Sports Law

Wagering on U.S. Sports Betting: A Proposal for Federal Sports Gambling Legislation

TLR BLOG

Student AWR Spotlight

By David L. Merlino, Touro Law Center class of 2021.

David Merlino is a full-time 3L law student at Touro Law Center.  He developed experience in the Patent Law field at a nearby law firm and is involved in numerous organizations and clinics at the law school. David recently interned at Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC.  Prior to his pursuit of a law degree, he earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Manhattan College. This led him into the teaching profession, where he taught physics, chemistry, and computer programming at two different Catholic High Schools in Brooklyn, New York. Simultaneously, David was earning a Master’s of Science in Data Mining and Predictive Analytics from Saint John’s University – Queens. 

I. Introduction

Monday morning, January 20th, 2020, you walk into work.  You settle in and start to have some small talk with co-workers to warm up for what is going to be another busy week. As you are standing at the coffee machine, someone says, “How ‘bout those NFL (National Football League) playoff games last Sunday?”  In discussing the past weekend’s games, Super Bowl predictions are at the forefront of conversations.  Sports conversations such as these almost always lead to questions such as, “What is the point spread on the game,”[1]  followed by another question, “what is the over under?”[2] These are two of the many sports betting questions that have immersed themselves into the sports world and add to concerns around the continuous debate on the legalization of sports betting in United States. Sports gambling is not limited to betting “against the spread”[3] or wins and losses. Gamblers can even bet on the coin toss[4] during any NFL game or how long Demi Lovato’s Super Bowl National Anthem will last.[5]  In March of 2020, making bets on the possibility a sports season or game gets postponed or cancelled due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic was prevalent.[6]  The list of potential wagers is endless. Betting in professional sports has changed sports culture; it has become a profession for many, beyond casino and sportsbook owners.[7]

Continue reading →

Fair Pay or Unfair Play? Why California’s Decision to Pass Senate Bill 206 Violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and The Sherman Antitrust Act

TLR BLOG

By Steven Neocleous*

*Steven Neocleous is currently a full-time third-year student at Touro College Jacob D.  Fuchsberg Law Center. He last worked for the Nassau County Attorney’s Office in the Municipal Transactional/ Real Estate/ Financial Bureaus. Steven has a passion for sports which inspired him to use his knowledge from Constitutional Law and Sports Law to write this note. He hopes to use his law degree and prior work experience for a position at a real estate or corporate law firm after graduation.

Imagine a situation where you are a star high-school athlete. You recently received a full athletic scholarship to attend a prominent Stanford University, an institution, which you otherwise would not have had the opportunity to attend if it was not for your incredible athletic abilities. However, that is not all the school has awarded you. Not only do you have free housing, but you also have a full meal plan paid for by the University. Following an arduous day of practice, you are tired from all of the hard work you put in while you were basking in the hot summer California sun. All you want is a tasty beverage, so check your bank account and in it, is the image of $10,000 recently deposited by Hanes as payment for having your image on their new T-shirt. While for years, this appeared to be the work of fantasy, the recently passed California Senate Bill 206, more commonly known as The Fair Pay to Play Act, indicates that collegiate athletes are allowed to acquire endorsements and sponsorships while still maintaining athletic eligibility by prohibiting any California postsecondary education institution and athletic association or group to uphold rules, requirements, or limitation on the ability for California student-athletes to use their name, image, or likeness for their own profit.[1] While this decision may be satisfying on its face, its effects on a national scale are threatening the system created for universities in other states, student- athletes in those states, and the NCAA by violating the Commerce Clause and Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Continue reading →