Why did Vilma not sue the NFL?

Mike's SI piece on the Vilma lawsuit got mentioned on Slate's Hang Up and Listen podcast this week. I disagree with a couple of points that Mike makes (and that the HU&L guys largely repeat): I do not believe there is any chance the claim is frivolous, although the issue of whether the whole thing is preempted by the NLRA and the CBA is an interesting one (the answer to which I have no idea). It seems to me that while the CBA gave Goodell a great deal of investigatory and sanction power over the players, it did not give him license to defame players and that possible defamation did not become the subject of bargaining. As to forum, I wrote previously that there is a nice issue of whether Goodell is subject to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana, although the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the case can be heard there.

But I now want to pose a different question: Why did Vilma sue only Goodell and not the NFL on a respondeat superior theory? The answer depends on two questions that I hope people can answer.

One possibility is that the NFL is a party to the CBA (Goodell is not), so suing the other contracting party makes the possible labor preemption more obvious. Is that possible?

A second possibility is that Vilma wants to be in federal court and was worried that the NFL might somehow destroy complete diversity and thus federal jurisdiction. That explanation depends on my second question: What is the precise organizational status of the National Football League? Is that an independent entity and, if so, what is its form and make-up? Or is it owned by some other entity and, if so, what is the form and make-up of that entity? While the league has its offices in New York, that only matters if it is a corporation; if it is a partnership or a limited liability company, its citizenship is based on the citizenship of all of its partners or members. And if some of those are from Florida (Vilma's home state), this case cannot be in federal court. So who, exactly, does Goodell work for and what is its nature and structure?

Update: Tom's comment gets us part way there, but only part way. A partnership's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of every partner. So we need to know about all the general and limited partner of Miami Dolphins Ltd. The general partner is "South Florida Football Associates LLC," which is headquartered in New York. Its managing member is Stephen Ross. Is Ross a Florida citizen? According to Wikipedia, he resides in New York. Of course, there also are the famous limited partners that Ross brought on, such as Gloria and Emilio Estefan, Marc Anthony, and the Williams sisters. Gloria for sure is a Florida citizen. Not sure if she and the others are partners in the partnership or members of the LLC. But either way, they make Miami Dolphins Ltd. a Florida citizen which makes the NFL a Florida citizen. So suing the NFL probably would have destroyed diversity and Vilma wanted to be in federal court. Of course, that is surprising, given the "local bias" rationales underlying diversity jurisdiction. I would have expected Vilma to want to be in state court in Louisiana.

Skuat Republik Ceko Di Piala Eropa 2012

Kiper: Petr Cech (Chelsea), Jan Lastuvka (Dnipro), Jaroslav Drobny (Hamburg SV).

Bek: Roman Hubnik (Hertha Berlin), Michal Kadlec (Bayer Leverkusen), Tomas Sivok (Besiktas), Daniel Pudil (Cesena), David Limbersky (Viktoria Plzen), Frantisek Rajtoral (Viktoria Plzen), Theo Gebre Selassie (Slovan Liberec), Marek Suchy (Spartak Moskwa).

Gelandang: Tomas Rosicky (Arsenal), Petr Jiracek (Vfl Wolfsburg), Daniel Kolar (Viktoria Plzen), Vaclav Pilar (Viktoria Plzen), Jan Rezek (Anorthosis Famagusta), Jaroslav Plasil (Bordeaux), Milan Petrzela (Viktoria Plzen), Tomas Hubschman (Shakhtar Donetsk), Vladimir Darida (Viktoria Plzen).

Striker: Milan Baros (Galatasaray), Tomas Pekhart (Nürnberg), David Lafata (Jablonec), Tomas Necid (CSKA Moskwa).

Skuat Rusia Di Piala Eropa 2012

Kiper: Igor Akinfeyev (CSKA Moskwa), Vyacheslav Malafeyev (Zenit St Petersburg), Anton Shunin (Dynamo Moskwa).

Bek: Alexander Anyukov (Zenit St Petersburg), Alexei Berezutsky (CSKA Moskwa), Sergei Ignashevich (CSKA Moskwa), Roman Sharonov (Rubin Kazan), Vladimir Granat (Dynamo Moskwa), Kirill Nababkin (CSKA Moskwa).

Gelandang: Igor Denisov (Zenit St Petersburg), Roman Shirokov (Zenit St Petersburg), Konstantin Zyryanov (Zenit St Petersburg), Yuri Zhirkov (Anzhi Makhachkala), Alan Dzagoyev (CSKA Moskwa), Igor Semshov (Dynamo Moskwa), Denis Glushakov (Lokomotiv Moskwa), Marat Izmailov (Sporting Lisbon), Dmitri Kombarov (Spartak Moskwa).

Striker: Andrey Arshavin (Zenit St Petersburg), Alexander Kerzhakov (Zenit St Petersburg), Roman Pavlyuchenko (Lokomotiv Moskwa), Alexander Kokorin (Dynamo Moskwa), Pavel Pogrebnyak (Fulham).

Skuat Yunani Di Piala Eropa 2012

Berikut skuat Yunani pada Piala Eropa 2012:

 

Kiper: Kostas Chalkias (PAOK Salonika), Michalis Sifakis (Aris Salonika), Alexis Tzorvas (Palermo).

Bek: Avraam Papadopoulos (Olympiakos), Sokratis Papastathopoulos (Werder Bremen), Vassilis Torosidis (Olympiakos), Jose Holebas (Olympiakos), Stelios Malezas (PAOK Salonika), Giannis Maniatis (Olympiakos), Giorgos Tzavellas (AS Monaco), Kyriakos Papadopoulos (Schalke).

Gelandang: Giannis Fetfatzidis (Olympiakos), Grigoris Makos (AEK Athens), Kostas Katsouranis (Panathinaikos), Georgios Fotakis (PAOK Salonika), Kostas Fortounis (Kaiserslautern), Giorgos Karagounis (Panathinaikos), Sotiris Ninis (Panathinaikos).

Striker: Georgios Samaras (Celtic), Dimitris Salpigidis (Paok Salonica), Costas Mitroglou (Olympiakos Piraeus), Nikos Liberopoulos (AEK Athens), Theofanis Gekas (Samsunspor).

Skuat Polandia Di Piala Eropa 2012

Berikut ini pemain yang tergabung dalam skuat Polandia di Piala Eropa 2012:

 

Kiper: Wojciech Szczesny (Arsenal), Przemyslaw Tyton (PSV Eindhoven), Grzegorz Sandomierski (Jagiellonia Bialystok).

