Aliya Sports Finance Fund sued the broker, Sur…

Read more

While the unanimous four judge panel did not grant the NFL’s effort to have the 14-year-old case tossed, in its decision the judges indicated that in some ways they were to “the extent” of the judicial quartet’s key rulings. Last year the lower court judge scheduled a trial to begin next month, but that timeline in the spring was pushed back months as the parties awaited this ruling. Whether the case goes to trial now is unclear.

The 1st Department’s decision’s highlights included deciding the concussion settlement is reasonable; finding that just because the NFL’s 32 teams were already paying for the settlement did not mean the league couldn’t ask for coverage; that the NFL did not foresee the injuries; and other findings I will also get to below.

The insurers, led by TIG Insurance, argued that the head injuries were in insurance terms, “one occurrence.” This meant all the injuries fell under the rubric of one event, NFL football. The NFL disagreed because if it is just one event, then per–occurrence financial payout caps in contracts would drastically drop what the insurers owed. In other words if there is only one insurable occurrence the insurer’s coverage would be minimal compared to if there are thousands.

In this, the appellate court was upholding the lower court ‘s 2023 decision rejecting the argument of the insurers, who appealed that decision to the, as it turns out, the unsympathetic First Department,

“While the incidents giving rise to the injuries share some commonalities, it cannot be said that the impacts at issue here, which involve over 20,000 former players who participated in approximately 10,000 games over multiple decades, in approximately 90 different stadiums share the same…characteristics `to unify them as one occurrence,’” the judges wrote.

The judges also rejected the insurer’s claim that the NFL knew the dangers of football, so the harm was not an accident but a foreseeable outcome, which would not be covered. “While TIG has based its argument on a contrary contention, its own expert opined that neurological diseases were not inherent in football, thereby undercutting its argument that the injuries were expected or intended by the NFL,” the judges wrote.

“TIG also argues that the players’ head injuries do not constitute occurrences because they are an inherent risk of the intentional violent impacts intrinsic to NFL play,” the judges wrote. “We reject this argument.” A ruling in the insurer’s favor would have wiped away all liability coverage.

The insurers also argued that the settlement is not reasonable, a tack the lower court had approved for argument at trial. TIG has complained the settlement, reached before a Pennsylvania federal district court had made a determination whether the legal claims belonged in arbitration is one of the many reasons the insurer put forward that the settlement is not fair. The 1st department again disagreed, noting that a federal appeals court and lower court had ruled for the settlement, which was formally approved in 2017.

“Although the settlement was projected to cost $1 billion over its lifetime, given the claims asserted, the extensive publicity and media coverage of the case, and the defense costs, we cannot say the settlement was objectionably unreasonable,” the appeal judges wrote.

The state court justices even turned around TIG’s argument that it never approved of the settlement, or formally said no, as required in their agreement with the NFL. The league has said it did keep TIG apprised, including on several offers by the NFL of lower nine figures that preceded the final deal, which is uncapped and lasts 65 years.

“Further, as an insurer may `not arbitrarily withhold consent and at the same time argue that [its insured] has not complied with a condition precedent,’ issues of fact exist as to whether TIG’s withholding of consent to settle was in bad faith,” the judges wrote.

The 1st Department justices also ruled that the lower court’s finding that the NFL is a “product” is overruled. This is very important as the insurers argued the NFL is an entertainment product, and that provisions in the insurance contract provide for financial payout caps if the insured makes a product. The NFL argued football is an intangible, not a tangible product. The justices agreed.

“”In its decision, [the lower court] looked beyond the…policy language to give a broader and more expansive definition to the term `product.’ This was improper,” the justices wrote. “Their plain language indicates that the product, as expected to be covered… is a tangible/physical product. The Supreme Court should not have expanded the definition of “product” to include intangible products simply because that interpretation is possible.” The Supreme Court refers to the lower court (yes in New York state the lower state courts are known as the Supreme Court, and yes it is confusing).

The NFL has previously settled with other insurers part of the original case, so some of that $1.7 billion is likely already covered, though how much is unclear.

The case was filed in 2012 preemptively by the insurers when the first retired player lawsuits were filed against the NFL. Hundreds of these cases were soon filed, and consolidated into a multi district litigation in Pennsylvania. In 2013 the parties first struck an agreement, but it would be several years before the final version was cleared.

During this process, the insurers’ case was stayed in New York. The slow wheels of the New York state judicial system then kept the pace of the case to a crawl, which is why 14 years later it is still trudging along. The appellate decision last week appears to be one of the most important legal moments in the very time-consuming case. There have thus been 1490 court filings just in the lower court since the case started.

Judge Margaret Garnett today in a 69-page ruling turned down six dismissal motions–filed by the WTA and ATP Tours, the French Tennis Federation, the club that owns Wimbledon and the United States Tennis Association. She also rejected a joint motion from the defendants to remove the PTPA as a plaintiff.

The case was filed in March 2025, and alleges a wide ranging conspiracy by the defendants to restrain player pay and endorsements through rules, price fixing and association bylaws. The case has taken something of a backseat to other business developments in tennis, with players recently agreeing to a joint committee with the Slams to debate prize money levels.

As a percentage of revenues, the Slams pay out far less than other sports, and even less than on the tours. The top players have retained former sports executive Larry Scott to advise them, but the theme recently has been cooperation and prize money at recent Slams has risen significantly, though not to levels advocated by Scott’s group.

The PTPA lawsuit is unconnected to that process, and has been viewed in some quarters as a sideshow, especially since the group’s co-founder, Novak Djokovic, separated from the organization. But Garnett’s ruling, while not thoroughly surprising given her previous rulings in the case, does mean the plaintiffs can start discovery on the defendants.

The standards for dismissal are high at this stage of litigation. The judge must assume everything the plaintiffs allege is true, and she wrote they had pled plausible allegations of antitrust restraints. After discovery the defendants can file for summary judgment dismissal, and that decision is based on the facts as they have been vetted in discovery so it could change Garnett’s approach. The parties could also settle, as the Australian Open is in the process of doing.

Here are some highlights of Garnett’s ruling:

* The WTA argued its arbitration provisions should rule. The clause covers disputes “arising out of the application of any provision” of the Rulebook. Garnett ruled the claims attack a conspiracy, not how the WTA applied its rules.

* The USTA arbitration argument was also denied. The clause is limited to presence and participation at the 2024 and 2025 US Opens, she wrote. Players who never played those Opens are also class members, she wrote.

* The All England Club and the FFT argued they were out of the NY judge’s jurisdiction. She denied as she claimed “conspiracy jurisdiction,” meaning the events are alleged to conspire with the USTA on ranking points and other Grand Slam rules.

* She denied the ATP’s motion to switch its case to Delaware based on forum requirements in its player agreements, in part because the PTPA had not signed it, and the case offer what legally are considered “extraordinary” circumstances to supersede the forum provisions.

