August 15, 2025 • 38 mins
Join hosts Michael Barr, Damian Sassower and Vanessa Perdomo for a look at some of the latest headlines and stories in the business of sports.
Bloomberg US sports business reporter Randall Williams joins to discuss his latest reporting on the turmoil surrounding the NFL Players Association, including new word that former leaders were working on a secret venture capital fund project. Former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell hoped that one day it would raise enough money to invest in a stake in an NFL franchise.
Also on this week's show:
- Bloomberg Opinion columnist Adam Minter on his latest column: America Is Undermining Its Soft Power in Sports
- Kelleigh Irwin Fagan, former collegiate athlete and now partner at CCHA Law discusses the latest in the NCAA
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is the Business of Sports.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Sports are the greatest unscripted show owner.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
The next generation of players who really grew up with
tech and believe in tech.
Speaker 4 (00:09):
Your face is your ticket, your face is your wallet,
Your face is your access to a club.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
These are such icnic and important buildings for businesses.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
For fans, COVID was one of the best things that
ever happened to go.
Speaker 6 (00:21):
The NFL is a bulletproof business.
Speaker 7 (00:23):
Racing is unique because there is absolutely no reason why
we can't compete with the guys. I'm well, it's pro pickleball.
Speaker 6 (00:28):
Real, are people really going to tune into this? If
you're playing moneyball with a huge bag of money, you're
going to be.
Speaker 7 (00:34):
Really, really good.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (00:39):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports, where we explore
the big money issues in the world of sports. I'm
Michael Barr, along with my colleagues Damian Sasauur and Vanessa Berdomo.
Coming up on the show, we do a deep dive
on the nc DOUBLEA. With college football's new season coming up.
We'll take a look at the latest following the NCAA
settlement the House some of the latest legal headlines involving
(01:04):
college sports and more. Plus we'll also take a look
at how some of the Trump administration's policies could be
reshaping America's soft power in the world of sports. We'll
explain that all that and more is on the way
on the Bloomberg Business of Sports. But first we continue
to follow the turmoil in the NFL Players Association. One
(01:25):
of the latest discoveries the union's former leaders. We're working
in secret on a venture capital fund with the hopes
that one day it would raise enough money to invest
in an NFL franchise. Bloomberg US sports business reporter Randa
Williams has been following this story, and he joins us
now to discuss. Randa, Welcome back to the Bloomberg Business
(01:49):
of Sports.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
As always, thank you for having me now.
Speaker 7 (01:52):
You wrote a great article, man, it's so much to
talk about here in your article. The former head of
the National Football League Players Association now, when he left
Howell's project for the union's secret venture fund project also left,
and he had hoped it would raise enough funds to
invest in an NFL team. I just don't see other
(02:17):
NFL team owners voting for that one.
Speaker 6 (02:20):
Yeah, neither do I I think it was a little
far fetched, but he had, from what my sources told me,
he had reason to believe that this was a way
that NFL players could gain equity in teams, I mean,
and the NFL owners voted to ban that as part
of contract negotiations. Aaron Rodgers tried it, Caleb Williams tried it,
and evidently they're like, no, this isn't.
Speaker 7 (02:40):
Going to happen.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
When Lloyd howl came in at the time, he mentioned
during his press conference that in his conversations with the league,
well at the time, no one had reported the firms
that the league was having conversations with, which obviously goes
back to his position at Carlisle, and so he had
started basically bringing together they're a quiet group of people
(03:01):
at the NFLPA to look into raising funds and hopes
of one day buying into a team. Now, what team
would allow that and what owners would approve that. I
don't think we'll ever find that out.
Speaker 8 (03:12):
It's interesting because I was trying to figure out who
it would actually be the most beneficial for, obviously other
than Lloyd Howe himself, because is it beneficial to the players?
I mean, they kind of have that seat, but also
at the same time, if owner did allow it, technically
that means the players or whatever the PA would be
(03:33):
in on the best interest of the franchise.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
I don't know that the project got far enough to
figure out like the intricacies of how this would work,
like what does exiting look like in this proposed plan?