Bek: Lukasz Piszczek (Borussia Dortmund), Marcin Wasilewski (Anderlecht), Jakub Wawrzyniak (Legia Warsawa), Marcin Kaminski (Lech Poznan), Grzegorz Wojtkowiak (Lech Poznan), Sebastian Boenisch (Werder Bremen), Damien Perquis (Sochaux).

Gelandang: Eugen Polanski (Mainz), Dariusz Dudka (Auxerre), Adam Matuszczyk (Fortuna Düsseldorf), Adrian Mierzejewski (Trabzonspor), Jakub Blaszczykowski (Borussia Dortmund), Ludovic Obraniak (Bordeaux), Maciej Rybus (Terek Grozny), Kamil Grosicki (Sivasspor), Rafal Murawski (Lech Poznan), Rafal Wolski (Legia Warsawa).

Striker: Robert Lewandowski (Borussia Dortmund), Artur Sobiech (Hannover), Pawel Brozek (Celtic).

The Discovery Process, Internal Investigations and Jonathan Vilma's lawsuit

I've written an article titled Power Game in the May 28 issue of Sports Illustrated. The article appears on page 19 and can also be found at this link. Here's an excerpt:

The NFL likely worries that if a judge orders pretrial discovery, the league would have to reveal its informants, which could undermine the NFL's investigation and provoke other suspended players and coaches to challenge the commissioner. Keep in mind, informants talking to league investigators are not under oath, and can lie—including to protect themselves—without legal repercussion.

To read the rest, click here.

Today in Sports Law History

Today marks the 90th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's seminal opinion in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (pictured), the Court held that the "business of base ball" was neither interstate in nature, nor commerce, and thus was not subject to the Sherman Act. The case was brought by the Baltimore Terrapins of the Federal League of Professional Baseball Clubs, after the team was dissatisfied with a peace settlement between the rival circuit and the American and National Leagues in December 1915. After being presented with unfavorable testimony during an abbreviated trial in Philadelphia, the Baltimore franchise voluntarily withdrew its case in 1917, only to refile it a few months later in Washington, D.C. This latter suit proceeded to trial in 1919, with a jury awarding Baltimore an $80,000 verdict(subsequently trebled to $240,000). Organized baseball prevailed on appeal, however, and the Supreme Court affirmed on May 29, 1922. Although the relatively narrow view of interstate commerce relied on in Federal Baseball soon became outdated, the Court has nevertheless affirmed the decision on two separate occasions, giving rise to baseball's infamous antitrust exemption.

For analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Baseball, check out Kevin McDonald's 1998 article from the Journal of Supreme Court History, "Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes," as well as Justice Alito's 2008 commentary considering the case (also published in the Journal of Supreme Court History), along with the thoughts of Sports Law Blog's Ed Edmonds. Meanwhile, for more on the Federal League generally, be sure to read Daniel Levitt's excellent, recently-released history, The Battle that Forged Modern Baseball: The Federal League Challenge and Its Legacy.

Bioethics Panel: A Legal, Medical and Theological Perspective

Bioethics will likely play a significant role in how sports and athletes are regulated in the future. For instance:

• Should parents be able to"select" certain genes for their children so their kids have the greatest chance of becoming pro athletes?
  

• Should athletes be able to undergo gene therapy for rehabilitation of injury or enhancement of natural ability (was Bartolo Colon's stem cell treatment a sign of things to come)?

• Should bioethics matters be regulated by collective bargaining agreements, or should federal or state governments not allow players' associations and owners to agree to certain possibilities?
  

Our colleague Alan Milstein - one of the nation's leading bioethics attorneys, including in the intersection of bioethics and sports, such as when Alan represented Eddy Curry when the Chicago Bulls demanded Curry take a DNA test -- has organized what looks to be a terrific panel to be held on Monday July 23, from 12:30 to 3:45 pm, in Philadelphia.

I'll be in attendance and am looking forward to hearing from some of best bioethicists around. Here is more information - hope you too consider attending:

Bioethics: A Legal, Medical and Theological Perspective

Hear from a wide range of experts

Our panelists will include doctors, clergy, academics and lawyers. Explore with them as they reflect, analyze and dialogue about:

• Bioethics – its meaning and sources
• Key documents that underlie bioethical decision-making
• Doctor/patient relationships and quality of care
• Public health issues and the role of physicians in state actions
• Reproductive rights and issues
• Organ transplants
• Death and dying
• Human subject research
• Eugenics, cloning and embryonic stem cell research

Come to investigate the current ethical issues

If you’re coming for answers, then this may not be the seminar for you. But if you’re coming to investigate current ethical issues and probe into the questions and dilemmas they pose for you, your clients, families, hospitals, governments and civilizations, then you’ll enjoy this program.

Leave with an understanding of why even well-informed people reasonably disagree about how to apply bioethics

---

Course Planner: Alan C. Milstein, Esq.

---

Faculty:

Alan C. Milstein, Esq., Sherman Silverstein, Moorestown, NJ

Elizabeth A. Babin, M.D., Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kennedy Health System, Turnersville, NJ

Aaron D. Bannett, MD, MBA, Founder, Organ Transplant Program & former Chairman of Surgery, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia

Peter J. Colosi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Moral Theology, St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Wynnewood

Frank M. McClellan, JD, LLM, Professor of Law Emeritus, Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia

Reverend Robert J McFadden, Resurrection Baptist Church, Philadelphia

Timothy B. McKinney, M.D., Obstetrics & Gynecology, Blackwood, NJ

Location	Start Time	End Time
The CLE Conference Center Wanamaker Bldg., 10th Floor, Ste. 1010, Philadelphia, PA	Mon, 12:30P Jul 23, 2012	Mon, 3:45P Jul 23, 2012	Register

For more information on attending, click here. Hope to see you there!

Preliminary Thoughts on the NFL Collusion Lawsuit

As many of you know, on Wednesday May 23, the NFL Players Association filed suit against the 32 NFL teams in the case White v. National Football League, arguing that the NFL teams "engaged in a secret, recently-revealed collusive ... agreement" to suppress player salaries and impose a $123 million salary cap for the uncapped 2010 season.

