"As you know, Mr. Tebow has not granted Cubby Tees any rights to use his name or likeness in any manner. By promoting, advertising and selling the Merchandise, not only has Cubby Tees used Mr. Tebow's name to promote Cubby Tees, but the Merchandise makes it appear as if Mr. Tebow's actually endorses Cubby Tees and its products...Consequently, Cubby Tee's use of his name in and in connection with the Merchandise for their Website or otherwise, without permission constitutes unfair competition, unlawful misappropriation of name and/or likeness, deceptive trade practices, and a violation of Mr. Tebow's rights of publicty and privacy..."

This fun design is not officially endorsed by New York's backup quarterback or the Son of God, but plays off the themes of Tebow's faith and his new team - borrowing from the J-E-T-S to promote J-E-S-U-S, with a fish for a football, and "MY" replacing "NY" with a color scheme that will be familiar to Jets fans. We don't take sides on the field or in the hereafter -- we just try to make fans happy, and this shirt should fit Tebow followers to a tee. It's available in green, white or grey in sizes small through 4XL. (Other colors/sizes/styles available on request) (via Cubby Tees)

"I am deeply disappointed and embarrassed that Full Tilt players have not been paid money they are owed. I am equally embarrassed that as a result many players cannot compete in tournaments and have suffered economic harm," Ivey, who has played online on Full Tilt and appeared in the company's TV commercials, said in a statement posted on his website.

"I am not playing in the World Series of Poker as I do not believe it is fair that I compete when others cannot. I am doing everything I can to seek a solution to the problem as quickly as possible," he said. "My name and reputation have been dragged through the mud, through the inactivity and indecision of others, and on behalf of all poker players I refuse to remain silent any longer," Ivey said. "I have electronically filed a lawsuit against Tiltware related to the unsettled player accounts. As I am sure the public can imagine, this was not an easy decision for me. "I wholeheartedly refuse to accept non-action as to repayment of players funds and I am angered that people who have supported me throughout my career have been treated so poorly," he said. "I sincerely hope this statement will ignite those capable of resolving the problems into immediate action," he added. (via ESPN)

In a settlement reached this week, though, Mr. Baldwin had agreed to abide by the terms of his contract that will prevent him from soliciting IMG clients until next year, and IMG agreed to drop its own suit against Mr. Baldwin for taking the proprietary information when he left. A lawyer for IMG said the agency had achieved its goals. A lawyer for Mr. Baldwin did not return phone calls seeking comment. (via WSJ)

Well, this is almost sure to be ugly.

Yesterday it was revealed that minority Dallas Mavericks owner, Ross Perot Jr., was suing the Mavericks (and Mavericks owner Mark Cuban) alleging the club was insolvent.  The details,

In the 13-page petition filed in a state district court in Dallas, Hillwood Investment Properties III Ltd. asked that a judge place Dallas Basketball Ltd., the team’s business management, in receivership and order an independent audit of its operations. Hillwood also is seeking actual and punitive damages.

The petition alleges team management lost $50 million last fiscal year. Hillwood also alleges that the club has lost $273 million since Cuban’s Radical Mavericks Management LLC bought its majority stake in 2000 from Perot’s company, which retains a minority stake and partnership in Dallas Basketball Ltd.

The lawsuit also alleges the Mavericks company has an interest-bearing debt of more than $200 million, a $289 million deficit and negative working capital of $75 million. (via NBCDFW)

The suit goes on to allege that the Mavericks have relied heavily on borrowing money to meet financial obligations such that it has diminished the value of the Perot/Hillwood Investment Properties investment and put the long-term viability of the Mavericks in doubt. and that they’re unable to repay those long term debts.

For the sake of information, Forbes lists the Mavericks as the 7th most valuable team in the NBA, but does note that Cuban has spent nearly $400 million on payroll and $70 million in luxury tax over the last four years alone.  Furthermore, the Mavs have operated at a loss for 11 out of the last 12 years that Forbes has been tracking team finances. Makes me wonder if the Mavs received any money when the NBA received their “bailout money” a year ago.

As for Mavs owner Mark Cuban? The man who is always a magnet for quotes stated that not only is the team not in jeopardy, but that much of the money owed by the club is owed back to Cuban himself,

In a statement issued Monday night, Cuban said he had “either personally guaranteed or provided funding” to finance team operations. “So (Perot) is saying I can’t pay back the money to me.

“The real issue is that he wants me to run the team the way he did in the ’90s,” Cuban stated, referring to one of the team’s leanest periods on the court.

“The biggest mistake I have made with the Mavs was keeping him as a partner,” Cuban said of Perot. “The Mavs are just fine — except for the time and money we will have to waste dealing with Perot.”

This lawsuit, the Dirk Nowitzki free agency situation…should be an interesting summer in Dallas, no?