And another part of this is like, if you're one
of the NFL's greatest earners, so let's think like Mahomes,
Alan Jackson, Burrow, They're all going to earn probably another
three hundred million dollars in their career. At a certain
(04:00):
point they might just want to buy in themselves and
not want to go as part of this union thing. Now, obviously,
with Lloyd being gone for a multitude of reasons, I
don't think that the new executive director is going to
come in and be like, yes, venture fund, that's definitely
at the bottom of his to do list.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, Randall, talk to us about David White, who is
the new interim I believe director I talk is that
going to be a permanent position? Is he going to
be the permanent leader of the NFL Players Association?
Speaker 6 (04:27):
So he was interviewed alongside Lloyd when Lloyd was hired,
not at the same time, but he was another candidate,
And it's to be determined. I think that luckily he's
in a time of labor piece like when Lloyd was
in his tenure, he was talking about the biggest contention
point was whether or not they could get an eighteen
game season done. At first Lloyd was in favor of it,
(04:47):
then at the Super Bowl he changed gears a little bit.
It's unclear how David feels about this, and the union
doesn't really put their executive director in front of journalists
much like outside of the super Bowl interview that they
have during super Bowl Week, they don't really speak that much.
So I don't know how David feels about this.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
Now.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
The first thing that he has to get in order
is to rally the NFL players. Like Lloyd's actions as
executive director and also J. C. Tretder as well have
divided a lot of players and there's a lot of uncertainty,
and so who is going to be the person to
rally the troops, And I think it has to be
David White.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
I want to go back to Aaron Rodgers now in
his heyday, obviously he was with the Green Bay Packers.
But because the way the Packers' ownership is structured compared
to the Jets, I'm assuming that's why he put it
in the try to anywhere the Jets contract.
Speaker 6 (05:43):
Yeah, that's part of it.
Speaker 7 (05:44):
He could.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
I mean, no one can buy into the Packers. I
don't even think the Packers can ever be sold. But
at the time of his Jets tenure, he's thinking about
like long term, and I don't know how much he
would have asked for. I imagine it would have been a
very small stake. We've seen people five point five percent
of Charles Woodson bought point one percent, but you got
to remember, point one percent of like the Giants is
(06:06):
going to go for millions of dollars. So it would
have been very beneficial to Rogers because, of course, NFL
valuations has shown no sign of slowing down, in large
part because no one is stopping watching the NFL. The
Super Bowl had one hundred and twenty seven million viewers,
so Rogers rightfully, so I was like, let me get
in on this, and then the NFL owners had a
quick impromptu meeting. Everybody voted no, and that was the
(06:28):
end of it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Well, you know, Randall, while we're talking about NFL sports
teams valuations, I can't help but point out the Chicago
Bears resetting the playing field at eight point eight billion dollars.
And let's just think about some of the more recent transactions.
The Niners were went for eight point six, the Eagle
freight point three, and the Dolphins for eight point one.
I'm talking taking on some minority investors. Yep, this, I.
Speaker 7 (06:48):
Mean is a big, big number.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
I mean, even adjusting for all of those previous transactions.
That's what we do here at Bloomberg Intelligence. We kind
of try to smartly adjust for things in real time.
I mean, I was only coming up with a seven
point seven four value billion dollar valuation for the Bears
and they go for eight point eight. I mean, my god,
this is just resetting the bar.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
No, it does. What's the most interesting to me? And
I'll go on record and say that the Bears are
the biggest sleeping giant in the NFL by far. They
have the third or fourth largest market, depending on if
you want to put Houston in front of them. But
they have the smallest stadium in the NFL, probably the
oldest stadium in the NFL and they're struggling to build
a new stadium, probably in Arlington Heights. And with that
(07:27):
in mind, the eight point eight number is staggering, but
of course, like you still need a stadium built. And
at that point you look at Josh Harris, for example,
who has this three point eight billion dollar facility that
he helps to open by twenty thirty. What does the
Bears go for? When they were talking about putting this
on the lake Front, the number they floated around was
four point six billion. That was with all the infrastructure.
(07:48):
The stadium itself would have been three point two. Now,
granted the Lakefront stadium is dead and they haven't got
into the specifics in Arlington Heights, but with that in mind,
you add a stadium onto the valuation of eight point
eight and you very quickly get to a ten number,
which is very, very high.
Speaker 7 (08:04):
I want to talk about the Chicago Bears and their board.
