Nepotism and the Andy Roddick Foundation?

American tennis star Andy Roddick, who is ranked 6th on the ATP tour, has a charitable foundation called the Andy Roddick Foundation. It focuses on raising money for programs designed to treat abused children (specifically in the Southeastern Florida and Austin Texas), as well as raising money for programs that combat childhood diseases, childhood illiteracy, and truancy. This past weekend, the Foundation raised $1.4 million at an event in Boca Raton Florida which included a poker tournament Friday at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino and a gala dinner and tennis tourney at Boca's Polo Club.

Sounds like the Foundation is successful at raising money, and lots of it.

But its management, which is comprised of volunteers and is directed by Roddick's mother, Blanche, has come under criticism in the Palm Beach Post for alleged incompetency. The basic contention is that Andy Roddick has unwittingly entrusted his charity to his mom and friends, and they don't know what they are doing:

According to former members, the organization is led by a sometimes-clueless, well-meaning volunteer board that usually yields to Roddick's my-way-or-the-highway mother, Blanche.

"They don't know what they're doing," said Brian Edwards, a Hollywood agent who resigned last year as director of celebrity development. "Blanche is extremely difficult. She and Andy are classless when it comes to dealing with celebrities. Believe me, I'm spreading the word." Edwards said incidents with celebrities over the years culminated in 2005 when two of his clients, whom he declined to name, waited six hours at a California airport for the plane to take them to Boca for the gala. He quit. "I suggested that we send them two gift baskets to apologize," Edwards said. "The total came to $733, but Andy has refused to pay. The bill still had not been paid two months ago. Real stars know. They aren't showing up because Andy and his mom have got delusions of grandeur when it comes to his star power, especially with their attitude."

The list of the personalities advertised for last weekend's event included former Dallas Cowboys star and dancing champ Emmitt Smith, former Detroit Lions star Barry Sanders, dirty celebutante Paris Hilton and New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez. The names of actors Matt Damon and Russell Crowe were whispered in deep background. Who showed up: none of the above.

Those who paid up to $1,000 to play poker with big-deal celebs ended up with Paris' C-list sister, Nicky; the Dolphins' Jason Taylor; popster Mandy Moore; and tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.

In fairness to the Foundation, the Palm Beach Post story, which perhaps revealingly does not have an author listed, is clearly one-sided against the Foundation and particularly against Blanche Roddick. I'm sure there are two sides to this story, and we only get quotes from people who have an ax to grind. Moreover, back in August, Fort Lauderdale Magazine named the Andy Roddick Foundation the best charity in South Florida. I don't know much about the award or the quality of competitors for it, but it suggests that the Foundation is doing something right.

But as a general issue, should charitable organizations of celebrities use family members to run them? I know nepotism is always a tricky subject, but perhaps it's something that celebrities want to avoid. After-all, Andy Roddick doesn't look particularly good when his foundation doesn't look good.

Then again, the following passage from Karyn R. Vanderwarren, Note: Financial Accountability in Charitable Organizations: Mandating an Audit Committee Function, 77 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 963, 966 (2002) might suggest otherwise, as it indicates that charitable organizations often lack the same degree of business/legal sophistication found in the for-profit world:

Charities often recruit nonprofit board members for their fundraising ability or prestige in the community rather than for their ability to lead the organization . . . [they] may lack corporate or legal expertise. Because charitable board members are generally not compensated and may lack expertise, they have little incentive to actively oversee the activities of the charitable organizations they serve.

So maybe the Andy Roddick Foundation's troubles--to extent they are accurately depicted by the media--have more to do with the nature of charitable organizations than anything else. Also, if the Foundation isn't very good, then couldn't contributors simply donate to other foundations--wouldn't the market for charitable contributions respond accordingly?

Read More

The Dark Side

Once upon a time, I had a piece of shit friend named Danny. He was a scumbag, but my opinion of him has improved considerably since that time.

Danny taught me about the Dark Side. This was his term for it not mine. I don't see anything dark about it at all. And what is the Dark Side? It is the world of sex without love. It is fucking without commitment. It is a beautiful thing.

Danny started out like a lot of guys wanting love. He married young. He got a good job. He bought a house and had a kid. Then the wife went on a drug and sex spree that cost him everything. She was doing everybody and everything. From the ashes of this disappointment, a dark lord of the Sith was born. Heh heh. . .