The defendants face several choices. They can appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court (and each party may make a different decision). They can enter settlement negotiations. Or simply continue to fight the case. While Garnett ruled the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged antitrust violations for the purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss, that is different than a ruling that determines that pro tennis as structured violates antitrust law.

Judge Garnett scheduled an October 29 in person hearing.

After reading through it, the outcome seems obvious: the case is almost certainly getting tossed. New York state court judge James D’Auguste https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-d-auguste-1102456/ harangued and savaged McNair’s lawyer, calling the arguments “nonsensical” and concluded at one point, “I’m not quite sure how you thought this was going to be a successful case here.” Twice he compared McNair’s legal status to sue the NFL to that of a beer vendor at the Texans stadium.

McNair is the son of the late founder of the Texans, Robert McNair, and the late Janice McNair, who passed five days after the hearing took place. McNair the son had unsuccessfully tried to secure guardianship over his mother, and she then orchestrated a re-organization of the family’s varied holdings, stripping Cary of his ownership stakes and spreading them among his three siblings, including Cal McNair, the control owner of the Texans.

Cary McNair sued the NFL under the theory that the league’s 2024 consent letter memorializing the new ownership structure had interfered tortiously with his employment at the club. Judge D’Auguste though hammered, and hammered repeatedly, Cary McNair’s lawyer, Craig Kesch with the Buzbee law firm.

“At the end of the day, all of this stuff is much to do about nothing because your client was an at-will employee that was terminated, not by the NFL, but by the folks who he lost an intrafamily battle over, the guy who, by the way, probably didn’t -- you know, wasn’t so -- maybe not such a great thing to call his brother [Cal], essentially, incompetent and, basically, somebody who the NFL was going to be able to steamroll. You know, if this is the relationship that he had with his sibling, then guess what? I am sure the sibling probably had similar views of him.”

And D’Auguste sounded perplexed as to what the NFL had done wrong.

“I don’t see how anything the NFL did is tortious in the least,” he said. “They had the right to consent to the transfer. It was the transfer of controlling interest from one person to another that resulted in his termination…There isn’t anything really else in your complaint that says what the NFL did. There is no who, what, where, when. There is literally nothing in there that says the NFL demanded anything, nothing concrete that I am supposed to assume is true. So you have a real, real problem…you don’t show that, for instance, the NFL demanded that he be terminated, and not only from his relationship with the NFL, which the NFL would have the ability to do, right, but maybe they wouldn’t have the ability to also demand that he be terminated from the other family interests.”

Kesch’s argument is that he needs discovery to examine if the NFL, prior to the consent agreement, helped negotiate Cary McNair out of the picture. The plaintiff’s argument is because he had spoken up about Texans scandals like with Deshaun Watson, the NFL wanted him gone.

D’Auguste pleaded with McNair’s side to resolve his family dispute, which would likely make the NFL case moot. Kesch noted the family has been in a “lengthy” mediation with a retired Houston federal judge. To which D’Auguste replied, “Well, they should continue that because this is just -- It is not just we have members of the press that are looking at this and view this as global entertainment, which is unfortunate because I think the father has a right to have his, you know, his family name kept in the utmost of respect, as opposed to having these children fighting over the assets he created. So I would hope that parties would double their efforts at mediation.”

Korn Ferry has strongly tried to keep the document sealed, arguing it is a private, confidential work product it did for the Raiders. It also disputes the document is anything like the smoking type gun the Flores side maintains.

First the good news for those interested in what is in this document: the magistrate judge hearing discovery disputes has made a decision. But irony of all ironies, her decision on whether to unseal the document, well that’s under seal too.

Now fear not dear reader who wishes for more transparency, there is still hope. But let me start with how I know there is a decision. On the Flores docket, on Wednesday in the late evening a memorandum and opinion filing appeared on the docket. I quickly told my wife I had something I needed to do, and thinking this document must be tied to the Korn Ferry matter, I quickly went to PACER and clicked on it. And that is when I got the I was not authorized to view message when something is sealed.

It seems very strange that a judicial opinion would be confidential, and I immediately assumed if this was the decision on Korn Ferry and the decision is sealed, the executive search firm must have won. But I would learn that I am wrong on that immediate assumption; the opinion sealing is more routine in a situation like this.

I did the reporting thing later that night and this morning and learned from sources a few things. Yes, the sealed opinion concerns the Korn Ferry document. And the fact that it is sealed does not necessarily mean Korn Ferry won. And more should become clear in the next 14 days as that is the time limit for the losing side to appeal to the district court judge. If Korn Ferry won the magistrate judge’s nod, then obviously it remains under seal. But if the Flores side prevailed, there is this 14-day stay period built in for the losing side to appeal.

It would be unfair to Korn Ferry to have the document publicized, and then the district court judge, in this case Valerie Caproni, to overrule the magistrate judge and put it back under seal. So we should know which side won this first round if and when one of them appeals to Judge Caproni. But that likely also means the document will stay under seal at least for the foreseeable future.

The document in the view of the Flores side is so explosive that the coach filed an amended complaint to address what is on that one page (that filing, like the Korn Ferry document, is under seal). ProFootballTalk later reported a source says the one page is “insane”–I know who the source is because I was told the same thing. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/smoking-gun-document-produced-by-korn-ferry-could-shake-up-brian-flores-case

All the Flores’ legal team wrote at the time is that the document concerns a head coaching search for the Las Vegas Raiders. The Raiders conducted head coach searches at the end of the 2024 season and again at the end of the 2025 season. Public reports in early 2025 said the Raiders hired Korn Ferry to assist in the hiring of a head coach and a general manager https://www.silverandblackpride.com/2025/1/11/24341227/raiders-news-jed-hughes-firm

Because it is under seal, the parties can not say anything about it. A bit more information, however, came out in a court filing today–though the big news would come if the court unseals the document, which Flores has advocated.

In a motion this afternoon opposing the Flores push to unseal, Korn Ferry’s lawyers wrote, “whether the limited information from Exhibit A that Korn Ferry requests remain sealed is purportedly `discriminatory’ or `retaliatory,’ such that it supports and is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in the Supplemental Complaint, has no bearing on whether Korn Ferry is legally entitled to have Exhibit A remain under seal.”

That tells us a few things. First, it’s not been clear from the process up to now that the document in question is about a Flores bid for the Raiders head coaching job, or is about some other candidate for the position. The term “retaliatory” however makes it far more likely that document is about Flores. He has alleged in his complaint that teams have retaliated against him for filing the lawsuit (he is currently defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings). He has two co-plaintiffs, Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, but they have not been in the head coaching mix for some time.