Michael McCann has already shared his thoughts on the lawsuit in his recent column for Sports Illustrated. However, having written two law review articles on Major League Baseball's history of collusion (see here and here), I wanted to add a few points of importance:

1. The Recent Football Case is a Labor Case, Not an Antitrust Case: Generally when we think about collusion in professional sports, we think about violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which states that "[e]very contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in the restraint of trade or commerce ... is declared to be illegal." However, the recent lawsuit filed by the NFL Players Association is not based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Rather, it is filed under labor law, and argues that the NFL teams violated three distinct provisions of their last collective bargaining agreement that relate specifically to disallowing collusion. These provisions include:

• Article XIII(a) (Anti-Collusion): "No Club, its employees, or agents, shall enter into any agreement express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club .... to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making [with regards to] whether or not to negotiate with a player."

• Article XV, Sect. 2: "Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into an agreement .... to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties reflected by [aspects of the agreement related to] Total Revenues, Salary Cap, Entering Player Pool, and Minimum Team Salary ..."

• Article XIX, Sect. 6: "Defendants ... each pledge their best efforts and cooperation ... to implement the provisions of the [collective bargaining agreement] in a manner consistent with good faith and fair dealing."

2. The Labor Law Setup of this Case Makes it Like the Baseball Collusion Claims in the 1980s: The legal claims in the recent NFL collusion suit are shaping up a lot like those in three baseball collusion grievances, filed based on conduct that occurred during the 1985, 1986 and 1987 baseball off-seasons. In those cases, labor arbitrators Thomas Roberts and George Nicolau found the Major League Baseball teams liable for reaching an agreement not to sign other teams’ free agents, and later for creating an information bank to prevent teams from offering more than one another for free agents. Each of these three grievances was ultimately decided in favor of the Baseball players. After the third ruling, the Major League teams settled by agreeing to pay the players $280 million in damages (plus interest).

3. Nevertheless, the NFLPA Claims are Not Identical to Baseball Collusion in the 1980s: Yet, there are at least three important differences between the Football Collusion claims filed this week and the Baseball claims from the 1980s. First, the baseball cases alleged salary suppression on the individual level, whereas the NFL Players Association alleges salary suppression on the team-wide level. In addition, in the baseball cases of the 1980s all teams to some extent participated in the conspiracy (the only team in doubt was the New York Yankees that made a contract offer to White Sox catcher Carlton Fisk); whereas the National Football Players Association alleges in its claim that "the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints .... refused, at least to some extent to abide by their collusive conspiracy." Finally, whereas the Major League Baseball collusion cases were decided upon by an arbitrator, the National Football League Players Association has filed its claim in federal court.

4. For the NFL Players, Proving a Conspiracy will be the Biggest Challenge: Most likely, the most difficult part of this case for the NFLPA will be proving that there really was a conspiracy among the NFL teams to enforce a secret salary cap. Presuming a court adopts antitrust law's standard of proving an agreement (even though this is technically not an antitrust case), the NFL Players would have to show sufficient facts to exclude the possibility that defendants were acting independently or in a consciously parallel manner. To prove such an agreement, the NFL Players would not necessarily need a "smoking gun" memo, such as the one that Major League Baseball's Director of the Player Relations Leland S. MacPhail distributed during baseball's 1985 off-season that encouraged teams to “exercise more self-discipline in making their operating decisions and to resist the temptation to give in to the unreasonable demands of ... players." But the NFL Players would still need evidence -- either through documents, testimony or evidence of radical departure from past behavior -- that the NFL teams (or at least 28 of the NFL teams) had a "meeting of the minds" or a "unity of purpose" in refusing to exceed a purported salary cap.

5. Mike Florio's Use of a Confidential Source in his March 12 Article Might Cause Chaos: Finally, although most evidence of collusion emerges in the discovery process of a claim, the NFL Players' initial complaint cites three public statements that they believe help to show collusion. Two of these statements are made by NY Giants owner John Mara and refer to the lack of 2010 salary cap as a "loophole" that has come up several times in owners' meetings. Meanwhile, the third statement comes from Mike Florio's Pro Football Talk website (owned by NBC Sports) in which he cites "a source with knowledge of the situation" as saying that NFL teams were told “at least six times” during ownership meetings that taking advantage of the lack of the salary cap would lead to “serious consequences.” The nature of Florio's source here is critically important; however, he refuses to divulge his source's identity. If the case moves forward, I would fully expect both Florio and NBC Sports to receive a subpoena from the NFL Players Association seeking disclosure of this secret source.
_____________________________________________________________________________
As the White v. National Football League case progresses, I will continue to share my thoughts on Sports Law Blog. You can also follow me via Twitter at MarcEdelman. (Note: this post has been cross-posted on Above the Law).

VADA Mess!

A Quick Look at the Legal and Regulatory Issues Raised by the Cancellations of Khan-Peterson II and Berto-Ortiz II Following Positive Drug Tests

                In one famously bad month for top-level professional boxing, two highly anticipated rematches of 2011 “Fights of the Year” were aced as a result of participants testing positive for banned substances.  The unfortunate news began in early May, when it was disclosed that unified junior welterweight champion Lamont (Havoc) Peterson tested positive for synthetic testosterone in advance of his May 12, 2012 rematch with Amir (King) Khan.  It continued about a week later when it was disclosed that the June 23, 2012 welterweight rematch between Andre Berto and “Vicious” Victor Ortiz was canceled after Berto tested positive for noandrosterone, a banned steroid.  Both positive tests came during random testing administered by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (“VADA”) and agreed to by the contestants in their bout contracts.  In the wake of these positive tests, what once looked like an outstanding device for making certain that professional boxers did not seek unfair advantages behind closed doors during their pre-fight preparations has now become the flashlight that illuminated what may be a long-time practice in professional boxing.  What can be taken away from Peterson’s and Berto’s positive tests? A quick look follows....

 To read more, please see:  http://www.mp8.ph/news/vada-mess/16193

Stick-Draw

My guest writer has contributed another piece:

Since Coach Hoover is too busy to make updates, I thought I would contribute another piece.

I can’t take credit for its invention, but I can take credit for being smart enough to steal other people’s great ideas. I want to share with you some of my thoughts on combination plays- that is, plays that combine multiple concepts into a single play. For example, you could have a run with a quick screen, a quick screen with a slow screen, a drop-back pass with a slow screen, a quick pass with a draw, and so on. The possibilities are endless. I believe that this is the next hot thing in offensive football. A few years ago, you could line up in 4-wide and that itself was revolutionary (at least where I was coaching). Then you had the read-option incorporated into the spread, and that was the cool thing to do. Next it was fast tempo. Now, teams like West Virginia are leading the way into the next craze, which is combining different plays into a single play-call that greatly increases a coach’s chance of being “right.” I have been and still like the idea of lining up and scanning the defense before making a play-call, but sometimes alignment doesn’t tell the whole story. Coaches have long been using post-snap reads to isolate single defenders (or multiple defenders) for option plays or pass patterns. Now, a troublesome defender can be isolated, and his post-snap action will tell the QB what to do. The following example is something I saw Dana Holgorsen talk about a few years ago when he was at Oklahoma State. It combines a basic Stick concept out of a 3 x 1 formation with a draw play to the RB.

