data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67bc4/67bc4a5e32ae4448e544c890f0a7f43e46841767" alt=""
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/04/23/china-olympics-sponsors-oped-cx_sre_0424olympics.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/08/business/ft-olympics8
http://www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080620_447605.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121520521471229245.html?mod=sports
"I think the truth is the Sonics had the advantage going into this," said Michael McCann, a Boston College law professor and legal analyst for SportsIllustrated.com. "The tradition of courts has been to substitute monetary damages."
A crucial test for the city to reverse that presumption may be whether it can prove that the Sonics are a unique tenant — one that brings benefits to the city that cannot be calculated in dollars and cents.
The city has argued that point, bringing in witnesses to talk about the Sonics' charity work and the team's spillover economic benefits to the community.
Seattle also brought in author and National Book Award winner Alexie — who compared NBA players to Greek gods — to speak for passionate fans who would miss the team. (He brought up the missing cucumber sandwiches, which had been served at a past season-ticket holder event, to imply Bennett had deliberately sabotaged fan interest.)
The city has "a strong argument" when it comes to the unique benefits of having an NBA team as its arena tenant, said Alfred Brophy, a law professor at the University of Alabama and an expert in landlord-tenant law.
"Public interest is a trump card that judges throw down to resolve these kinds of huge cases, especially when you have something like a building that a lot of people use, or a highway, or in this case, a city's treasured team," Brophy said in an e-mail.
Brophy dismissed Bennett's claim that the team would lose $60 million over the final two seasons at KeyArena.
"The team's fear that they'll lose money isn't a factor in whether they've broken the contract. Just because you struck a bad deal and you're going to lose money isn't a basis for getting out of a contract," he said.
* * *
To read the rest of the article, click here. We have plenty of coverage of this trial on Sports Law Blog, including Mark Conrad's excellent post from last week.
James J. LaRocca, No trust at the NFL: league’s network passes rule of reason analysis, 15 UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW 87 (2008)
Mitchell Nathanson, What’s in a name or, better yet, what’s it worth? Cities, sport teams and the right of publicity, 58 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 167 (2007)
Justin F. Paget, Comment, Did Gebser cause the metastasization of the sexual harassment epidemic in educational institutions? A critical review of sexual harassment under Title IX ten years later, 42 UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW 1257 (2008)
David G. Roberts, Jr., Note, The right of publicity and fantasy sports: why the C.B.C. Distribution court got it wrong, 58 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 223 (2007)
Brian Shaffer, Comment, The NBA’s age requirement shoots and misses: how the non-statutory exemption produces inequitable results for high school basketball stars, 48 SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW 681 (2008)
Michael J. Weir, Note, The ugly side of the beautiful game: “bungs” and the corruption of players’ agents in European football, 14 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF LAW & TRADE IN THE AMERICAS 145 (2007)
The resolution of seemingly straightforward disputes that arise in sports often require courts to invoke rules from several substantive areas of the law. The potential tort liability of coaches and their teams for injuries to professional athletes provides such an illustration. Determining the culpability of coaches requires resort not only to tort law doctrine, but also to doctrine and policy related to contract, labor, and workers compensation law. This article first provides an overview of the law regarding the tort liability of institutions for injuries to athletes and the standards of care that courts have adopted. The article suggests that the breach of any duty imposed on coaches and their teams to players would most likely be assessed according to a heightened standard of care, specifically recklessness. The article concludes, however, that even if a coach engages in conduct that falls short of the applicable standard of care, a professional athlete will have difficulty prevailing in a tort-based civil action against a coach, or by virtue of vicarious liability, the team. In this regard, the article briefly discusses the defenses that might impede a player's ability to pursue state tort claims. These defenses, which include the labor law preemption doctrine, mandatory arbitration, and workers compensation, demonstrate the convergence of different strands of law in resolving sports-related disputes.