They weset all that. Edward McCaskey. He's the son of
Board Secretary Patrick McCaskey. He was named the seventh member
of the panel. He replaced his grandmother, Virginia McCaskey, who
died in February at age one. Hundred two. How much
of an impact will Edward McCaskey now have.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Can I just for an audience for Michael, let's just
talk about who Virginia McCaskey is, the daughter of the
founder of Georgiow who bought the team in nineteen twenty
four for one hundred dollars.
Speaker 7 (08:38):
Crazy.
Speaker 8 (08:38):
Anyone who doesn't believe in women's sports should remember that
one hundred years ago.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
So just give them a little bit dollars one hundred
years ago.
Speaker 7 (08:49):
They didn't even have leather helmets back then. Yeah, but
the Sky I have an impact.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
I mean well, I think the Bears board is one
of the more private boards of all the NFL ownership groups.
Like George McCaskey is not getting on a podium. He'll
talk to reporters, of course, but he's not one of
the more forward facing owners in the NFL, and neither
are the board members. The most often people at the
NFL league meetings that are speaking are Bears President and
(09:16):
CEO Kevin Warren and occasionally Ed McCaskey. And so with
that in mind, I am interested to see if ed
McCaskey has any impact on the stadium front. Now that's
been Kevin Warren's project, of course, but they have a
long way to go, and I mean, maybe he comes
in with a new fresh mindset, he starts talking about
any way to fund this, or maybe he's lobbying.
Speaker 7 (09:38):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (09:38):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what they do on
the stadium front. The thing that I find interesting and
you pointed out those numbers earlier Damon about which teams
have gone recently, and they're all for the minority stakes,
but different than we thought. Right, we thought private equity
was going to come in and rechange the private the valuations.
But these minimal two percent six percent deals are changing valuations.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
Do you think that they should have an impact like that?
Speaker 8 (10:03):
It feels I think.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
That this is a impact of private equity. There are
some people who might disagree with me, but what you're
seeing from my vantage point is that private equity gets
approved in August twenty twenty four, you immediately have two
deals in approved in December that's Dolphins and that's Bills,
and then three months after that in March you have
a Chargers deal. I think that is March or May,
(10:27):
one of those two league meetings, and of course you
have all these minority stakes. Now all of these ownership groups.
If you go back to the Eagles, the Eagles considered
private equity. I believe the forty nine ers considered it
as well, and so what I think is probably happening
is that it is a new investment pool for these
owners to look at. And evidently then they have these
conversations with private equity firms, they have these conversations with
(10:48):
individual investors, and then whoever is the right investor, and
the right investor in the right fit, and they have
the most money they go with. And so with the
Bears in particular, this is a small stake. I'm sure
that they may eventually look further into private equity, of course,
because private equity is going to help with the stadium funding.
But in regards to the forty nine ers, the forty
(11:09):
nine ers had conversations, they went another way. The Eagles
had conversations, they went another way. And the exact reasoning
for that is unclear, but it doesn't really matter because
it is what the NFL wants to see. They want
to see more of these minority transactions so that if
owners want to get more capital they can, and that's
what's happening. So I think it's a it's an inadvertent
(11:30):
impact that private equity is having, and there will be
more deals to come. Sixth Street hasn't made a deal yet,
and neither has Dynasty Carl Isle and Curtis Martin Ran.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Do you think the Giants sell for ten billion?
Speaker 6 (11:40):
I do think that sticks a pass. The reason, let
me explain, agree, if the Coach family is involved and
considering what they bought into BSc, which is of course
the nets and the Liberty, they have a lot of money,
a whole lot of money. And so if you're competing
against the Coach family and you're putting up money, what
if they say we want the full ten percent and
we'll go one point five billion. Well that's a ten
(12:01):
point five billion dollar valuation. And who's gonna be willing
to own ten percent of the team? Have no you know,
that's to control and just say I just want to
be a fan and you know, participate and help you all.
There's not a lot of people who are going to
be offering one point five billion dollars for anything. They're
not going to control.
Speaker 7 (12:18):
Our Thanks to Bloomberg, US sports business reporter Randa Williams
for joining US up next, we take a look at
how America is wielding soft power in the world of
sports and how new policies might be reshaping that influence.
For Damien Sasaur and Vanessa Perdomo, I'm Michael Dahar. You
are listening to the Bloomberg Business of Sports Bloomberger Radio
(12:40):
around the world.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
This is Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports. Will we explore
the big gunny issues in the ear to sports. I'm
Michael Barr along with Damian Sassaur and Vanessa Perdomo. The
US has long wielding soft power in the world of sports,
but recent changes to US foreign and immigration policies could
be reshaping that soft power and affecting athletes around the world.