Above we see a Stick-Draw combination. A pre-snap look shows a 6-man box and a 2-safety shell. For the Draw, we have 5 blockers for 6 defenders. For the Stick, the offense should be able to win, but an athletic MLB who matches #3 hard could take him away, leaving the Sam to match #2. The vertical to the wide-side is a tough throw for most high school quarterbacks, especially when there is nothing to hold the safety inside. By themselves, the Stick or Draw may fail, but combined, are nearly unstoppable.

QB catches the snap, takes a 1-step drop and looks to throw the Stick to #3. If he is open, QB throws it when he sees eye contact. If the Mike expands to #3, QB turns and hands off to the RB, who has shuffled and delayed for a good one-one-thousand count.

Another version I like is a similar play, but a 2-back Lead-Draw version. Here, we are working off the Sam. I tell the QB we favor the Lead-Draw, but will throw it if Sam plays tight to the box.

QB catches the snap and looks to #2 on the Stick (I give my Stick runner freedom to get open, so if he is unmatched he can turn inside). If the Sam widens to take the Stick away, QB turns and hands off to the RB. If the Sam sits, QB will throw to the Stick route when he gets eye contact. The other benefit I like about this play is the delayed block on the MLB. My Fullbacks have a tough time blocking the Mike on isolation plays, but when the LB gets a high-hat read and plays soft, we have a much better chance of blocking him. In addition, the DE pass-rushes and widens the hole, which makes it easy on my PST.

These are just two examples of how you can take two different plays and put them together to give you something that gives your offense a great chance to win on any given down. For me, the key is figuring out which defender is giving you trouble, and coming up with a way to put him in conflict.

If you have any questions, post them in the comments section. Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed it! 

Further reading: Brophy here and Chris at Smart Football / Grantland: here, here, here, here, and here.  And if you haven't yet, buy his new book.  I will put up some video for the article when I can find it.

NFLPA sues NFL for Collusion

I have a new column for SI.com on today's big news - another legal headache for Roger Goodell.

Impact of Brian McNamee's Testimony on U.S. v. Roger Clemens

I have a new column for SI.com on McNamee's testimony and what it could signal about each side's strategy going forward - as the case is in its 6th week.

The Year in Review: College Sports Reform Reaches the Tipping Point

Just posted an article on the Huffington Post in an attempt to provide an overview of the past year in college sports.  The article begins....

On college campuses across the country the academic year is winding down—making it an opportune time to review the changing landscape of college athletics.  The nature, business, and management of college sports has been debated and criticized these past 12 months more so than any other period in recent history, and the NCAA is facing scrutiny on whether it has deviated too far from its stated mission: to ensure that college athletics is “an integral part of higher education with a focus on the development of our student-athletes.”

To read the rest of the post, here's a link.

2nd Annual Sports Law for Rookies and Veterans

From Attorney Steven Silton of Hinshaw & Culbertson:

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Sports Law for Rookies and Veterans on June 14, 2012 at the Minneapolis Club in Minneapolis. This premier sports law seminar includes the following confirmed speakers: NFL sports agents Drew and Jason Rosenhaus, Minnesota Vikings CAO and General Counsel Kevin Warren, Minnesota Timberwolves CMO Ted Johnson, former Minnesota Wild GM and current hockey agent Tom Lynn, MLB agent Charisse Dash, the Honorable David Doty, who presided over every major sports labor dispute over the last 25 years, numerous inside and outside sports lawyers, media professionals, law professors and sport franchise executives. In addition, Ross Bernstein, best selling author of over 50 sports books, will give his signature presentation on "The Champion’s Code." The current agenda with confirmed speakers is at http://www.hinshawlaw.com/2nd-annual-sports-law-seminar-for-rookies-and-veterans/.

This interesting and compelling seminar will be submitted for 8 continuing legal education credits in the jurisdiction of all attendees, and includes 1 ethics credit and 1 elimination of bias (diversity) credit. The cost of the seminar is only $199.00 and includes breakfast and lunch. Employees of professional sports franchises or university athletic departments can attend without charge. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with sports teams or professionals or is interested in sports law should attend this event. You should be able to follow the attached link on the PDF to sign up or you can follow the link on the event page of our firm website at http://www.hinshawlaw.com/2nd-annual-sports-law-seminar-for-rookies-and-veterans/. Unlike last year, this event is open to the public, so feel free to forward this invitation to anyone you think may be interested.

Please direct any registration issues to Marie Pocock at mpocock@hinshawlaw.com and contact me or Steve Silton at ssilton@hinshawlaw.com with any questions regarding the seminar.

Thoughts on Vilma v. Goodell: Personal Jurisdiction and Sports

Having read through Jonathan Vilma's defamation complaint against Roger Goodell, my first thought (Mike's thoughts are here) is that there is an interesting potential personal jurisdiction issue here. And its resolution may depend, ironically, on Roger Clemens' defamation action against Brian McNamee.

Vilma sued in Louisiana, where he works but does not live, over comments that Goodell made in several press releases written and issued in New York about the bounty program, which largely took place or came out of Louisiana, statements that Goodell intended and expected to be disseminated publicly and, presumably, nationally. In Clemens, Clemens sued McNamee in Texas over statements McNamee made to the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated in New York about conduct occurring in New York and Toronto. The Fifth Circuit (which also includes Louisiana) held there was no personal jurisdiction over McNamee because he did not target his statements at Texas. He was speaking in New York about non-Texas events and had no control over where the statements ultimately were disseminated. The majority never really considered whether he knew or intended his statements would be published in Texas.

If Goodell does challenge jurisdiction, Vilma must overcome Clemens. A few distinctions leap out, suggesting there is jurisdiction here, accepting the facts in the complaint as true. First, Goodell's statements, although made in New York, concern conduct occurring in Louisiana, so his statements were "directed" at Louisiana more than McNamee's were at Texas. Second, it could be argued that Goodell was more in control of the ultimate dissemination of his statements (since he knows national media, including media in Louisiana, will report his every word) than McNamee was in talking to a reporter from Sports Illustrated. Third, the lawsuit targets not only Goodell's press releases, but also reports he sent to all 32 teams about the investigation and findings; one of the teams to receive that report, of course, is the Saints, in Louisiana. Goodell had more affirmative control over the publication of his comments, including their entering the forum state.

