemma told WTIC-AM’s Joe D’Ambrosio Thursday on his weekly coach’s show. “[ESPN reporter] Shelley Smith came up to talk to me to do a story on [Tennessee women's basketball coach] Pat Summitt and my relationship with her, why the series was canceled, and I flat out said, ‘Go ask her. I didn’t cancel it.’ I didn’t want to be involved in [that] story.

“And [Smith's] response was, ‘OK, we’re going to [report the violation].’ … What purpose does that serve? It’s already been discussed and dealt with [last summer]. It’s typical: ‘Let’s drum up some interest before the NCAA Tournament starts and hope these two meet in the finals so we can get boffo ratings’ at the expense of Maya Moore.”

ESPN has been accused of blurring the lines of journalism and entertainment in the past.  Auriemma’s accusation, that ESPN rehashed an old story, of which it had intimate knowledge, to boost ratings, appears to fall under this category.  If the violation was in fact handled last summer, Auriemma has grounds to question the report’s timeliness.  Auriemma also calls the NCAA on the carpet for what appears to be a petty and unnecessary rule:

“OK, we did something we weren’t supposed to do, it was [a] secondary [violation] in nature. … Fine. But because of that, no student athlete majoring in communications is going to be able to get a tour? It’s this level of absurdity that ESPN should be talking about, instead of running across their ticker that the University of Connecticut committed a secondary violation.

“With all the stuff going on in sports today … you need to run something about a kid getting a tour of ESPN?”

The quotations in this entry appear in John Altavilla’s report in today’s edition of the Hartford Courant.

John Altavilla of the Hartford Courant writes that the NCAA was alerted of the alleged violation of the Southeastern Conference following a Complaint by UConn’s nemesis, Tennessee.  Apparently the Complaint arises, at least in part, from a heated rivarly that has clearly moved beyond the confines of the basketball court and resulted in Tennessee’s cancelling its annual series with UConn:

UConn coach Geno Auriemma told The Courant last summer that Summitt “should just come out and say she’s not playing us because she hates my guts. And I think people would buy that. Then everyone [who seeks a reason] would be happy. She should just say that [Geno is] a dope, a smart-ass and then everyone could say that they agree with her.”

The Courant reported this summer that UConn defended itself from other allegations made by the SEC and Tennessee regarding improprieties in the recruitment of Moore, who has set a UConn freshman record with 585 points this season and leads the team at 17.7 a game. Summitt has said the loss of Moore to UConn was the greatest recruiting disappointment of her career.

The SEC complaint alleged that Moore accepted rides from former UConn players Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi in the spring of 2006. Bird and Taurasi were forced to provide documents to the NCAA showing they were in Russia at the time playing professionally. 

 In addition, Altavilla reports that UConn equates the violation with a parking ticket, adding that only punishment UConn expects to receive is a letter from the NCAA.