There really is nothing funny about this, but I like what Danny did. He fucked all his wife's friends, divorced her, and that was it. He became a mercenary. He gave up on love. For a brief period, he tried his hand at another relationship. But he got scorched again and went over to the Dark Side permanently.

This may seem scandalous, but what is the alternative? The man was not born this way. He was made this way. Then, he taught me his tricks.

Basically, the bars are full of lonely women. Your only barrier to getting laid is your level of morality. If a woman is in a bar, she is there to have sex. What other reason would she have for being there? Buy her a beer, talk a little shit, and then go back to her place. It's just that easy.

The sex will be meaningless and empty, but you'll have a good time. You haven't hurt anybody, and you can go on the next day with a smile on your face and no regrets.

People will toss up the spectre of STD's, but being monogamous is no protection. You're only as safe as your partner's honesty which is sadly lacking in today's relationships. Cheating is so rampant that over 80% of all marriages are tainted by infidelity. (Google this if you don't believe it.) The best thing to do is to use protection even if you are in a relationship. The alternative is celibacy.

So, what do I think of this scoundrel of the Dark Side? I think he is a standup guy because he isn't a hypocrite. He is honest about what he does and why he does it. He doesn't hurt anybody, and he doesn't get hurt. He accepted the rules of the game and embraced it for what it is. Why should he feel guilty? And the women love him for it.

Men are waking up to the reality. Being a swinging bachelor is where it is at. Don't believe the lies of love and family. Give in to your anger. Come to the Dark Side.

Read More

My Friend Tiff

I have this friend named Tiff that I absolutely adore. She hates my guts right now, but I love her to death.

I am a cynic on the topic of love and all of that. That's because I have a lifetime of getting scorched by females. I am the nice guy that always gets treated bad. I'm not looking for sympathy points here. I'm just telling you what happens to me, and why I am the way I am. Hopefully, you'll get a laugh out of it.

Tiff is a different story. She is something special to me, and though I am being a dick to her right now, she is the finest woman I have ever known. Not only has she bailed me out of all kinds of shit, but she also puts together Christmas presents for those less fortunate than her. She doesn't make any money, but she does this anyway. She would hate me publicizing this fact on my blog here, but all I can say is SORRY 'BOUT IT!!!

The woman is an absolute angel. She won't even smack me around which proves that she is a saint. You gotta love a woman like that.

But she doesn't want anything to do with me now because I have the touchy feelies for her. This is the story of my life, folks. I can always get the love of bad women but never a good woman. I must have been born under a bad sign or something.

Tiff can go on hating me, but I find it impossible to do the same to her. I'm crazy about her, and I don't care who knows it. I expect the restraining order any day now. Heh heh. . .

Read More

Lawyers in Demand at University Athletic Departments?

Last week at the Street & Smith's Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, when NCAA president Myles Brand and other panelists were asked what they thought would be the most important story to follow in the upcoming year, Brand said "Coaches' contracts," and added that "agents have the upper hand" now and schools may need outside help negotiating these deals. [Jodi Upton, USA Today, Colleges troubled by coaches' rising salaries] Brand told Upton in an interview: "Negotiations have become tougher, and there's a lot of competition for the best coaches. It might make sense for schools to have representation. They use outside counsel on other things."

I've always thought that university athletic departments would be better served by having a full-time attorney in-house to deal with not only coaches contracts, but also with compliance audits, Title IX issues, NCAA rules interpretations, the NCAA enforcement process, and the development of institutional policies and procedures that have all sorts of legal implications (i.e. drug testing, use of Myspace/Facebook, etc.), to name just a few. As a result of the increase in coaches salaries, coaches contracts, correspondingly, have become much more complex with respect to termination rights, liquidated damages (how much one party owes the other upon a breach), and mitigation of damages (whether the compensation under a future contract should reduce the damages owed by the university to the coach).

I agree with Brand when he says that agents have the upper hand in negotiating coaches contracts. One of the great benefits to having an agent when negotiating an employment contract is that the prospective employee, whether it be a player or coach, can play the "good cop, bad cop" role. In other words, the coach or player can say, "I know, but my agent is making some of these demands and I'm not a business person, which is why I hired him." An attorney working on behalf of the university might be able to level the playing field in that respect.