Flores’ lawyers also apparently believe this document proves discrimination. That is the general thrust of Flores’ lawsuit, filed in 2022. It revolves around his dismissal as head coach of the Miami Dolphins and his search for head coaching jobs since. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/19/brian-flores-nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-suit-racist-hiring-miami-dolphins

Korn Ferry is a well known recruiter in professional sports, both front office and on the sidelines. Its position is that the work it does for clients like the Raiders is confidential, and that secrecy allows individuals to speak bluntly to them about hiring prospects. If the document is unsealed, it could hurt its ability to do that kind of work in the future, the company’s counsel wrote

“Exhibit A contains information compiled from confidential sources pursuant to a confidential candidate search and engagement agreement with a Korn Ferry client,” the recruiters lawyers wrote. “Korn Ferry compiled this information solely to report it to the client, and it was never intended to be publicly accessible, and it has not been publicly disclosed.”

The lawsuit was essentially on ice for three to four year as the two parties dueled over forum: the NFL and its team arguing for arbitration, and Flores for court. After years of legal action, the whole case is now in federal court (there is an appeal pending from three teams). So that is why discovery only began this year, and thus why this one page document is only surfacing now.

First, who you side with has a lot to do with how you view the rights of college athletes. Are they, and by they I mean largely those on football and men’s basketball teams, part of a more holistic ecosystem that works by symbiosis; or are they long exploited workers who shouldn’t be expected to subsidize others college experiences

Sen. Chris Murphy, a vehement opponent of Cruz’s Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), which would give the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption and ban collective bargaining, told a media zoom that to be blunt, the “exploited” athletes were black and the other sports essentially suckling at the teat of football and basketball were not. “This is a civil rights issue,” he said.

The Cruz side argues since the Supreme Court 2021 decision that triggered the Name Image and Likeness free for all, and then lawsuits that brought in revenue sharing, it’s been the wild west. And he is not alone. His co-sponsor on the legislation is across the aisle colleague Sen. Maria Cantwell, and they were joined by other Republican and Democratic Senators. Cruz noted the bill passed his Commerce subcommittee 19-9.

Cantwell decried the “outrageous escalation” in athletic department budgets, which she said not only had already cut into Olympics and women sports teams, but sucked money from the academic side and threatened research. Surely those on the other side didn’t know their advocacy of collegiate athletes threatened our tech race with China.

Cruz’s press conference did not address the racial issue One speaker was Craig Robinson, the executive director of college basketball coaches, and is also the brother in law of former president Barack Obama. He said coaches at all levels are calling for changes.

Cruz’s bill would put restrictions on NIL money in an effort to ensure payments to collegiate athletes under the mantle of NIL are truly for a business deal, and not as Cruz put it from a booster in the back alley with a bag full of cash. The PCSA would also limit portal transfers to one time, with exception for if a coach leaves. And it would set a maximum age of 24 and the number of years of eligibility at five seasons.

Sen. Murphy’s zoom included the father of a student athlete who died from heat stroke after practice and a student athlete survivor of sexual assault who said the PCSA bill would strip victims like them of their rights by immunizing schools from lawsuits.

Cruz said the PCSA could come up for a Senate vote as early as tomorrow, and president Donald Trump has committed to signing it. He described their position as first and goal from the one yard line.

His efforts still need to clear 60 votes in the Senate. Murphy’s opposition, just from the contrasting pressers, seemed a little weak. Murphy’s presentation was a sterile zoom with at times experts not on screen answering questions. Cruz’s was an in-person event outside the capitol on a glorious day with an array of student athletes and coaches speaking and in the background. Most of the athletes were women’s sports competitors who worried about their activities getting excised. They were mostly heartfelt, though I could have done without the Clemson hammer thrower referring to activist judges (whatever your politics, an activist justice is usually one you disagree with, it doesn’t make them activist).

I am not a follower of things political, so I don’t know if Cruz is right that his bill has a high chance of passing. I do know that there are two different perspectives of the collegiate athlete at play here. In the Cruz-Cantwell rendition, when an athlete signs with a college, they get an education, the sports experiences and all the lessons of sportsmanship, team work and resilience bestowed by athletics. There would still be NIL and revenue sharing, but organized under a federal framework. And this would protect Olympic and women’s sports.

In the Murphy rendition, largely black athletes have until the changes in college sports, subsidized white sports at the collegiate level. And now that they have finally won their rights through years of litigation, the PCSA wants to take away their new freedoms.

We should know shortly which version wins.

The new sport of Typti is opening its first standalone venue, in The Village in Woodland Hills mall in Los Angeles. The 4,000 square foot racket facility features one court, but will open that court to not just typti but pickleball, badminton, and beginners tennis, said Steve Bellamy, the founder of The Tennis Channel and the creator of typti. There is also table tennis at the new facility, and a large screen showing racket sports.

At Sunday’s ribbon cutting, Bellamy said to expect top typti and table tennis players.

Typti essentially takes up the middle ground between tennis and pickleball. Played on a pickleball court with the net at the same height, typti is played with rackets instead of paddles and is more fast paced than pickleball. Here is an example:

Bellamy’s vision is to be in business with pickleball facilities, though he has faced resistance. Two weeks after he announced typti in January, he said one of his investors started playing at a City Pickle in New York City, and was told to stop. Just recently, according to Bellamy, the pickleball chain changed its position when one of its own investors tried the new sport.

Bellamy hypes typti as the fastest growing sport. While that might be true because the base to begin with is so tiny that the growth percent should be huge, he is a dye in the wool entrepreneur who pumps his product.

“Typti is going crazy right now,” said Bellamy. “Adoption at tennis and pickleball clubs is exploding with thousands of players now playing the sport. Over the next few months there will be a plethora of new announcements regarding competition, pro tour, sponsors, partners, investment and revenue over seven figures in less than six months.”

Typti sells its own rackets https://www.typti.com/shop, and is played with a foam ball. The game allows for more powerful swings and spins than pickleball, making it closer to tennis than pickleball, where dinking is encouraged before speeding up the ball. The number two ranked professional typti player is former WTA player Ashley Harkelroad. The sport awarded $100,000 in prize money for its first U.S. Open in May.

“The NFL’s search of Mr. Goodell’s ESI (electronically stored information) shall be limited to communications: (i) with Mr. Flores, the Texans, or about this action; (ii) about the Case head coach hiring cycles in which Mr. Flores was a candidate; and (iii) the Dolphins’ Arbitration,” wrote magistrate judge Sarah Cave.

The case has largely been on ice since it was filed on February 1, 2022 as the NFL sought to put the lawsuit, which names the league and six teams, into arbitration. After several time consuming twists and turns, judge Valerie Caproni earlier this year ordered all defendants to try the case in court–though three of the teams are currently appealing that order. That order finally opened discovery, both served on the league and the teams, and on Flores himself.

Flores has sought wide ranging discovery covering many years, and which encompassed non-head coaches, from NFL executives to team operations. The NFL opposed, and magistrate judge Cave largely sided with the league.