(13:17):
Bloomberg opinion columnists Adam Mentor's latest Peace discusses this and
he joins us now that tell us about it. Adam,
Welcome to the Bloomberg Business of Sports.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Glad to be back.
Speaker 7 (13:28):
I want to talk about one of the articles, and
you hit a point. America is undermining its soft power
in sports, and part of this is because with new
travel restrictions that's going on and all that's going on,
and people are afraid, you know, vice and this and that.
(13:52):
That has changed the landscape in sports.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
It absolutely has. You know, the Trump travel bands they're
loosely called, are really starting to impact who can come
to the US and why they come to the US
in terms of sports. And we're seeing this with the
Little League World Series, which is happening right now. It
took an exemption from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio
(14:18):
to get the Latin American representatives a team from Venezuela
Cardinales Little League into the country, and that's fairly unprecedented.
I mean, usually and historically international athletic events in the
US have welcomed and have had no problem welcoming competitors
from all over the world, and all of a sudden,
since the beginning of June, that's no longer the case.
(14:39):
We've seen visa denials for teams and then we've seen
unbelievable red tape having to be cut through, as we
have with this Venezuelan Little League team. So it's a
real shift.
Speaker 8 (14:51):
It's interesting and also if you could explain a little
bit of the idea of what the term soft power
means guards to in regards to this topic.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Sure, sure, well, hard power is you know what, it
kind of sounds like military means pariffs, these kinds of
things that are ways of extending US power kind of
with a with a big stick, or if we will,
with a baseball bat. Soft power is a little bit different.
It's it's cultural power.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
You know, it's.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Going to China and seeing a lot of kids wearing
James Harden jerseys, which you will see they love Harden
over there. You know that's those kids aren't just embracing
James Harden, They're kind of embracing the American values, the
creativity that a guy like James Harden embodies on the court.
So that's the kind of thing that is much harder
(15:42):
to acquire and much harder project. But the US has
been able to do it for decades. And one of
the ways it's been able to do that is through
sports and in these travel bands, as I argue in
this recent piece, are starting to undermine that traditional soft
power that the US has wielded.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
One thing, when you know the State Department's denying these
is to members of Senegal's national women's basketball team or
Cuba's national women's volleyball team, We've got FIFA World Cup
coming to town, We've got the Olympics coming to LA.
I mean, what about your average run of the mill,
you know, fan from abroad or family member who wants
to watch their child participate in some of these events.
Are they gonna have this? Do we expect they're gonna
(16:20):
have similar problems here?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Absolutely they will. I mean again, there's certain countries that
will have no problem. If you're coming from the UK,
you know, you're probably gonna be able to get in
and see, you know, your child die for the UK
diving team at LA twenty eight. But the problems come
is exactly you point out with the fans. The travel
bands make exemptions for major athletic events, and it was
(16:45):
the Olympics and the World Cup that everybody had in mind,
but it does not make the bands do not make
exemptions for fans. And so if your country is on
the list of around a dozen countries Venezuela, Cuba, some
West Africa countries, and it's likely to expand to more countries,
(17:05):
you may not be able to get in. And it
kind of undermines, not kind of underminds, it definitely undermines
one of the reasons theoretically why the US would want
to hold events like this. I mean it's to showcase
our country, to showcase our venues, to showcase our openness, ironically,
and and to showcase how well we can host an event.
(17:26):
You know, these aren't just about hosting the World Cup.
They're advertising our ability to host other kinds of events.
And if people can't get their people into the country,
they're going to look elsewhere.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
Well.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
I agree with most things that Adam Andntor is mentioning here,
Michael Barr, but I mean, let's be clear, UK athletes
getting into the US. It's just as long as cure Starmer.
You know, Prime Minister of UK treads in the line
carefully with the White House. You know, we can black. Hey,
I don't think anything is setenced doone here, but yeah,
well enough.
Speaker 7 (17:52):
You know, I when I realize is that, like and
you said it best at them. This isn't just like
with baseball or basketball or something like that. This impacts
because I'm a motorhead in the f one. I mean,
you know everything the fans. You know, if you're from
Brazil and you're rooting for your driver and this and
that whatever, or even the drivers for that matter. This
(18:14):
impacts everything.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah, that's a great point because again the travel bands,
you know, they make an exemption for major sporting events. Well,
you know obviously in the Olympics, in the World Cup.