Still, it is another nice Civ Pro hypo jumping from the world of sport.

New Sports Illustrated column: Jonathan Vilma v. Roger Goodell

Jonathan Vilma, suspended for one-year because of his alleged role in Bounty Gate, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Roger Goodell. I have a new SI.com column on the lawsuit.

Here's an excerpt:

The league's best argument may be the simplest: truth is an absolute defense to defamation. The problem for the league in making such an argument is that, through the discovery process, it would likely have to disclose information it does not want to reveal. For instance, the league may have to divulge it's sources of information, including the identities of players and coaches who were informants. The backlash of such disclosures could be considerable. Moreover, much like the Mitchell Report has been criticized for relying on disreputable persons, expect similar critiques if the same proves true of the NFL's Bounty Report.

* * *

Vilma v. Goodell is more than just a defamation lawsuit. It is a direct challenge to a commissioner who, until now, has acted with more power than any commissioner in U.S. sports history. It is also an attempt to import judicial review of an individual who, until now, has been judge, jury and executioner of NFL justice.

To read the rest of the column, click here.

RB Blaster Drill and Sideline Drill

Wrist above the elbow!

The RB Blaster and Sideline Drill both work Ball Security, which should always be the primary focus of the RB Coach. The Blaster Drill can be done with players on each side punching at the ball if you don’t have a Blaster machine. You can also incorporate this into your ladder drills with players on both sides trying to strip the ball out.

 

In case your guys don't know who Tiki Barber is, Trent Richardson has 

excellent Ball Security fundamentals for younger players to emulate.

The Sideline drill is great in that it works both Ball Security and balance as a RB tries to stay inbounds while being shoved wide by bag holders. Another thing you can do with the Sideline Drill to make it harder for the RB to stay inbounds is to start him on the #’s or more toward the #’s so he approaches the sideline at an angle with his momentum already working towards the sideline.

I finally got a language translate button that works! It is on the left side of the page. Try it out.

British Pubs, Decoder Cards, and the Future of Intellectual Property Licensing after Murphy

It is a rare event when one has the opportunity to use the phrase "decoder cards" in the title of an academic article. However, the facts of the so-called "Karen Murphy case" presented exactly that opportunity in a co-authored piece with Tassos Kaburakis and Johan Lindholm that was recently published by the Columbia Journal of European Law. The abstract is below (and available here):

October 4, 2011 marked a new era in global sports media rights. On this day, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgment in FA Premier League et al. v. QC Leisure et al. & Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd (“Murphy”). Murphy decided upon the legality of a scheme whereby the holder of intellectual property rights to a sporting event licenses the right to broadcast the event on a national exclusivity basis.

The central players in the Murphy saga were: (i) the Football Association Premier League Ltd (“FAPL” or “Premier League”), the rights holder who, on behalf of football clubs playing in the Premier League, licensed the rights to broadcast Premier League matches to national broadcasters; (ii) two joint ventures, BSkyB Ltd. and ESPN (“Sky”) and NetMed Hellas SA and Multichoice Hellas SA (“NOVA”), who were the national broadcasters in the United Kingdom and Greece, respectively; (iii) Karen Murphy, a British national who purchased NOVA decoding equipment for personal viewing and subsequently used it to display Premier League matches in her pub in Southsea, England, at a significantly lower cost than a commercial subscription with Sky; and (iv) QC Leisure and AV Station, two British enterprises that arranged for the NOVA subscriptions and imported the decoding equipment, which was subsequently sold to Murphy and others.

The system of nationally exclusive broadcasting rights challenged in Murphy was supported by a combination of private and national measures. First, the typical agreement between the Premier League and a broadcaster contained provisions giving the broadcaster exclusive rights to broadcast the events in one of the EU Member States and requiring the broadcaster to take precautions to prevent individuals situated outside that Member State from accessing their broadcast. Second, in order to uphold the latter provision, the subsequent agreement between the broadcaster and its customers contained terms whereby the customer undertook that the decoding equipment would not be used to access the broadcast outside that Member State. Finally, general copyright law and a specific British statutory provision criminalizing the import, sale, and use of foreign decoding equipment procured through dishonest means further strengthened the enforceability and seeming validity of these contractual arrangements.

This licensing system was challenged in two British cases in which the plaintiffs alleged infringement. Ultimately, two divisions of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales referred a total of eighteen questions (excluding sub-questions) to the ECJ regarding the interpretation and application of various provisions under EU law. The eighteen questions boil down to three principal inquiries: I) Are Member States’ measures discouraging parallel import of broadcasting services compatible with the right of free movement of services protected by Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”)? (II) Are the agreements between the Premier League and broadcasters anticompetitive, contrary to Article 101 of the TFEU? (III) How are the several European Directives on intellectual property rights and, in particular, copyright law applied to such broadcasting rights, and to what extent is the proprietary content protected? This Article will address each of these three principal inquiries in order. Additionally, this Article will examine which elements of the licensing system heretofore are consistent with EU law, and analyze the likely ramifications for rights holders and future business strategies available to them.

New Sports Illustrated column: How will Roger Clemens lawyers go after Brian McNamee on Cross-Examination?

Cross-examination of Brian McNamee has just begun. Here's my new SI.com column on what we learned from direct examination and how Clemens lawyers may go after him on cross.

Here's an excerpt:

To advance these points, look for Clemens' attorneys to find contradictions in McNamee's testimony from his earlier statements. Even seemingly minor contradictions, such as in dates of events or names of non-essential persons present, will be exploited to frame McNamee as unreliable. They will also question why McNamee is the only person on Earth to have seen the highly-recognizable and attention-seizing Clemens take steroids and HGH. Also expect McNamee to be forced to explain his motivations for telling law enforcement authorities and Major League Baseball officials about his relationship with Clemens. Along those lines, McNamee will undoubtedly be asked about the proffer agreement he signed with law enforcement in 2006. The agreement ensured that McNamee would avoid prosecution so long as he revealed his knowledge about baseball players using steroids. Expect Clemens' lawyers to imply that McNamee, at risk of being prosecuted, had to make noteworthy revelations to authorities even if it meant stretching the truth.

To read the rest, click here.

Klasemen Akhir Liga Inggris (EPL) Musim 2011/2012

Manchester City secara dramatis berhasil menjadi juara liga inggris musim 2011/12, mereka berhasil unggul selisih gol dari rival sekota mereka, Manchester United. Posisi tiga ditempati Arsenal, sedangkan Liverpool berada di posisi ke empat.