“The NFL is not required to (i) produce the Non-Coach Discrimination Complaints or the NFL-Wide Discrimination Complaints, or (ii) run Plaintiffs’ ESI search terms specific to the Kaepernick and Gruden incidents, but the NFL shall conduct a reasonable search for and produce the Race Discrimination Complaint Procedures,” she wrote.

The six teams are the Miami Dolphins, which sparked the litigation by firing Flores as head coach; the New York Giants, Houston Texans, Denver Broncos, Arizona Cardinal, and Tennessee Titans. The discovery demands are tailored for each team, but all six are pushing back. For example Flores wanted discovery on the Giants head coaching search earlier this year. The court turned that down, and noted Flores had even subpoenaed Brian Daboll, who the Giants hired in 2022 over Flores..

There is the Denver Broncos situation, where a team executive is declining to hand over his personal phone. Keith Bishop is the vice president of security, and was during the 2018-2019 head coach search period at issue in their case.

“The Broncos have been forthcoming that Keith Bishop, their Vice President of Security during the 2018–2019 hiring cycle, has responsive text messages on his personal device, but he has refused to permit the Broncos’ counsel to conduct a search, and so they have requested that the Court order Mr. Bishop to cooperate with the search,” she wrote. “Accordingly, the Court orders Mr. Bishop to make his personal phone available to the Broncos’ counsel for a search of his ESI for the period from December 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. “ And she added, “Mr. Bishop is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions.”

In addition to Goodell, Cave ordered limited ESI searches on former general counsel Jeff Pash, and media relations executives Brian McCarthy and Katie Hill. This is in addition to the four executives the NFL had already agreed to: Dasha Smith, EVP and Chief Administrative Officer; Troy Vincent, EVP of Football Operations; Jonathan Beane, SVP for the NFL’s Leadership and Inclusion; and (iv) Ken Fiore, VP for Player Personnel. The NFL had objected to more than this quartet.

Flores filed his class action lawsuit February 1, 2022, after the Miami Dolphins fired him, claiming racial discrimination. The case initially was brought against the NFL and the Dolphins, the New York Giants, and the Denver Broncos. The Giants and Broncos interviewed Flores for head coach positions in what he dubbed sham processes. Months later he added former head coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton as plaintiffs, and as defendants their former teams, the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans, as well as the Houston Texans

Cave also ordered limited discovery on the ESI of deceased Houston Texans owner, Janice McNair.

“The Texans respond that Mrs. McNair suffered a significant health event in January 2022, and the Texans’ interview of Mr. Flores occurred on January 14, 2022, so she is not likely to have any unique documents,” Cave wrote. “While we acknowledge that Mrs. McNair’s health issues may have limited her involvement in the 2022 hiring cycle…the Texans shall run the agreed ESI search terms against Mrs. McNair’s corporate ESI for the period from December 1, 2022 through January 14, 2022, and provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a hit report, about which the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether further review and production is necessary. “

That is just one of several interesting tidbits contained in a slew of letters sent this week by the defendants to the judge defending their approach to discovery. While the case was filed February 1, 2022, discovery only truly got under way in recent months after the federal judge overseeing the case ordered all disputes should occur before her–and not in arbitration. She lifted the years old stay on the case that had blocked discovery.

In addition to the Broncos, the other team defendants are the Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, Tennessee Titans, Arizona Cardinals and Houston Texans. The Dolphins firing Flores after the 2021 season sparked the lawsuit.

Discovery disputes are an every day occurrence in the lifecycle of most cases, particularly complicated class action discrimination lawsuits like this one. Flores alleges systemic racism in the NFL caused his firing and his failure to secure a new head coach job; he is defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings.

Occasionally a discovery dispute will lead to a public disclosure that is newsy. Last week for Front Office Sports for example, I exclusively reported that Panini, which is suing Fanatics, accused its trading card competitor of stealing the plaintiff’s trade secrets, basing that on a sealed document. And yesterday I exclusively reported here Flores lawyers want to unseal a Korn Ferry document that undergirds a new discrimination allegation (little news here, the magistrate judge gave the go ahead today for Flores to file a supplemental complaint, which could mean the document gets disclosed–or sadly the complaint could be heavily redacted too).

So far, discovery letters that have come in from the NFL and most of the six teams in the last couple of days. Here are some of the interesting nuggets I plucked out.

• The Denver Broncos are pushing back against what the team describes as broad discovery demands, pointing out they are being sued on only one count that revolved around the 2019 decision by then executive John Elway to hire Vic Fangio over Flores. The Broncos defend what they have produced so far in discovery, but notably wrote about efforts to get key employees to hand over their phones, that “Keith Bishop, the Broncos understand he has relevant text messages, but he will not permit a search.” Bishop is a team vice president of security.

• Flores’ lawyers are asking for documents on Colin Kaepernick and Jon Gruden. The former started kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest police violence, causing a years long controversy, and effectively running him out of the league. Gruden was fired as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders when racist emails he apparently wrote were leaked. “Requests concerning Colin Kaepernick and Jon Gruden, along with other requests raised by Flores at the August 14 conference, are likewise not relevant or discoverable,” the NFL’s outside counsel wrote to the court. “If the Court determines these requests are outside the purview of this letter, the NFL requests the opportunity to elaborate on their lack of relevance. “

• In these discovery processes, each side designates who is a custodian of the relevant electronic documents that are to be searched. Defendants always want to shrink the number, and plaintiffs of course the opposite. Flores wants commissioner Roger Goodell, former chief legal officer Jeffrey Pash, and communications officials Katie Hill and Brian McCarthy as custodians. The NFL opposes this, and has offered instead Dasha Smith, EVP and Chief Administrative Officer, responsible for the League’s inclusion function; (ii) Troy Vincent, EVP of Football Operations, responsible for inclusion initiatives related to the head coach candidate pool; (iii) Jonathan Beane, SVP, League Leadership & Inclusion, responsible for inclusion policies applicable to head coach hiring; and (iv) Ken Fiore, VP Player Personnel, responsible for club reporting of interview and hiring information.

• The Houston Texans are fighting the Flores ask that the accounts of Janice McNair, the recently deceased owner of the team, be considered a custodian. “We believe it is unlikely that Mrs. McNair possesses a unique responsive ESI that would not be captured through the other agreed-upon custodians.” ESI is the acronym for electronically stored information.

• The New York Giants are objecting to the Flores team demand that Big Blue turn over documents related to their most recent head coaching search, which resulted in John Harbaugh’s hire. “The Giants’ 2026 hiring cycle is discoverable for the same reasons: whether practices tracked earlier cycles and those of other teams, and whether the Giants meaningfully considered Black candidates is relevant to the class claims,” Flores lawyers wrote the court. To which the Giants counsel responded, “That half-hearted assertion identifies neither a feature of the 2026 cycle bearing on Flores’s 2022 discrimination claim nor any non-cumulative evidence unavailable from the earlier cycles already within discovery.”

