If you want proof that sports fan speech matters, that it has strong political content, and that the stands of sporting events are a site of genuine First Amendment activity, look no further than last night's Boston Bruins game, the first game played in Boston since the Marathon bombing.
Sporting events remain the only place in which adults regularly gather and engage in patriotic rituals, so the game marked one of the first ordinary events in which people could come together in an expression of patriotism, support, and healing in the wake of a tragedy. It is a great moment--and also an unquestionably political one and an unquestionably expressive one.
Should it matter that moments like this also give us obnoxious t-shirts and chants?
NCAA: Choosing the Interests of Coaches (Revenue) Over Students Yet Again
Monday, 15 April 2013
Today once again reminds us of how the NCAA chooses, yet again, to favor the interests of the high paid coaches over the students that they so publicly claim to protect and value. While the NBA and NBPA have created the current "one and done" environment in men's basketball, the NCAA does an absolutely miserable job in allowing students to properly assess their prospects in making a wise decision as to whether or not to leave early. How? Well look at the dates for this process:
April 15th: Last day the NBA will provide an assessment, allowed under NCAA rules, of an underclassmen's prospects.
April 16th: Last day a student-athlete can withdraw from the NBA draft and retain their eligibility.
This provides a full day to make an assessment and, under NCAA rules, to do so without an agent. OK, you'd then assume that the NBA's deadline to declare for, or withdraw from, this year's draft is imminent......right? Nope. Their deadlines are as follows:
April 28th: The last day a prospect can submit their name for this year's draft. More importantly, is the following date...
June 17th: The last day a prospect can remove their name from the NBA draft.
What? Yup, the NBA doesn't require someone decide until June 17th, a full TWO MONTHS, after the NCAA requires a college athlete make their intentions known. You then, rightfully, ask why this gap? Well, because college coaches wanted an early deadline to help them recruit should someone leave early.
I stand by my earlier statement, this is another example of the NCAA making decisions and rules for high profile, well paid, coaches, rather than the college athlete. Or, as those of us on the basketball court may yell when blocking a shot...."CERT DENIED!"
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Testing-the-NBA-Draft-Waters-in-2013-4103/
Tax implications of Olympic prize money
In honor of tax day,some sports law reading to accompany your free Cinnabon - Kathryn Kisska-Schulze (NC A&T) and Adam Epstein (Central Michigan) recently posted Taxing Missy: Operation Gold and the 2012 Proposed Olympic Tax Elimination Act. The abstract provides:
The purpose of this article is to explore the legal and tax environment surrounding the August 1, 2012 bill referred to as the Olympic Tax Elimination Act (OTEA) which was introduced in the U.S. Senate to exempt from gross income the prize money earned by U.S. Olympians from the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) for earning a gold, silver or bronze medal. The OTEA came at a time when American economic growth has been stagnant, and income tax issues became a hotly contested political debate for the 2012 Presidential election. The article explores how tax issues have weaved their way into sports law generally; investigates the USOC’s Operation Gold program, including a discussion of the relationship between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) bylaws and USOC with regard to the program and prize money; analyzes the proposed OTEA; and addresses alternatives to the OTEA by encouraging other tax savvy options outside the outright elimination of such income from the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) purview.
American Indian Mascots Continue to Divide
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Moni Basu at CNN has just written yet another "take" on the American Indian mascot conundrum. In Native American Mascots: Pride or Prejudice?" Basu interviews Suzan Shown Harjo who brought the now famous case Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc., attempting to have the trademark for the "Washington Redskins" canceled because it is offensive, derogatory, and contemptible.Although "Harjo was defeated in the courts, . . . public opinion has been shifting steadily on the matter. In March, several lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress that would amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to ban the term “redskin” in a mark because it is disparaging of native people. Among the sponsors of the bill is civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia. Harjo says she hopes the legislation will accomplish what litigation has failed to do so far. If passed, the bill would force the Washington football team to discard its trademarked name and ban the use of any offensive term in any future trademarks."
Rethinking the Origin and Preservation of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption
Friday, 12 April 2013
Why was Baseball granted an exemption from Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and why did it last in its entirety so long - until the Curt Flood Act of 1998? On Concurring Opinions, Aaron Zelinsky (who I believe is the first U.S. Supreme Court clerk and Sports Law scholar) has a terrific two-part series (Part 1, Part 2) that addresses the question and also reviews a new book by Stuart Banner on the topic, The Baseball Trust: A History of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption.
IPL 2011 T20 Cricket :Individual High scores
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
| Player | Runs | Balls | 4s | 6s | SR | Opposition | Ground |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC Valthaty (KXIP) | 120* | 63 | 19 | 2 | 190.47 | v Super Kings | Mohali |
| V Sehwag (DD) | 119 | 56 | 13 | 6 | 212.50 | v Chargers | Hyderabad (Deccan) |
| CH Gayle (RCB) | 107 | 49 | 10 | 9 | 218.36 | v Kings XI | Bangalore |
| AC Gilchrist (KXIP) | 106 | 55 | 8 | 9 | 192.72 | v RCB | Dharamsala |
| CH Gayle (RCB) | 102* | 55 | 10 | 7 | 185.45 | v KKR | Kolkata |
| SR Tendulkar (MI) | 100* | 66 | 12 | 3 | 151.51 | v Kochi | Mumbai |
| S Dhawan (KXIP) | 95* | 57 | 14 | 1 | 166.66 | v Kings XI | Dharamsala |
| SE Marsh (KXIP) | 95 | 46 | 9 | 6 | 206.52 | v Daredevils | Delhi |
| M Vijay (CSK) | 95 | 52 | 4 | 6 | 182.69 | v RCB | Chennai |
| SR Watson (RR) | 89* | 47 | 9 | 6 | 189.36 | v Mum Indians | Mumbai |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