Berikut daftar klasemen akhir Liga Inggris (English Premier League) musim 2011/2012:

Klasemen Premier League

No	Team	M	M	S	K	SG	N
1	MAN. CITY	38	28	5	5	93-29	89
2	MAN. UNITED	38	28	5	5	89-33	89
3	ARSENAL	38	21	7	10	74-49	70
4	TOTTENHAM	38	20	9	9	66-41	69
5	NEWCASTLE	38	19	8	11	56-51	65
6	CHELSEA	38	18	10	10	65-46	64
7	EVERTON	38	15	11	12	50-40	56
8	LIVERPOOL	38	14	10	14	47-40	52
9	FULHAM	38	14	10	14	48-51	52
10	WEST BROM	38	13	8	17	45-52	47
11	SWANSEA	38	12	11	15	44-51	47
12	NORWICH CITY	38	12	11	15	52-66	47
13	SUNDERLAND	38	11	12	15	45-46	45
14	STOKE CITY	38	11	12	15	36-53	45
15	WIGAN ATHLETIC	38	11	10	17	42-62	43
16	ASTON VILLA	38	7	17	14	37-53	38
17	QUEENS PARK RANGERS	38	10	7	21	43-66	37
18	BOLTON	38	10	6	22	46-77	36
19	BLACKBURN	38	8	7	23	48-78	31
20	WOLVERHAMPTON	38	5	10	23	40-82	25

Klasemen Akhir La Liga Spanyol Musim 2011/2012

Real Madrid memastikan diri menjadi kampiun di La Liga Spanyol musim 2011/2012 mematahkan dominasi Barcelona. Berikut klasemen akhir La Liga Spanyol musim 2011/2012:

Klasemen La Liga

No	Team	M	M	S	K	SG	N
1	REAL MADRID	38	32	4	2	121-32	100
2	BARCELONA	38	28	7	3	114-29	91
3	VALENCIA	38	17	10	11	59-44	61
4	MALAGA	38	17	7	14	54-53	58
5	ATLETICO MADRID	38	15	11	12	53-46	56
6	LEVANTE	38	16	7	15	54-50	55
7	OSASUNA	38	13	15	10	44-61	54
8	MALLORCA	38	14	10	14	42-46	52
9	SEVILLA	38	13	11	14	48-47	50
10	ATHLETIC BILBAO	38	12	13	13	49-52	49
11	REAL SOCIEDAD	38	12	11	15	46-52	47
12	REAL BETIS	38	13	8	17	47-56	47
13	GETAFE	38	12	11	15	40-51	47
14	ESPANYOL	38	12	10	16	46-56	46
15	RAYO VALLECANO	38	13	4	21	53-73	43
16	REAL ZARAGOZA	38	12	7	19	36-61	43
17	GRANADA	38	12	6	20	35-56	42
18	VILLARREAL	38	9	14	15	39-53	41
19	SPORTING GIJON	38	10	7	21	42-69	37
20	RACING SANTANDER	38	4	15	19	28-63	27

Keys to Another Successful Year-Linebackers

Ferrum last season, usually employed a two linebacker defense. While many defensive variations exist, Ferrum ran a 4-2-5 much of the season. This puts a solid line up front, but more importantly, places an additional safety in the defensive backfield.
Many times a team will run a basic 4-3 defense which has four down linemen, and 3 linebackers. This can easily be changed to a 3-4 where there are three down linemen, and 4 linebackers.
The two linebacker look, is a strong defense against the run, but takes two very athletic linebackers to be successful. This past season, Tremaine Whitney, and Melvin Trotter filled the linebacker roll in most games. Whitney led the team in tackles with 73 tackles, and Trotter was the third leading tackler with 65. Personally, I wish Ferrum could have more of a 4-3 look, but that may well make them too susceptible to the deep pass.
Whitney has graduated, and Ferrum must look for a replacement to fill his shoes....and they are sizeable shoes to fill.
I look for Jatavious Adams, to be the working to attain the starting job, along with Justin Terwilliger, and Akeem Boyce.
The good news is, Ferrum seems plenty deep at the linebacker position, and if those on last years roster return, Ferrum should be solid at this position.

Legal Issues in Emerging Sports

Over the weekend, I attended the Sports Law Association annual conference. I was privileged to be a panelist with Ryan Hilbert on legal issues in emerging sports. Over the last few years I have represented clients in snowboarding, rugby sevens and most recently Muay Thai. The legal issues raised by these sports, which we call emerging sports, do overlap somewhat with the established "stick and ball" sports can also be somewhat unique. Often these sports are underfunded, at least initially, and do not have an established corporate structure. These sports thus need legal guidance in corporate structure and governance issues at the entity level. Financial issues are also a huge issues for these sports. They need additional revenues to grow, obtain additional exposure and increase grass roots participation. Two of the key issues for emerging sports are thus television and sponsorship dollars. A number of emerging sports, such as rugby, are benefiting from tremendous growth in participation and are becoming more attractive to broadcasters. With the proliferation of cable channels looking for sports content, some emerging sports are well-positioned to increase their television exposure. A traditional sale of broadcast rights may be achieved by some emerging sports but others may enter into some type of joint venture with a broadcaster as an alternative. Sponsorship dollars often provide significant revenue to an emerging sport. It can be a cost-effective way for sponsors to connect with their target demographic. Drafting sponsorship agreements for emerging sports requires sensitivity in some cases to the desire for the sport to retain the "authenticity" of its culture. The sponsorship agreement may thus limit certain aspects of a typical sponsorship, so the sport does not seem too commercial. Social media is also a significant component of marketing campaigns for emerging sports, which may have a younger demographic that relies heavily on social media to communicate. It is important to make sure that there is compliance with FTC guidelines for social media and mobile marketing and other relevant statutes, such as the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act. That act imposes obligations on marketers that target children under 13.Emerging sports can also raise risk management issues, especially for those emerging sports that are contested in non-traditional venues, such as on a mountain slope or offshore for a surfing contest. Fan safety, and the appropriate insurance, are paramount. The release language in admission tickets and disclosures to spectators about safety should be part of an emerging sports risk management program.As emerging sports continue to grow, these and other legal issues will continue to be significant for emerging sports.