• It’s not just discovery on the NFL and the six teams, but their demands for documents from Flores. One area they are looking at is his reputation. The Texans and Broncos submitted a joint letter stating, “Defendants understand, for example, that Plaintiff threatened the General Manager to whom he reported and developed contentious relationships with certain key Dolphins players, and that Plaintiff discussed these incidents with Club representatives in subsequent hiring processes.” It’s not been previously reported that Flores “threatened” Chris Grier, the Dolphins then GM. But it has been reported the two were at odds and Flores wanted to take player choice decisions away from Grier.

The decisions on discovery disputes are made by the magistrate judge. But those rulings are appealable to the federal judge who oversees the case. At that point, appeals to higher courts are also possible.

What the new allegation is, and what is in that Korn Ferry document, is non-public information, at least at the moment. In a letter to the magistrate judge handling discovery in the case, however, Korn Ferry described the subject of the document as a head coach search the recruitment firm did for the Las Vegas Raiders.

“Korn Ferry is specifically requesting that Exhibit A remain under seal,” the company’s lawyers wrote the magistrate judge in a letter dated August 12. “Exhibit A references a confidential candidate search and was prepared by Korn Ferry in connection with a confidential search engagement with its client, the Las Vegas Raiders.”

The Raiders conducted head coach searches at the end of the 2024 season and again at the end of the 2025 season. Public reports in early 2025 said the Raiders hired Korn Ferry to assist in the hiring of a head coach and a general manager https://www.silverandblackpride.com/2025/1/11/24341227/raiders-news-jed-hughes-firm

Flores filed his class action lawsuit February 1, 2022, after the Miami Dolphins fired him, claiming racial discrimination. The case initially was brought against the NFL and the Dolphins, the New York Giants, and the Denver Broncos. The Giants and Broncos interviewed Flores for head coach positions in what he dubbed sham processes. Months later he added former head coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton as plaintiffs, and as defendants their former teams, the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans, as well as the Houston Texans. Earlier this year Flores added a retaliation claim https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/brian-flores-will-amend-lawsuit-to-include-retaliation-claim-over-arbitration-issue.

The case for more than three years did not move as the sides argued and appealed whether the dispute should go before a court, or an arbitrator as the NFL prefers. Ultimately the second circuit court of appeals ruled all the parties should be in court, and not arbitration.

The NFL has not objected, at least yet to the unsealing of the Korn Ferry document, but the Miami Dolphins have. The magistrate judge requested briefs on the subject to be filed in coming weeks.

The Dolphins and Titans are objecting to Flores adding a new allegation, one of the coach’s lawyers wrote today to the magistrate judge,

“The Dolphins, as well as the Titans, contend that it would be more `practical’ for Mr. Flores to hold off the filing of a Supplemental Complaint until a later point,” David Gottlieb wrote. “That gets the practicalities backwards. Mr. Flores is entitled to seek redress for his newly accrued anti-discrimination claims.”

Gottlieb would only confirm to this reporter that Flores is ready to add a new allegation, but he cited court confidentiality orders from revealing the nature of the allegation at this time or what is revealed in the Korn Ferry sealed document.

Two factions have been vigorously contesting since early June who has the legal right to claim the PTPA mandate. A group of players that includes Marco Trungelliti and Saisai Zheng filed a ten-count lawsuit last month against four players, former executive director Ahmad Nassar, current executive director Romain Rosenberg, and Winners Alliance, which funds the PTPA. The four players that have been PTPA directors and are named defendants are Ons Jabeur, Vasek Pospisil, Hubert Hurkacz, and Bethanie Mattek-Sands.

But yesterday the plaintiffs–who are suing under the PTPA name in Superior Court in Washington, D.C.–dropped Nassar and Winners Alliance from the lawsuit, as well as eight of the 10 counts. The two counts that remain, which names the four players and Rosenberg as defendants, ask the court to declare the plaintiffs’ June 3 board meeting as valid. There they sacked Rosenberg and directed their general counsel to investigate the relationship between Winners Alliance and the PTPA.

The next day the four named player defendants and Rosenberg had their own board meeting, where they agreed to fire the general counsel. This group is now suing the general counsel, Wajid Mir, in a separate action in Illinois federal court. The second count asks the judge to declare the June 4 meeting invalid. The judge, Robert Okun, has already said in court that both meetings don’t appear to be legal because of quorum and notice problems.

The dismissed counts were for breach of fiduciary duty; for a judicial order to remove Pospisil and Sands as directors; tortious interference; that the June 3 group get access to the PTPA; unjust enrichment; breach of contract (this is just against Winners Alliance; and what promissory estoppel, a judicial term that essentially means even if there was not a contract, the parties made promises to each other.

Counts one and two, which remain active, essentially asks the court to validate the June 3 group over the June 4 group.

Why the drastic change? Usually it means the party dropping the charges knew it couldn’t win on them. The plaintiffs had asked for a temporary injunction that would give them access to the PTPA. The Superior court judge largely turned them down. There is also always the chance this was a cost saving move. Unlike the June 4 group, which has Winners Alliance resources to tap into, the plaintiffs in the DC case do not appear to have deep pockets. The changes to the lawsuit are being made without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled.

The former Wimbledon champ will surely appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports what is widely viewed as a draconian punishment. The panel, an appeals platform for the ITIA, which oversees drug testing and betting in the sport, in the end said its hands were tied on the length of suspension, which it claimed is established by the World Anti Doping Authority. They could have used extenuating circumstances to lower the term, but ruled even if the player suffered from generalized anxiety at the time of the incident as she claimed, it is not enough to reduce the punishment.

A few things jumped out of me, none more so than what I would describe as the gratuitous inclusion of a text Vondrousova sent to her boyfriend when the doping control officer (DCO) was buzzing her at her residence in Prague. “At 8:05 p.m. the player sent a text message on WhatsApp to her boyfriend Andrew Paulson, who is also a Czech professional tennis player. The message, translated into English, read, “So, like here is ringing some cunt from the doping.”

One can see the headlines, former Wimbledon champ calls doping officer a cunt. Ostensibly the three member panel would likely contend they needed the text to prove Vondrousova knew at the time the woman buzzing her apartment was from doping control and not some maniac trying to get in. Of course, they already have her communications with her agent establishing the same point. One could also have just paraphrased the text to the boyfriend.

As a journalist, the more color the better. But there is an undercurrent among some tennis players that the ITIA is out to get them. Right or wrong, inclusion of this text is not helpful in that regard.

Vondrousova also had four different medical professionals submit reports that she suffered an acute stress reaction (ASR) that night in December when the DCO showed up unscheduled. The panel disregarded three of these reports, and only considered the fourth. They contrasted that final report with one of their experts, who concluded she may have had anxiety but not a medical condition like ASR.

