What's In a Name? Well, if your name is Mark Guthrie, it can mean $300K. Apparently, the Tribune Co., which owns both the Chicago Cubs and Hartford Courant, paid Mark Guthrie $301,000 last October. The only problem - it went to newspaper carrier Mark Guthrie, rather than relief pitcher Mark Guthrie. The team managed to get back most of the money, but now has had to sue for the final $26,000. The newspaper man is holding out on the rest, voicing a concern over potential tax implications.



If the money, which was deposited in October, had carried over into the New Year, then newspaper Guthrie could possibly face taxes on that money. But the issue is not that simple. The team realized its mistake and recalled most of the money in December, meaning Guthrie had no accession to wealth, and thus, no income to be taxed. But the team did not get back all of the money -- only because he refused to give it back. A court could say that he had no legal right to the money, and thus, no accession to wealth. On the other hand, he did keep the money past the end of the year, increasing his overall wealth, if only temporarily. Because he had no right, the money would be taxed as illegal income. This means that Guthrie would get no deduction for returning the money and would take a big tax hit. Thus, by keeping the money and claiming potential tax problems, Guthrie may have in fact created his own tax problems, not to mention a costly lawsuit.



The lesson here: there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you suddenly find $300,000 in your bank account, best to give it back.

Read More

More on the First Amendment and College Fans: Eric Felton of the Wall Street Journal has a story discussing the boorishness of collegiate sports fans and the legal hurdles (i.e., the 1st Amendment) in trying to curtail their behavior and preserve the university's image. The piece does not add much to the discussion, but is a good summary.

Read More

Eminent Domain in Brooklyn: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today sharply criticizing the stadium plans of Nets owner Bruce Ratner. The piece not only questions the idea of using public money to build the new stadium in Brooklyn, which is a common argument made today. It also derides the potential use of eminent domain to seize part of the land for the future development. It seems that Ratner faces a tough battle, both legally and politically, for his Brooklyn idea to become reality.



You can read my analysis of eminent domain in this earlier post.

Read More

Tennis Players Causing a 'Racket'? Darren Rovell of ESPN.com has an interesting piece describing a common practice among star tennis players: using older, discontinued rackets but painting them to resemble the newer models the player endorses. Players do this for obvious reasons: they feel comfortable with the type of racket they have used for years and cannot change every time the technology does. But is there a possible claim for false advertising?



Since the US Open is going on, let's look at New York law. New York General Business Law sec. 350 declares that false advertising is unlawful. The statute defines "false advertising" as advertising that is "misleading," including "representations made by statement, word, design, device, sound or any combination thereof" and also to the extent that the advertisement "fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations."



A claim for false advertising in New York can be pursued via three avenues. One, the state Attorney General can bring a claim on behalf of the state. Second, a company can be brought up on criminal charges under the state's penal law. Finally, a consumer that has suffered damages as a result of the false advertising can bring a civil suit. The most likely scenario is a group of tennis racket purchasers that felt aggrieved filing a class action suit against the tennis racket manufacturers, since they know of this practice and allow it to continue.



There seems to be a number of hurdles to this possibility, however. First, the consumers must prove that they were damaged by the false advertising. At first glance, damages are not apparent. Even if the purchasers were aspiring professionals who believed they were getting the same technology used by the best players, the advertisements would not be that misleading. The professionals do still use the rackets of that particular manufacturer, just not a certain model. Michael Jordan and Mia Hamm endorse Nike, but only use certain products. Since the technology moves faster than the advertising, this is to be expected.



The real problem may lie in players using discontinued products, or stated another way, products not available for sale to the general public. In 2000, a consumer watchdog group sued Nike Golf after its top endorser Tiger Woods admitted that the golf ball he uses wasn't available to the public. In the wake of the suit, Nike quickly introduced the Tiger ball to the market. A group of ambitious lawyers could perhaps make this same argument in regards to the tennis rackets. This could be seen as a "material fact" that the company failed to reveal after making a representation that the athlete uses the most recent product.



Overall, this seems to be a weak legal argument. On a policy level, an adverse decision would wreak havoc on businesses that advertise. Endorsement contracts would have to specifically mandate that the athlete or performer use a specific product, and not just any product made by a manufacturer. Advertisements would have to change with the technology, which does not seem to be possible. So, while an interesting story, there does not seem to be any claim for false advertising, no matter how much painting and transformation occurs.

