Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The convergence of myriad factors, including conference realignment, a seamless transfer portal and rule changes permitting athletes to profit from usage of their name, image and likeness (NIL) have dramatically transformed the landscape of collegiate sports. However, as tectonic as the ructions resulting from conference realignment and the transfer portal have been, no other development has engendered as much confusion and angst as the rapid evolution of NIL.
With a view toward injecting some modicum of clarity into the volatile arena of NIL, a plethora of legislation has been enacted at the state level and proposed at the federal level. For the past three years, in the wake of all this turbulence, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), had been for the most part a spectator in the bleachers. But in the past few months it appears the NCAA may have begun to buckle its chinstrap.
Since the inception of the NCAA, other than scholarships and stingy board and meal allowances, athletes representing participating member institutions have been precluded from legally receiving any compensation. At least since about 1910, the NCAA has been the primary regulator of college athletics. Since the late 1970's when vast amounts of money first began to be infused into college athletics, the NCAA has stubbornly refused to address the inequity of student-athletes being barred from receiving compensation. The injustice of this "amateur" status has been highlighted as coaches, athletic directors, college administrations and endowment funds, advertising agencies, online gaming platforms, video-game producers, television networks and apparel companies, have reaped massive revenue. The billions of dollars generated by the advent of the Bowl Championship Series (and financial projections relating to its imminent expansion) have only exacerbated this perceived inequity.
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.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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.
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.