Another highlight is Vondrousova, who has tested and passed 83 drug tests in her career, said she did not know that testers were allowed one unascheduled visit a year (the rest are done within a one hour period supplied by the athlete.) According to her testimony, her agent, Enric Molina, did not know this either when she called him that fateful night.

When Maria Sharapova was suspended for taking meldonium weeks after it hit the banned list, her agent then also took some of the blame for not being up on the drug moving into the banned category. Vondrousova and her agent clearly did not know, and she wasn’t alone. Andy Roddick on his podcast said early in the process that if the tester had come outside the one hour window the ITIA was at fault. A few days later he said he was wrong and that the ITIA can test once annually for each player at an undesignated time.

Who the ITIA believes and doesn’t is a complicated subject. They believed Jannik Sinner’s defense that a member of his team used contaminated gel during a massage that in the end led to his three month suspension last year. By contrast, Vondrousova’s defense of a stress reaction when a stranger she did not know buzzed her was dismissed by the panel.

There are many drugs that only stay detectable in the system for short periods of time, so the point of the rule is unlike with scheduled visits, the athlete can’t time a drug he or she might be ingesting. That is why the panel had no use for the clean drug test she submitted to days after she declined to let in the DCO.

The DCO and the player have different memories of what happened that night. Vondrousova said the DCO buzzed and buzzed over a dozen times, adding to her anxiety. The player said the form she signed later that night confirming she had declined the test was not explained to her and she just signed it to make the DCO go away. The DCO says she buzzed twice, and explained the form (I have to say, if someone told me I couldn’t practice my job for four years if I signed, I wouldn’t sign.) Vondrousova’s apartment complex does not have a camera to show who is at the door, so the DCO couldn’t show her credentials from the entryway.

Vondrousova later that night took her dog, described as a small Italian greyhound for a walk and encountered the DPO, who gave her the form to sign that would lead to the four year ban.

.

This surely a first in pro tennis; class action notices mass emailed to a group a court filing described as more than 4,000 players.

“There are approximately 4,000 active professional tennis players and thousands more retired professional tennis players who meet the requirements” to be a class member, the court filing explained.

This is likely the first class settlement notice ever sent to pro tennis players, who by definition are independent contractors and thus would be hard to legally corral in a class. That’s because one of the legal thresholds for a class is “commonality,” which means there must be strong similarities among the class.

To step back, last year the PTPA and roughly a dozen former and current players sued the ATP and WTA Tours, later adding the four Grand Slam, for antitrust injury caused by alleged collusion to keep prize money and other benefits down. Somewhat surprisingly, in December Tennis Australia agreed to a settlement.

The settlement does not award any damages, but requires TA to cooperate with the plaintiffs; this is called an “icebreaker deal” in that it allows the plaintiffs with the new information to chip away at the defendant’s argument.

But just because class members are not due any compensation, they still must approve the settlement. Dates of mailing, for opposition and closing are not set yet. Nor is the web site address that will act as a clearinghouse for settlement members: www.TennisPlayersLitigation.com

But the settlement notice lays out the steps that are to be taken to notify players (any person who played in an ATP or WTA event since March 18, 2021 is eligible.)

According to the settlement papers, the campaign will seek 5.5 million digital impressions with messages on digital platforms. “Impressions may also be purchased to run display ads on one or more industry-related websites and/or e-newsletters, which may include, but are not limited to, either Tennis.com, TennisChannel.com, TennisViewMag.com, MyTennisHQ.com, LastWordOnTennis.com, and/or TennisHead.net, among others.”

The campaign will also include, “Direct outreach to sports agencies who represent professional tennis players associated with the ATP or WTA, across all rankings, to inform their clients of the Damages Settlement opt-out, which may include, but are not limited to, Creative Artists Agency (CAA), Octagon, GSE Worldwide (GSE), SeventyTwo Sports Group, Elite Athlete Agency, StarWing Sports, and Wasserman.”

Players have three choices: do nothing, which is akin to a yes vote; object in writing or at a hearing; or opt out and preserve their right to sue the TA.

The other five defendants in the antitrust case–the two tours and three Slams-are not covered by the settlement. How the settlement notice is affected by the competing factions seeking control of the PTPA is unclear. The five defendants have already asked the federal court in the wake of the civil war at the PTPA to remove it as a plaintiff.

The civil war at the PTPA is complex, as is what the sides are seeking, but one very telling line from the judge offers a likely roadmap for how it will end: “I find that for most of their claims, the plaintiffs have not clearly established that they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits. That does not mean that they won’t succeed. It just means that it’s just not clear to me, at this point, that they are substantially likely to do so.”

The PTPA was founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2020, with backing from Winners Alliance, an investor in athlete focused endeavors. The PTPA is designed to rep pro tennis players, but is best known for the antitrust lawsuit it brought against the Slams and Tours and Djokovic’s withdrawal from the organization.

The lawsuit in DC is brought by an entity billing itself as the PTPA and two players, Marco Trungelliti and Saisai Zheng. They argue they and then general counsel Wajid Mir on June 3 held a board meeting with four other supposed board members: Taylor Townsend, Anna Rodionova and two anonymous players (they are believed to be Frances Tiafoe and Xiyu Wan).

They fired the executive director, Romain Rosenberg, and empowered Mir with investigating alleged corruption in the PTPA-Winners Alliance partnership. But on June 4, a different board met and instead fired Mir (and would later sue him in federal court), alleging he was trying to stage a coup.

So the lawsuit was brought by the June 3 committee, and asked the judge to declare the June 4 vote invalid, sideline Rosenberg, and allow them access to PTPA accounts. He granted none of these requests.

The best he did was order the June 4 committee, which for now appears to be the real committee, to give board members, as required by bylaw, seven days notice of meetings, to preserve all documents, and the defendants (the June 4 committee) give 14 days notice before appointing any new committee members.

Judge Robert Okun told a court hearing Monday that neither the June 3 or June 4 committees were lawfully constituted. He denied the June 3 group’s argument that three of the June 4 committee members’ terms had expired. Under DC law if a board member’s term ends, but no replacement is named, the board member keeps the seat. He also ruled the June 4 committee did not have the proper quorum or give enough notice to Townsend and Zheng.

But he did not strip the June 4 groups of its control of the PTPA, nor sideline Rosenberg. The case now moves forward, and barring a successful appeal, looks rather like a long shot for the plaintiffs. Of course new evidence can always emerge, and different arguments filed, but again, for now the PTPA remains under the control of its pre-lawsuit board and management.

The tennis players’ group, which is in existence to serve pro tennis players, is split between two litigious factions. The main force behind the PTPA plaintiffs in today’s hearing is Wajid Syed, the former–or current–general counsel of the PTPA (more on his status in a moment). But in one of the many oddities of this case, he is not a named plaintiff in the DC case. Named plaintiffs are what is called the PTPA and two player board members Zheng Saisai and Marco Trungelliti. This group, which also includes player board members Taylor Townsend and Anna Rodionova voted June 3 to oust the incumbent executive director with a vote that also included two new but anonymous player board members. That’s key because six board members are required for a quorum.