Read More

Bryant Trial: The criminal case against Kobe Bryant was dropped last week, not unexpectedly. All he had to do was go through the motions of an apology. The civil case will continue until the victim settles for an undisclosed amount of money and drops the suit. Does this mean the alleged victim was lying? Does it mean she is only interested in money? Or does it mean that the mistakes of the court proved too much for the prosecution's case to bear? No one knows for sure.



Interesting articles about this:

New York Times - legal failures?

Houston Chronicle - too much legal secrecy?

FindLaw - why did the alleged victim stop cooperating?



In the end, it should surprise no one that Bryant will not spend a day in jail. I do not know if he committed any crimes. I do know that it would have been impossible for there to be a fair trial. His celebrity would have saved him, or the media circus would have convicted him before a jury was even empaneled. This is the real lesson of the Bryant case and the real problem facing our legal system when it comes to high profile defendants.



Yes, the 1st Amendment right of the press should be protected, but only by keeping the media circus out of the courtroom can justice truly be served. Yes, the media should be able to observe all trials. And yes, the public does have a right to know. But the public does not have the right to a play-by-play, no matter how much this may boost ratings. The increasing media presence in these high-profile cases prevents the effective administration of justice. Did the clerk err in releasing the alleged victim's name? Yes. But who published it? Who sought it? The irony comes when the media, largely responsible for creating this injustice, later complains when a defendant such as Bryant escapes trial or conviction. Only by limiting media access to observers and representatives can the legal process continue, uninhibited by ratings and talking heads.

Read More

Credits for Play?: Courtesy of John Stoner, an article from the Washington Post discussing the policy of giving players credit (up to 1 per year) for playing varsity athletics. Obviously, this has many people upset. Why should varsity athletes, on a full scholarship in sports like football, also be given class credit for playing a sport? My response: why not? Every college has Physical Education courses. Credits are given for playing tennis an hour a week, going bowling or taking a course in lifeguarding or first aid (for which the applicant receives certification). Why should someone who participates in athletic activity for up to 40-60 hours per week not receive one credit each year for this activity?



It is clear that participating in varsity sports adds just as much value, if not more, than an hour each week playing tennis or bowling. Athletes learn valuable skills of team work, handling enormous pressure and expectations, time management and coping with defeat. Is there really any problem with awarding one academic credit each year for this expenditure of time and the clear lessons that are learned. If people are concerned with assigning a letter grade, make the credit pass/fail. But no one can convince me that enough is not learned in playing varsity sports to justify some (very limited) academic credit.



This also seems like a good alternative to compensating collegiate athletes, which has been proposed in legislation in at least two states (California and Nebraska) and which I discuss in this article from last year. We should not pay college athletes for a number of reasons: they should remain amateurs, there isn't the money, Title IX raises a number of hurdles, etc. But why not compensate athletes in some non-monetary way, like class credits? One or two credits each year does not jeopardize the education of these athletes any more than any PE class does. Many high schools, including my own, award credit for playing varsity sports, participating in student government, or engaging in community service. This encourages students to participate in activities they enjoy and also awards them for the education they receive in doing them.



Too often, administrators view education as something only gained in the classroom. This simply is not accurate. I learned much more in college outside of the classroom than I did inside. I learned about life, about living on my own, about dealing with people from different backgrounds and who held different beliefs, and on. If some of these lessons can be pinpointed to a particular, university-sanctioned activity such as athletics, then credit should be awarded. This does not jeopardize student-athletes; if anything, it reminds these men and women of the benefits of being both a student and an athlete.



Also, John has a link to an interesting article on his blog about wine and baseball, two of my favorite topics.

Read More

Did Brown Violate His Contract? Kevin Brown had surgery on his left (non-pitching) hand this weekend after breaking three bones with a punch to a clubhouse wall following an outing on Friday. Brown is expected to miss three weeks, a huge blow to a Yankees team already short on starting pitching. He has apologized to his teammates and the organization. But, did he violate his contract in committing this act of frustration?



I do not know the exact language of Brown's contract, but most player contracts contain substantial language preventing dangerous activities. Often these include riding motorcycles, skydiving, and playing other dangerous sports (i.e., pick-up football). One would think that the contract language would also prohibit self-inflicted injuries, such as punching immovable concrete walls. This could mean that the Yankees could fine Brown, or possibly even refuse to pay him for the time he spends on the disabled list. In another profession, it could mean the team could void his contract, but with the strength of the player's union, this will not be the case. Besides, despite Brown's increasing age and declining pitching ability, the Yankees need all the arms they can get. Expect to see Brown pay a moderate fine and be back on the mound in as little as a week.

Read More