Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
One of the most frequent questions that crosses the plane of sports and employment law, is whether college athletes should be paid. Student athletes contend that they should be treated as "employees" while educational institutions prefer to classify students as merely that, students. The landscape dramatically changed in 2021, when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) implemented its interim policy on name, image and likeness (NIL), allowing student-athletes to make money from their personal brand.
The NCAA's interim policy has three main parts:
|The Next College Student Athlete (NCSA) is the largest college athletic recruiting platform connecting high school athletes with college coaches. The NCSA website sets forth examples of the types of things for which student athletes could now be paid. The list includes things such as: autographs and memorabilia, camps and clinics, personal appearances, merchandise, affiliate/ambassador roles, NFTs, blogging, podcasting, public speaking, music, art, etc.
Does the ability to receive remuneration for being a college athlete mean that the students are deemed employees of the university? Do employment laws apply? Are labor laws enforced? Does OSHA enter the equation? What about HIPAA concerns relating to medical conditions and injuries?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.