You know, what is the Miami Grand Prix. Does that qualify?
You know, does the Las Vegas Grand Prix qualify? You know,
is Marco Rubio gonna, you know, be sitting in his
(18:38):
office signing travel exemptions for you know, team members from
from countries that are or that are on the on
the travel band list, or you know, for that matter,
is it going to be signing exemptions for people you
know who got caught up in a dragnet at the
you know, the consulate in Rio that day because some
visa officer was in a bad mood. I mean, this
(18:59):
really turns the soft power idea and the openness of
American sports on its head.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
And Vanessa, this does not help Las Vegas at all,
because they just came out with a report that said
that their visitors coming to the city went way down.
Speaker 5 (19:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (19:17):
I saw that as well. I mean it's interesting after
we've seen so many sport events in Vegas, then the
downtick happened, which is definitely something to pay attention to.
Speaker 7 (19:27):
Adam.
Speaker 8 (19:27):
I'm curious because this in your article you talked about
how this could affect or NC double A athletes, because
we've seen a huge uptick in that in the last
few years I played, you know, Division one, they got
free scholarships, you know, I mean, and no, no matter
what sport they played in. It it's a massive, you know,
(19:48):
part of college athletics. So how is it going to
affect that.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, it's it's first worth noting that, you know, the
the number of international athletes coming to the US to
play in NC double A sports is ballooned over the years.
In the piece, we note that in twenty twenty three
twenty four, around seven percent of D one athletes are international. No,
not all of those are scholarship athletes. A lot of
(20:13):
them are. But you also have the case where you
have international athletes from from countries that don't have a
training program saying swimming or diving, which are very popular examples.
They can't train as well, say in Singapore, as they
can somewhere in the US. They will pay tuition to
schools to take these kids and train them. That's a
(20:33):
business opportunity for these colleges and universities first of all,
but even where you're talking about the scholarship athletes, I mean,
it's there's a lot of uncertainty there. I mean, if
you're a basketball program and you're counting on, you know,
a student coming in from you know, say Serbia, and
I'm just throwing this out there, I don't know if
any one programs have it to play basketball. And there's
(20:55):
visa delays that not only gives you pause for the
future about whether you're going to be recruiting these kinds
of athletes because you know you're not going to have
the student athlete there, the athlete there. But on the
other side of the equation, say you're a Serbian, very
talented Serbian, you know, eighteen year old center. You may
have other opportunities. They may not be as lucrative as
(21:16):
playing in D one basketball is these days, but at
least you know you can get the visa to say,
go play in Spain. And so again it's it's cutting
the US off from international talents. So it's going to
lower theoretically the level of competition across American college sports,
and it's also going to it's also going to hurt
the business of college sports.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
I also want to talk about and you wrote another
good article and this involves Bryce Harper, you know, first
baseman for the Philadelphia Phillies making three hundred and thirty
million dollars. He got into a let's call a little
tift he did. Yeah, you know, well, he was talking
(21:57):
to Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred and it ended
up with Harper saying, oh, yeah, your brother Blow's bubblegum
and then it all broke loose. You wrote a great
article that should a three hundred and thirty million dollar
player be the face for getting more pay fights?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yes, I mean I think you know. The Harper confrontation
with Manfred is interesting because it was Manford going to
the Phillies Phillies team meeting to basically just talk about
what's going on in the business of baseball. And he
does this with every team, just updating them. And Harper,
who we know just from watching him on the field,
(22:44):
he has a bit of a temper. He sensed that
Manfred was about to start talking about salary cap, which
is something that the player's union and and Harper have
a post for many years, and he got up and
used an expletive telling them where to go, and Manfred
fired back, and you know, cooler heads prevailed and they
(23:06):
stopped talking about the salary cap. But my point in
this piece is, you know, a guy like Bryce Harper
has done really well without a salary cap in baseball.
I mean, he's got the three hundred and thirty million
dollar contract, so it's natural that he wouldn't want one.