]]> http://sportsbusinessdigest.com/2010/05/dallas-mavericks-sued-by-minority-owner-perot/feed/ 0 http://sportsbusinessdigest.com/2010/02/the-williams-starcaps-suit-goes-forward-single-entity-in-question-again/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-williams-starcaps-suit-goes-forward-single-entity-in-question-again http://sportsbusinessdigest.com/2010/02/the-williams-starcaps-suit-goes-forward-single-entity-in-question-again/#comments Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:30:57 +0000 admin http://sportsbusinessdigest.com/?p=2071 Read More]]> Set your calendars for March 8th.

Last week, Hennenpin County District Judge Gary Larson ruled that the “Williams Brothers”, Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams are allowed to sue the NFL in Hennepin County for their four game suspension the NFL imposed on them in 2009.

The Williamses testified during arbitration they used StarCaps, a diuretic tainted with bumetanide — a controlled substance the league and NFL Players Association classify as a masking agent for steroids — to lose weight and earn $400,000 bonuses at the start of training camp.

Larson sided with the Williamses on the issue of notification. He wrote the NFL took three weeks to tell the players about their failed tests when DATWA requires employers to notify workers within three days.

He also said a trial would determine whether the Williamses’ confidentiality was violated under DATWA when news of their suspensions leaked to the media before they were informed. (via TwinCities.com)

So…the crux of the case going forward?  Who employs the Pat and Kevin Williams’?  The NFL or the Vikings?

The league argues the Vikings employ the players by contracting and compensating for their services. The Williamses counter the NFL is responsible for establishing playing rules and disciplining players under the anti-doping policy.

Peter Ginsberg, attorney for the Williamses, said he was optimistic they would prove the NFL is liable for violating his client’s rights under Minnesota law.

“The NFL controls player pensions and work conditions. The NFL controls the work place environment and has a responsibility to abide by state law, and in this case it violated that responsibility,” Ginsberg said.

If the NFL is determined to be the Williams’ employer then they would have violated the DATWA’s notice provision and possibly the confidentiality provision (this is due in part to the Williams suspension actually being leaked to the media before the Williams’ themselves knew about it) which could lead to a permanent bar on the suspensions.  More importantly though, a win for the Williams’ could lead to a many other players following suit; suing the NFL under state law claims to prevent drug policy suspensions.

Of course, we may see the NFL choose to take the proactive approach, as they may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue so as to not deal with numerous future lawsuits.

What makes this case all that more interesting?  That pesky American Needle case.  In the American Needle case the NFL is arguing that the league is a single entity (not 32 separate teams) so as to bypass anti-trust law regarding merchandising.  Here?  The NFL is essentially arguing that the league isn’t a collective but 32 distinct teams which would prevent the NFL from being liable under DATWA.

If you’re having trouble figuring out whether the NFL is a single entity or 32 distinct teams, and think that a ruling on one of these cases will significantly impact the other case…you aren’t alone.

Even more interesting?  The league’s anti doping policy, which of course is now in question, was collectively bargained for under the NFL CBA.  If the Williams’ ultimately win the case, anybody think some serious discussions regarding a re-vamping of the league’s drug policy will come up?

…its all the NFL needs…one more thing to argue about before 2011.

Sure, it would be easy to say that EA Sports NCAA Basketball franchise got “O’Bannon’ed”, but truth be told, there was a strong likelihood that we would have seen the death (read as: extended sabbatical probably meaning death) of the franchise anyway.  Apparently another NCAA game just didn’t fit into EA Sports plans financially, although the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit certainly didn’t help matters.

Earlier today Electronic Arts released their third quarter fiscal 2010 report which also included a list of titles planned for release in the coming fiscal year. All the usual suspects were listed with the exception of one. In addition to to that the rumored release date frame for a couple new franchises can be confirmed as well as the addition of a new fighting title in the works.

As I’ve been discussing the likelihood of for months it now appears a foregone conclusion that the NCAA Basketball series has been canned. It was not included on the fiscal 2011 list which had every other yearly title on it. The signs have been there for a while and included poor sales, complete lack of any post-release support, development team movement, and continued talk of trimming unprofitable titles. (via PastaPadre)

Well…at least Ed O’Bannon can sleep well at night knowing that his likeness won’t continue to be misused by the NCAA.

Although I think he may be aiming his sites a little higher.

The 41 year old boxer’s promotional company Square Ring, Inc,  is suing the video streaming company Ustream for “massive and blatant” copyright infringement.  The suit stems from a March 21st fight between Jones and Omar Sheika, a fight that was supposed to be pay-per-view but was broadcast to more than 2,000 users by a Ustream user who had purchased the contest.