In court last week, counsel for the June 3 bastion of the PTPA said of why their names are not in the record, “We just, to respect their wishes, given their celebrity and even their prominence in this field-that is the reason that we did not disclose their names in our papers.”

They agreed to disclose the names privately to the judge. In any case I can report the duo are Frances Tiafoe and Xiyu Wang. I can’t speak for Wang’s celebrity–she ranks 89th on the WTA Tour, but Tiafoe is a big get for the PTPA, which other than its now departed co-founder Novak Djokovic, has been light on top players manning its board or even voicing support.

Tiafoe’s name is listed in an exhibit to a court filing by Anastasia Skavronskaia—a PTPA employee aligned with the June 3 group— as being on the board. Of course which board is the question, as the one that met on June 4 claims to be the real board and fired the general counsel Syed and presumably does not consider Tiafoe a real board member. To make matters more confusing, the June 4th board, which is closely aligned with Bill Ackman backed Winners Alliance, is suing Syed in federal court in Illinois.

The June 3 group says Syed was about to investigate claims of corruption in the Winners Alliance-PTPA relationship and that’s why the other board fired him days later.

At the heart of the battle for control is the question of which board is legitimate. It gets arcane, but the arguments concern the PTPA bylaws and Washington, D.C. charity rules, which dictates things like how many days notice a board member is required to have before a meeting and what is the status of board members whose terms have expired but no replacement has been named.

The June 4 crew called what happened June 3 a coup. What the plaintiffs today are asking for–this is the Syed aligned June 3 group–is for the other PTPA to give them access again to association accounts and recognize they had fired the executive director.

Judge Robert Okun hypothesized during last week’s hearing he could find both groups did not have lawfully constituted boards, a scenario that would make the situation even murkier.

That’s why it is so interesting that Tiafoe has apparently decided to join the PTPA, according to the court exhibit as well as a source. Even before the litigation, the PTPA, which formed in 2020, struggled with recognition in the tennis world. They are best known for the antitrust case filed against the Grand Slams and two tours (the Australian Open is in the process of settling). Whether either side of the PTPA redux can speak to the antitrust attorneys was a bone of contention in the first hearing in the federal case.

Today’s Judge Okun ruling hopefully will begin to clear up the mess and decree which side is the real PTPA, though if one side loses badly appeal is most likely. Whatever the outcome it won’t be pretty. Just last week a lawyer for the June 4 group all but accused Townsend of lying in her declaration to the court.

”Townsend appears to have said some false things in her declaration in this case,” he told the court (the issue was whether PTPA co-founder Vasek Pospisil recruited her to the group). So a lawyer for a group that sees itself as advocating for tennis players, in court accuses the world number two in doubles of lying. It’s may only get uglier.

The case has been ongoing since November 19, 2024, but behind the closed doors of arbitration. What brought it to light is an NFLPA filing on July 13 in federal court in the southern district of New York seeking a judicial order to enforce a purported win in that arbitration.

In 2023, the NFLPA and Saber jointly announced their new partnership https://nflpa.com/partners/posts/saber-interactive-teams-with-nflpa-to-bring-wild-card-football-to-consoles-pc-on-october-10-featuring-hundreds-of-pro-football-superstars, “Saber Interactive, in partnership with the NFL Players Association and OneTeam Partners, is excited to announce the latest installment in the bestselling arcade-sports Playgrounds franchise: Wild Card Football. This over-the-top, pick-up-and-play video game features an authentic roster of hundreds of pro football superstars, including Colin Kaepernick, Jalen Hurts, Patrick Mahomes, Justin Jefferson, T.J. Watt, Joey Bosa, Ja’Marr Chase, Aaron Donald and many more.”

According to the federal court filing, the parties signed the licensee agreement on May 23, 2023. By September 30 2024, the NFLPA moved to terminate the agreement based on failure to pay, the court document states. Less than two months later the union filed the arbitration grievance. A month later Saber counter-claimed for fraud and breach of contract, according to the lawsuit.

“On November 11, 2025 the Panel issued an interim award granting claimants motion for summary disposition on the merits of their breach-of-contract claims and granting Claimants’ motion to dismiss Saber counterclaims, finding that Saber’s contractual arguments for not paying all guaranteed amounts were `strained’ and erroneous and that Saber’s counterclaims were meritless as matter of law,” the court filing reads. There were three arbitrators on the panel.

The union then adds, “ Saber has not complied with the Corrected Final Award and has indicated that it has no intention of doing so.”

In a footnote, the NFLPA wrote that on May 6 Saber wired the union $1.44 million, but because the amount did not satisfy its demand, the union plans on returning the payment. The final award is $1.75 million in unpaid guaranteed payments; $286,774.19 for the license agreement; $172,947.93 in interest; $878,216 in attorney fees; $40,936 in other costs; and $102,953.69 in arbitration fees.

There are no receipts for Saber payments to the union in the NFLPA’s three most recent annual reports filed with the Department of Labor.

Saber Interactive was sold in March 2024–just months before the union filed its grievance–to Beacon Interactive for a $247 million https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/embracer-group-sells-off-space-marine-maker-saber-interactive-and-most-of-its-studios-for-dollar247-million-but-the-price-could-go-a-lot-higher/

According to its website, Saber is “a worldwide publisher and developer consisting of 13 studios in the Americas and Europe.”

Sure Sports, founded in 2009, arranges loans between financial institutions and athletes. In the case of the fake McKinney loan, Sure Sports brought Aliya Sports Finance Fund together with whom it thought was McKinney. But in reality it was Luther Davis, who subsequently plead guilty to identity theft and wire fraud for arranging over $20 million of fraudulent loans (he also posed as Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Penix, and David Nojuko.) https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/georgia-men-plead-guilty-nearly-20-million-fraud-and-identity-theft-scheme-targeted

Aliya sued Sure Sports last year for failing to do due diligence on the McKinney loan, and the case may go to trial later this year. In its briefs, Sure Sports accused Aliya of not doing its due diligence.

Now, Sure Sports writes in the new complaint that it hired Yerechmiel Holt to conduct due diligence on the McKinney loan.

“A reasonably competent attorney performing due diligence on a transaction of this nature and magnitude would have pursued available means to independently confirm that the individual presenting as Xavier McKinney was in fact Xavier McKinney, including, without limitation, direct contact with McKinney’s NFL team or agents of record, verification through the NFL Players Association, comparison of biographical or biometric data against publicly available or readily accessible sources, or other contemporaneously available identity verification measures commensurate with the size and nature of the transaction.,” Sure Sport charges in the complaint, filed in Florida state court.

So Sure Sports accuses a contractor it hired of failing to do the due diligence. At the same time in the Aliya case defense, it’s argued that the fund failed to perform adequate due diligence.