But that discussion, Guys like Harper are really the exceptions
in baseball, and anybody who follows baseball knows that most
(23:27):
of the players on most rosters aren't making that kind
of money. Most of them are struggling with salaries around
one million dollars a year. Now, I would be happy
to have a salary of one million dollar a year,
or even the MLB minimum of seven hundred and sixty
thousand dollars a year, but they're locked into contracts that
don't allow them to get to that level of compensation
three years. And so those are the players who I
(23:49):
argue should be talking, not not Harper.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, Adam, I mean, you couldn't be more right on
this front. I mean, this number just stood out to
me in your article. I just have to for our
audience here. In twenty fifteen, the media Major League Baseball
player salary was one point sixty five million. Today, ten
years later, it's only one point three five million. It's
gone down down. I mean that is just mind numbing
when you think of all just how big the Major
(24:13):
League MEMLB is and how many players there are, and
minor leagues and everything that goes hand in hand with it.
I mean, it's it really does. I mean, it does
bode in favor of a salary caps something like what
you see in the NFL and some other professional sports
leagues now, right.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
And it also pushes against the narrative that I think
many fans have about baseball, which is that the salaries
keep spiraling upward. But that's not the case. And that's
that's uh, it's it's worth keeping in mind again. You know,
Bryce Harper has you know, he's he's ridden that narrative.
(24:49):
But but for most of these players, they're they're stuck
in six years of service that is there, you know,
their rookie contracts, I mean right, they're stuck, you know,
on a team, unable to negotiate really their contracts. There's
some movement, there's some contractual stuff but they can't. They
can't you know, they can't get their value. They're underpaid.
Speaker 7 (25:10):
Our thanks to Bloomberg Opinion columnists Adam Mentor for joining us.
For more from Bloomberg Opinion, visit Bloomberg dot Com, Slash
Opinion or opi n go on the Bloomberg Tournament. Up next,
we take a deep dive on the latest headlines in
college sports for Damien Sassauer and Vanessa Bernomo. I'm Michael Barr.
(25:31):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Around the world.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
This is Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
Thanks for joining us on the Bloomberg Business of Sports,
where we explore the big money issues in the world
of sports. Michael Barr along with Damien Sassauur and Vanessa Bernomo.
The college football season is right around the corner, and
it comes in the middle of a lot of change
in the college sports landscape. Kelly Irwin Fagan is a
partner at Church, Church, Hittle and antrim Or CCHA and
(26:11):
chair of its sports law practice. She's also a former
college athlete and previously worked in enforcement at the NCAA's
national office. Kelly joins US now to weigh in on
some of the latest legal headlines and regulatory changes shaping
the world of college sports. Kelly, Welcome to the Bloomberg
Business of Sports.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Thank you so much for having me. I look forward
to talking with you all today, well.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
Back in the day, and thank you for joining us again.
It's back in the day of coach Dan Devine, back
in the day of coach bo Scham Beckley, back in
the day of coach Woody Hayes. It was pretty simple
to see the college landscape today. Just take all of
that and throw it up in the air, Cuz I
(26:59):
don't have a clue now what's going to happen, especially
with everything from NIL to how the new landscape is
shaping up. Can you inform us about it.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
I'll do my best. It's it's been a journey over
the past three or four years or so as the
college sports landscape has changed. But really, what was the imptus?
The huge impetus for a lot of the change was
the NCAA was having several of its rules challenged under
antitrust law and was not having success in defending the
(27:32):
legality of those rules and over a series of lawsuits
that has brought us to today. The one most talked
about most frequently is the House Settlement, and the House
Settlement has been approved and is being implemented this summer,
and schools are getting getting used to that and working
through that. Now along with the n c a A,
(27:52):
we're now in a world where schools can pay their
athletes directly for their NIL rights, and several years ago
that was not the case. And many many more years
ago when you were talking about schools weren't should not
have been paying student athletes at all other than their
scholarship and the benefits they got as a student athlete.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
I think you know what's interesting for me, Kelly, is
and I've been saying this since that was overturned and
all of the things that we're going to see after that,
because just because that was overturned doesn't mean, you know,
the lawsuits and all, you know, all of that stuff
is over. And I think one of the biggest things
is Title nine and how this like revenue sharing model
(28:35):
and college is paying athletes directory for the NIL relates
to Title nine And because what we're really seeing is
football players are going to get the biggest share of
that men's basketall players and women's basketball, but really it's
going to be male athletes. So can you tell us
a little bit about how Title nine is going to
(28:56):
come and do you think that they were going to
see fur their lawsuits for that?