MLB Faces Antitrust Suit Regarding Its TV Blackout Policies

Major League Baseball's television blackout policies are the subject of a class action antitrust lawsuit that was filed on Wednesday in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in Garber v. MLB allege that the league has violated Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act by unfairly restricting its fans' ability to watch out-of-market broadcasts in two primary ways. First, through its MLB Extra Innings cable package and MLB.tv Internet package, MLB refuses to offer fans the ability to purchase just their favorite team's games, instead requiring consumers to purchase a package including all out-of-market MLB broadcasts. Second, both the Extra Innings and MLB.tv packages blackout any games broadcast locally via a regional sports network (RSN), meaning that fans cannot use those packages to watch their local team play, but must instead purchase a cable subscription to watch the games on their local RSN. The complaint alleges that these exclusive broadcasting policies drive up subscription fees for all cable consumers by enabling the RSNs to charge monopoly prices for their highly desirable sports programming. The Garber plaintiffs' complaint is available here, while MLB's specific blackout policies are explained here (and depicted in the accompanying map).

The lawsuit was filed by the same law firm (Pomerantz, Haudek, Grossman & Gross) that filed a similar class action antitrust suit against the NHL in March 2012 (Laumann v. NHL). Two of the three named plaintiffs in the NHL case (Fernanda Garber and Robert Silver) are among the four named plaintiffs in the MLB lawsuit.

Interestingly, the Garber suit does not name all 30 MLB teams as defendants, instead suing only the Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Colorado Rockies, New York Yankees, Oakland A's, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, San Francisco Giants, and Seattle Mariners, along with the Office of the Commissioner, MLB Advanced Media, DirecTV, Comcast, and various RSNs. Notably, the suit does not name any of the Fox Sports RSNs as defendants, nor any of the teams whose games are primarily broadcast on the Fox Sports networks. Instead, the suit targets only those teams whose games are televised on an RSN owned by DirecTV or Comcast (the one exception being the Yankees, who own their own proprietary RSN, the YES network). It is not immediately clear why the attorneys limited their allegations only to DirecTV and Comcast affiliates, but it may have something to do with a desire to pursue damages from cable service providers based on the allegations that all cable consumers have been charged higher prices due to MLB's exclusive broadcast policies.

One major hurdle the plaintiffs will have to overcome in their suit against MLB, of course, is baseball's historic exemption from antitrust law. Following the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Flood v. Kuhn, lower courts have been divided regarding how broadly the exemption applies. As I explained in a recent law review article, subsequent lower courts have generally adopted one of three approaches to the exemption: (i) holding that the exemption broadly shields the entire business of baseball, (ii) holding that the exemption shields only the reserve clause (the specific restraint at issue in Flood), or (iii) holding that the exemption shields baseball's "unique characteristics and needs."

In Postema v. National League, 799 F. Supp. 1475 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), the Southern District of New York adopted the latter approach, holding that baseball's exemption did not shield the league from a suit filed by a former umpire because “[a]nti-competitive conduct toward umpires is not an essential part of baseball.” Id. at 1489. Undoubtedly hoping to draw upon this precedent and the related line of cases, the complaint in Garber argues that MLB's TV policies do not "reflect anything unique to baseball" insofar as "they are essentially identical to those in other major sports." Complaint at Paragraph 8.

The plaintiffs also seek to avoid application of the antitrust exemption by citing to Henderson Broadcasting Corp. v. Houston Sports Ass’n, 541 F. Supp. 263 (S.D. Tex. 1982), a case in which the Southern District of Texas ruled that the exemption did not apply to a dispute involving the Houston Astros' local radio broadcasting agreements. Based on this precedent, the Garber plaintiffs argue that the "distribution of video presentation of baseball games is subject to the antitrust laws." Complaint at Paragraph 8.

It will be interesting to see how the Garber court handles the antitrust exemption issue. Personally, I believe the "unique characteristics and needs" standard -- drawing upon dicta in Flood -- is flawed, given that the Supreme Court did not itself apply any such standard in the Flood case. I have similarly argued that the Henderson decision is poorly reasoned in several respects. As a result, I believe that baseball's broadcasting activities are encompassed by the exemption.  Nevertheless, the Postema and Henderson precedents could give the Garber court a potential basis for discarding baseball's antitrust exemption, if it is so inclined.

It will also be interesting to see if the Garber lawsuit finally motivates MLB to update its antiquated television blackout policies. The rules have been frequently criticized by baseball fans, and can lead to absurd outcomes such as fans in Iowa being unable to watch any game involving the Twins, Royals, White Sox, Brewers, Cubs, or Cardinals on either the MLB Extra Innings or MLB.tv packages, even though in many cases none of those teams' games are available from their local cable provider. MLB has reportedly been considering updating the rules for years, but has yet to act. Perhaps this threat to its cherished antitrust exemption, along with potential treble damages, will finally force the league to act.

Hello from blogging vacation

Yeah, I know.  I've been a shitty blogging host of late.  My apologies.  But I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the down time and the ease of Twitter for off-season thoughts, rants and funny.  I guess when coaches in Columbus don't implode, it makes for much less to talk about in May.

I have returned to find a new Blogger interface and I must say it absolutely BLOWS.  Don't like it at all.

Finally, additional apologies for any unanswered emails.  I've been traveling of late and just haven't been checking in.  Hope everyone is doing well.  More to come as the season gets closer.

Go Blue!

Football Drills List - YouTube

Thank you to Matt Snyder for taking the time to compile this list of video drills on YouTube. Enjoy!

Legal Fallout of Dave Duerson's suicide

Sports Law Blog contributor Alan Milstein was interviewed for a story (subscription only) by Greg Ryan in Law360 on Dave Duerson's son, Tregg, suing the NFL and Riddell helmet maker for failing to warn the father about the long-term risks of concussions.

Here's an excerpt:

A successful bid by the NFL to keep the case in federal court would “greatly expand preemption and federal question jurisdiction to a degree never contemplated by the legislature or our courts,” Duerson said.

Sherman Silverstein LLP shareholder Alan C. Milstein, a sports law expert, predicted Monday that the court would send the suit back to state court. If the case is remanded, it would likely be the first of the concussion suits against the league to go to trial, he said, and could see the courtroom as early as the end of 2012.

“The question for the federal judge is really whether this is something governed by the CBA and is an employee-employer dispute, or whether it is separate and apart from that,” Milstein said.

The fact that the allegations are against the league, rather than the team that employed Duerson's father, could be the deciding factor, according to Milstein.

For a very good resource on the bevy of lawsuits filed by retired NFL players against the NFL -- the number of retired players who have sued now tops 2,000 -- be sure to check out NFL Concussion Litigation.