In the Holt complaint, Sure Sports claims Holt also served as general counsel to Aliya, a fact the loan agency wrote it was unaware of. That was a conflict of interest Sure Sports charges.

“Holtz failed to disclose to Sure Sports the existence of his concurrent representation of ASFF; failed to advise Sure Sports that it had the right to seek independent legal counsel; and failed to obtain Sure Sports’ informed written consent to his dual representation.”

Holt charged Sure Sports $3,200 for his services, according to a receipt included in the complaint.

Sure Sports is asking the court that in the event it is held liable to Aliya, that Holt in turn pay some of the amount in proportion to his role.

Holt did not return queries about the Sure Sports complaint.

The FBI arrested Davis in late 2024 in a loan closing sting that Sure Sports arranged.

Its unclear what happened to the money he fraudulently obtained.

But yes this is largely an inside baseball riff (sorry) about the ever expanding niche of sports business journalism because it’s not every day that one of the entrants takes a potshot at another. I am referencing JohnWallStreet’s broadside against Sportico and its somewhat unusual announcement that it is essentially going into the business it covers.

“Very serious journalists GTFO,” JohnWallStreet (@howielongshort) tweeted at Sportico, which had announced, “Sportico launched Sportico Studio, a new video and content platform that helps brands reach sports business audiences through sponsored content, storytelling, and multimedia campaigns across digital, social, and events.”

“These fuckin losers once had a meltdown because Amazon sent a grill to the office.,” John WallStreet tweeted.

For those not familiar, JohnWallStreet, which is run by the industrious Corey Leff, is a hyper focused newsletter about sports business, a micro b to b publication that offers often detailed stories about hard core sports businesses. It has an event business, and Leff is generally well thought of in sports business inner circles. Sportico, also a B to B, is a more general news site that covers top sports business stories,

Now before getting into Sportico’s newest business line, it should be noted conflicts of interest are generally par for the course in this space. All the platforms–SportsBusiness Journal, Front Office Sports, Sportico, and JWS (there are others)–stage conferences for the industry. Walking the tight balance between covering the industry and celebrating the industry is a tough one, and a balance that it seems many of these outlets don’t give much care to executing. I know this from first hand experience. If you are a publication and a reporter is working on an investigative piece on your major conference title sponsor, that is a delicate path to walk and decisions are tilted by dollars.

What Sportico announced though appears as a major escalation in embedding with the industry. The initiative Sportico describes-” a new video and content platform that helps brands reach sports business audiences”--sounds like one of any number of agencies that the journalists at Sportico, and the other platforms, might cover.

I am not one to shout out GTFO like Corey–he is more bold than I–but admittedly I did a double take when I read the announcement. I won’t judge Sportico. Any place that keeps journalists employed has my respect, and they do a great job reporting IMO. They probably owe it to their readers to explain why they are doing this, who will run it, and how any perceived or real conflicts might be handled.

—-

On that Russini story, I thought it spoke volumes that the Athletic’s executive editor Steve Ginsberg was not made available for comment. I was at the Athletic when Ginsberg was hired from the Washington Post, and the worry then–and arguably it’s been borne out–is that he didn’t know how sports media operated. My one interaction with him came at the 2023 NFL Combine the day after I had a big story on the Washington Commanders. I went up and introduced myself and he noted my story, and quickly followed he didn’t understand why the Post didn’t have that story. The inference was clear: who the fuck was I; if the Post didn’t have it how could a nobody like me (the Post later that day confirmed it and credited me). He hadn’t done his research on me, just as it seems he didn’t do his research on Russini (obviously not apples to apples but feeds into the undercurrent in the NYT story that he didn’t understand the sports world). The Athletic laid me off a few months later as part of a dismantling of serious sports business coverage that is still a major gap there today. (no, what the Athletic has now doesn’t remotely replace it) Ginsberg should be front and center when the internal report on Russini comes out and answer why he and the Times seemed to know so little about her and her brand. The NYT story makes it clear, the Vrabel stuff aside, that she was part of the ribald ecosystem of big time sports media (she references herself as a MILF and once boasted how she got out of a ticket by facetiming a coach to talk to the officer). That’s fine and more power to her, but why didn’t Ginsburg know? And if he did, then he should answer for that too. Here’s hoping when the report comes out he emerges out of his hiding place and holds a press conference. This isn’t a Jayson Blair level scandal, but its not immaterial. Think about it: Vrabel has been more accessible to the media than Ginsberg since this story broke.

.

In keeping with the theme, the NFL in late May agreed to settle a class action brought by two former players over the use of race norming in determining disability payments.This issue exploded into the public sphere in 2020 when African American players in the concussion settlement found they were being judged differently than their white counterparts https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29740114/lawyers-say-nfl-concussion-settlements-discriminate-black-players.

The current settlement has to do with the league’s disability programs, not the concussion settlement, but the outcomes ultimately are similar. Three years ago two former players, Stacey Bailey and Eric Curry, filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL’s various disability programs and boards for race norming. This is when neurologists artificially give a minority a lower cognitive baseline, thereby making it harder to prove impairment.

The race norming lawsuit against the concussion settlement ultimately was dismissed for procedural reasons, but the NFL agreed to never use race information again and pledged to redo the concussion claims that had been affected.

The NFL in the disability case agreed to certify the class strictly for settlement purposes. That’s opposed to certifying a class as part of ongoing litigation. The distinction is important, as the NFL is not admitting any wrongdoing and makes clear the former players would have had tremendous difficulty certifying a class for ongoing litigation

“Defendants presented evidence that they allege shows a limited number of Neutral Physicians applied racebased demographic adjustments based on their independent clinical judgment, not pursuant to any directive from Defendants,” the NFL wrote in a court filing. “Defendants also produced evidence that upon learning of the use of race-based demographic adjustments, the Plans directed all Neutral Physicians to cease using any race-based demographic adjustments on new testing effective June 2021. Defendants maintain that race-based demographic adjustments have not been applied to Plan participants’ new neuropsychological testing since that date.”

The new settlement’s class period starts January 1, 2012 to the present. The settlement creates a system for rescoring former players’ disability rejections or the level of payments to determine if he is due compensation (if they are, the settlement will use a 6 percent interest rate for the retroactive payments.) The settlement also sets up a triumvirate of three neurologists to score the at issue claims. One is put forward by the players and one by the NFL. If they disagree on a rescoring, a third independent neurologist breaks the tie.

Plaintiffs’ Expert is Dr. Malcolm Spica; Defendants’ Expert is Dr. William Garmoe; and the Neutral Third Expert is Dr. Jason Soble.

It’s unclear how many disability claims are at issue, though there are thousands of players using the disability plans.

The settlement does not affect the case filed against the NFL’s disability programs for allegedly in general ignoring plan rules and limiting payouts. The judge in that case, Alford v The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan et al denied class certification, though individual cases are still being litigated.