Apparently, Square Ring had attempted to contact Ustream pre-fight to stop any illegal broadcasts, but to no avail.  More info, and a copy of the complaint, from Tech Crunch,

Following the illegal exhibition of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Broadcast on USTREAM’s website on March 21, 2009, notifying Defendants of the copyright and trademark infringements and, in a good faith effort to avoid litigation, requested information pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s letter further advised Defendants that, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, they permitted approximately 2,377 users to view Plaintiff’s pay-per-view program completely free of charge, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights. To date, Defendants have neither complied with Plaintiff’s request nor responded to Plaintiff’s letter…

Tech Crunch was able to get a reply from Ustream (better luck than Square Ring, I guess)

Ustream is serious about complying with the copyright laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and we’re aggressively taking short- and long-term steps to work with the content industry to meet their needs. We believe the Square Ring lawsuit does not have merit and that we’re fully protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor provisions.

The DMCA safe harbor provisions can be found here.  Although it looks, on its face, as if Ustream is correct; they will be protected by the safe harbor provisions, you do have to question their willingness to prevent copyright infrigement.  Square Ring contacted them pre-fight, and made reasonable requests to stop infringment…all of which fell on deaf ears.  On the other hand, is it Ustreams fault for not complying with the requests when it appears as if their inactivity is still within the letter of the law?  Probably not.  But, what do these sort of actions mean for future sports broadcasts?  Companys like Justin.tv and Ustream are becoming increasingly more popular, in part because of the increasing technical savvy of computer users and in other part because famous athletes are using the program.   Is the NFL going to hunt down every illegal broadcast of one of its games during the NFL season? Probably not.  But what if those sites get 3 more years of growth and popularity, and technical capability? We’ve seen situations like this before in the music world with the various lawsuits filed against file sharing companies like Napster or Rapidshare; they’ve lead to years of litigation and millions in legal fees.   The question now is whether or not this case will be an outlier or if it is just the beginning for the next big legal battle in the world of sports and sports entertainment.

The bell for Round 1 has just sounded.

The NFL had been threatening to sue the state of Delaware for months if they continued their plans of allowing sports betting in the state.  The NFL, is nothing, if not consistent.  But before suing, they decided to bring some friends, ensuring that this whole situation gets that much stickier.  From ESPN,

Friday, the league, which had been pro sports’ biggest opponent to Delaware’s plans, followed through. And it convinced some powerful friends to join in the fight. In federal court in Wilmington, the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, the NHL and the NCAA filed a complaint to stop Gov. Jack Markell and the Delaware State Lottery Office from taking bets on their games.

Delaware, along with Nevada, Montana and Oregon, is one of four states legally exempt from the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law which prohibits states from being in the bookmaking business. But the state hasn’t had sports betting since a failed attempt at allowing parlay betting in the mid-1970s. Now, faced with an $800 million budget deficit, Markell is turning to sports betting to hopefully raise between $50-$100 million for his state.

With Delaware having the PASPA exemption, the NFL’s argument would have to be based on something outside of the exemption granted to Delaware.  To step outside the exemption, the NFL looked at the types of games to be offered by Delaware.

Soon after the Delaware state Senate approved Markell’s sports betting proposal in May, the question of whether the state would continue with parlays — which require picking two or more winners to cash in a bet — or if it would allow single-game betting like Nevada, became paramount. Delaware pols favored single-game betting because they expected it would attract more gamblers and money from neighboring Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The leagues think those plans are against the law.

“Delaware did not conduct single-game wagering during its 1976 sports lottery, which was limited to parlay bets on NFL games,” league representatives said in a joint statement. “The PASPA exception does not permit Delaware to now conduct single-game wagers on the NFL or wagering on sports other than the NFL.”

The complaint alleges that sports betting in Delaware violates the 1992 anti-sports betting law, as well as the state law which mandates all forms of gambling be games of chance, not skill. The leagues argue that, by going from parlay to single game betting, chance gives way to skill.

So, the federal claim boils down to whether or not single game betting falls under Delaware’s PASPA exemption; Delaware having already been granted an exemption to allow parlay betting in 1976.  As the article mentions, if Delaware was granted the exemption to allow betting on multiple games, why wouldn’t the same exemption be allowed for betting on one game?  If the law prohibits states from being in the bookmaking business, and Delaware has an exemption, I don’t see how number of games wagered on makes any difference.

The state law claim, which is basically the chance vs. skill argument could carry some weight.  Although it certainly wouldn’t apply to everyone, some would use injury reports, injuries, point spreads, etc. to determine which single team they should bet on.  On its face, that sounds like more than chance.  In case you were wondering, this is the same logic the NFL used to allow its teams to enter into lottery sponsorships.

With Delaware moving forward with plans to allow betting by the time the NFL season starts, and the NFL asking for an injunction, we should see a development in this case, sooner rather than later.

ESPN — NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL sue to block Delaware sports betting