The New York Times on Harlem Ambassadors suing Harlem Wizards

Back in February, I blogged about the Harlem Ambassadors suing the Harlem Wizards over the Wizards allegedly "stealing" one of the Ambassadors' players - LaMarvon Jackson, who averaged 1 point per game at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, but who is apparently a star "entertainment show basketball performer." Though coveted by two teams, Jackson reportedly earns $60 per game (which typically generates at least $4,000 in revenue), with a $20 per diem when out on tour. Small numbers, perhaps, but the requested damages in the suit exceed $73,000.

Ken Belson of the New York Times has an extensive piece on the lawsuit, and I speak with him for his story.

Not the end of football

Back in February, I wrote about an essay on Grantland by Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier describing how footbal could end as a major sport as a result of head-injury lawsuits. Today in Slate, Will Oremus challenges that conclusion, arguing that the difficulty of proving liability in these cases given an assumption-of-risk defense and state-law sovereign immunity, makes it unlikely that we will see the numbers of big-money judgments that would cause high schools and colleges to want to get out of the football business.

Interestingly, Oremus rejects the idea that change can happen through lawsuits against individuals or even educational institutions. In his view, any change should

come not from the courts but from high-school athletic conferences, scholastic sports associations, and the NCAA. As the research rolls in, they need to take a hard look at the aspects of the game that inflict the most damage and implement rule changes accordingly. If football ends someday, it should only be because the powers that oversee the sport have tried everything to make it safe and determined that it can’t be done—not because lawsuits have spooked schools into giving up.

This is a sharp reflection of the modern understanding of tort law, the courts, and the administrative state. The regulating institutions should take care of the problems--even if those institutions have vested interests in protecting what they are supposed to be regulating. And courts do not achieve justice or truth at the systemic level--they only play on people's fear to surrender and pay out windfalls to a few individuals.

Ferrum College Recruiting- A Difficult Sell for Success

There are several factors that I believe will strongly influence a prospective athletes decision on where he or she will attend college.

Academics- Most student athletes know that they will not make a living as an athlete, so finding a school with a major that will serve them later in life should be paramount. In many cases, this is not part of the decision making process, as students do not always know what they want to major in.

Location- This can affect a decision in a couple of ways..... Proximity to home. Many students are wanting to experience life away from home, but usually, not too far. Most colleges have more In State students than out of State, and along those same lines, I am guessing that student populations many times will be made up of those within no more than a three hour drive.
Off campus amenities also will influence a prospective students decision. Will I be close to movies, malls, restaurants, etc. Will there be something to do?

Tuition- In today's economy, this is a huge concern for all students and parents. It is without question one of the largest limiting factors that Ferrum athletics faces. Although Ferrum's tuition is comparable to and in most cases less expensive than other in state private schools, the cost is still substantial. Loan programs and grant monies available, along with the College's work study program do offer some relief, but compared to State supported schools, Ferrum, in most cases, is a good bit more expensive.

Campus Visit- First impressions mean a lot, and Ferrum has made and continues to make huge strides in the physical appearance of the campus. Personally, I think the setting is gorgeous, and the campus offers the prospective student up to date modern facilities and conveniences.

College Recruitment Efforts-Another form of first impression. The first contact to get the student introduced to the college.

and last but not necessarily least, the athletic program at the college.


Ferrum is the type of school that attracts a certain type of student. They have to appreciate the setting, the small classes, the individualized attention that they will receive, and the quality of the education available. They have to understand, that this campus, while modern within it's borders, is fairly remote, and a good distance from suburbia.
The campus, under President Braaten's leadership has undergone a huge transformation in the past 9+ years. From the top of my head, I can count four new dormitories, a complete renovation and expansion of Franklin Hall, Penn Roediger Soccer Field, multiple upgrades and renovations to the academic and administrative buildings, Starbucks, Subway, Papa John's and most recently,the  opening of the Hank Norton Athletic Center.
These improvements to the overall facility have made Ferrum a state of the art campus, offering the student a first rate education in a wonderful setting.
While fundraising efforts for the college have always been critical to it's success, the tuition at Ferrum has increased. As with many businesses, the costs to operate has increased, but Ferrum still ranks as one of the most affordable private schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
From an athletics standpoint, Ferrum is very comparable to most of the other colleges in it's conference. Of the eight schools currently in the conference, seven of them are private. The lone public school, is Christopher Newport University. Why does this matter? Well, the main differences between the public and private college, is tuition, and facilities. State tax revenues allow for the development of a campus with far less impact to the tuition, than would the private college which has to rely more on donations. Where the donations fall short, tuition has to make up much of the difference. Of course there are other streams of revenue, but the private college is at a huge disadvantage from a tuition point of view.
For Ferrum to be successful in athletics, they, like all other schools, must be successful in recruiting. They have to be able to identify their needs, find the best possible athletes to fill those needs, and then work to secure their commitment to come to Ferrum. It is a tough sell, but the students who come to Ferrum will find a caring faculty and staff dedicated to ensuring that their stay is a stay that will enrich their lives, and help them grow into a person of character. A person who will go out and make a positive contribution to society.
Ferrum is not all about academics, nor is it all about sports. It is not all about fraternities or sororities, nor is it all about clubs or activities. Ferrum is not all about creating life long friendships, nor is it all about an E-term in another country. But those who choose to come to Ferrum will have all of those opportunities and many more. Ferrum is a school that offers those that come through the gates, a chance to learn, grow, mature, and take their experiences into the world to make a difference....and that is what Ferrum is about. Not Self But Others.
There is so much that Ferrum can offer the student, and the student athlete. Recruiting may be difficult, but Ferrum has been very successful. Look at the results yielded in the past year: Women's Basketball, and Softball made the NCAA playoffs. The football team was in a position to make the playoffs also. These results would not be happening without the successful recruiting efforts of the coaching staffs, and others involved in the process.
The strain in today's economy makes the recruiting challenge even more difficult. With the uncertainty in the job market, the average family is looking to cut costs everywhere. This not only leads to difficulty in recruiting, but also in student and athlete retention.
Ferrum unveilrd the Norton Center Friday, and this is another jewel in the Ferrum crown. It will no doubt be a plus in the recruiting efforts for all sports. The college is moving in the right direction. The economy is not...at least not fast enough. Times will get better. I think you will see economic indicators improve, and possibly start to see...in a few years down the road, the western Franklin County hamlet of Ferrum start to develop into a small college town. It will never be a city, nor should it be, but some modest developments, may shorten the gap between Wiley Drive and suburbia.