Also, I've always thought that the coach has more bargaining leverage than the university in the contract negotiation process. First, the coach and the university agree "in principle" that he is going to be the new head coach, and it hits the press that same day. Then, after it hits the press, the university and the agent get together over the next few days and hammer out all of the important details of the contract. During these negotiations, it seems that the coach would have a much easier time walking away from the deal than the university would, which gives the coach more leverage. The university is placed in the inviable position of having to explain to students, alumni and boosters that they lost their "prized" coach because they couldn't agree to the terms of the contract. Maybe an in-house lawyer could aid the university in that process at the outset when the agreement is reached "in principle".

As more universities hire counsel, whether in-house or outside, it creates more opportunities for lawyers who want to work in the sports industry.

Read More

David Stern Drops New Basketball Crusade

According to ESPN, NBA Commissioner David Stern will announce tomorrow that on January 1, 2007, the league will drop its new "microfiber balls" and bring back the traditional leather ball. The ball has drawn widespread rebuke from players as being uncomfortable and difficult to grasp, and Steve Nash and Jason Kidd even say that it cuts their hands. These complaints over both comfort and safety have reached legal significance, as the NBPA recently filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB to have the ball replaced. That will no longer be necessary as Stern has essentially capitulated.

Skip Oliva over at the Voluntary Trade Blog has an insightful reaction to Stern's decision and the broader implications it may have on Stern and professional sports commissioners in general:

I consider this a “jump the shark” moment for Stern because the seemingly arbitrary decision to change the ball represented the zenith of Stern’s bureaucratic (and some would say autocratic) management policies. The new ball’s failure may signal at least a temporary end to Stern’s increasing centralization of power.

I’ve long complained about the existence of professional sports commissioners, arguing that even the title “commissioner” confers a quasi-governmental authority on what is nominally a business executive’s position. One problem is that commissioners have no equity stake in the organization that they are nominally CEO of—Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig being a quasi-exception, given that he owned the Milwaukee Brewers while serving as “acting commissioner”—and absent this equity, commissioners trend towards bureaucratic management. (See Ludwig Von Mises’s classic work Bureaucracy for a detailed explanation of bureaucratic management.)

Stern is Exhibit A for bureaucratic management. His policies are designed to do little more than consolidate his own power without benefiting the league or its customers. One example is the off-the-court dress code imposed on all players starting in 2005. Another is the arbitrary 19-year-old age requirement designed to keep high school graduates from playing immediately in the NBA. And then there’s the classic example of Stern silencing the NBA’s owners—his own bosses—who dare to criticize the league’s management or officiating in public. As I noted in an earlier post, if a CEO of a publicly-traded company tried to silence his critics, all hell (and the SEC) would break loose.

See also
A Revolution Against David Stern and Creeping Orwellianism? (11/21/2006)
NBA Player Autonomy: How Should We Define It? (11/28/2006)
Update on David Stern and NBA Player Autonomy (11/29/2006)

Read More

New Sports Law Scholarship

New this week:

Suzanne Wilhelm, “Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer?” The Supreme Court determines the essence of the game of golf--and what the decision could mean for learning disabled students in higher education, 32 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LAW 579 (2006)

Read More

Trying to Have it Both Ways (A Wasteland Reprise)

Every so often, I get involved with a chick who wants to have it both ways. This is how the scenario plays itself out. I take her out on a few dates, hang out with her, etc. She decides that she likes me but not enough to nail down any kind of commitment. I am then relegated to the status of "friend." This means I have to meet the parents, change my hair and lifestyle, be available all the time, continue with dates, etc. And do I get to go out with other women? No. In other words, I have to be a boyfriend while not having a girlfriend in the hope that maybe--MAYBE--she might like me enough to want to keep me around. In other words, I am supposed to sit on the shelf like a jar of peaches until I'm wanted.

This has happened to me three times. I suppose this is what I get for being a nice guy. I really need to quit that.

The clincher in all of this is when you decide to break it off you get the guilt trip about ending the "friendship." Chalk this up to female logic. Women love to play this game where they come off smelling like a rose while you are portrayed as the scumbag. I just have to shake my head and laugh.

So, can men and women be friends? Nope. Women love to have tons of guys as "friends." They are all jars of peaches sitting on the shelf. If your significant other has some male "friends," you better believe they will be in the sack with them at some point in the future if it hasn't already happened. "Friend" is a slippery term with women and can mean whatever they want it to mean. It's just another one of their games.

Fellahs, all I can tell you is that it pays to live like a dog. Women would rather play games with a man than get serious, so it behooves you to be a player. Men didn't invent the game. Women did. So, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

Read More