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, under you know the jurisprudences, we know it today.
You know. Title nine applies to financial assistance that schools
provide to student athletes, and it has to be provided
proportionately between male and female student athletes. So the big
question that people are asking is these revenue share these
NIL payments, are those considered financial assistance and do they
(29:22):
have to be provided proportionately? And uh, there's probably different
views on that, but we haven't received any guidance as
to one way, or at least any guidance that's still
in place one way or another. So it'll likely be
decided in a court case. Like you alluded to, there's
been there's been a there's been there's a case against
(29:44):
the University of Oregon, the Schroeder case that does not
directly challenge this, but does challenge essentially our female and
male student athletes being treated equally in terms of their
publicity opportunities, which then translates into n IL opportunities.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Kelly, you are chair of the sports law practice at
c c CHA. You have seen it all, and I'm
just curious. You know, you know your day to day, right,
I mean you've dealt with everything from NCAA in fractions,
eligibility extensions, you know Title nine issues, as as Vanessa
points out, sexual harassment is like how much of your day,
(30:23):
how much of the cases, how much of the time
you're spending now is involved in NIL?
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Yeah, it's a big portion of it. I would say,
you know, half of my day is probably spent on
issues that touch in IL in some way, whether that's
in conjunction with another legal issue like Title nine or
at you know, writing a contract or negotiating a contract
for an NIL deal, helping with the the implementation. There's
(30:50):
a new enforcement group called the College Sports Commission that's
really just up and hunning, so trying to trying to
help schools figure out, you know what that's going to
look like. So it's it's what is that.
Speaker 7 (31:01):
Going to look like? Kelly?
Speaker 4 (31:02):
I mean, isn't that like is it Deloitte or Ernst
and Young? I mean, what is the composition of that? Like,
how do you how do you how do you work
with them?
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Yeah, the College Sports Commission is right now. I think
it's two employees, and then Deloitte is working with the
College Sports Commission on essentially the aspect of ANIL that
if you have a third party deal, the reporting aspect.
If you have a third party deal, then in some
cases it has to be for a valid business purpose
and for a range of compensation or fair market value.
(31:33):
So what that looks like, we don't know. It's in
its infancy, and it's eventually supposed to act as an
enforcement agency and then there's an arbitration process that can
that can come. So we're very early into what that
looks like, and hopefully over the next six or twelve
months that'll become a little bit more clear.
Speaker 7 (31:51):
Can we talk about the brand new Score Act and
President Trump's Executive Order on college Sports? Can you break
it down about the Score Act and President Trump's impact
on college sports for the audience.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Yeah, the NCAA, for what we taught, we started talking
about the you know, all of this was really triggered
by the antitrust liability they faced, and there's now a
lot of different state laws that and states have got
State's Attorney generals have gotten involved, and so the NCAA,
this House Settlement, the forward looking component is last for
ten years, so that's not permanent, and they need a
(32:31):
way to try to avoid the constant litigation that they're
facing that I think Vanessa said isn't going away and
hasn't gone away. And so there's been a lot of efforts.
From a federal legislation standpoint. The Score Act is really
the furthest one that we've seen get to the floor
(32:52):
of the House. Whether it gets passed, I think is
a lot more questionable through the Senate. But basically the
goal of the Score Act and then the President Trump's
Executive Order that followed was to try to codify some
aspects of this House Settlement, to provide some protection to
the NCAA from anti trust scrutiny, to protect women's sports
(33:17):
in Olympic sports. There's a lot of language in the
Executive Order that was geared towards that and trying to
get schools to make sure that they are protecting those
and along with the Olympic movement, and to prohibit the
third party pay for play that continues to be not allowed.
But an area that is that I think is can
(33:39):
put a boundary that is pushed regularly and to to
to address the issue of student athletes as employment. So
it's a it's trying to hit a lot of different
things and one in one act and one bill, and
we'll see what happens and if it gets passed or not.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
The cure is thing for as we were talking about,
you know, the Score Act and things like that. Is it,
you know, like, should there be a bill like that
that tries to hit on everything, you know, Title nine,
all of these things under one employment status, all of
these things under one bill? Or should that really be
(34:21):
broken up into different things? Because from what I saw
it wasn't completely supported on both sides, right, So what
is you know, what is the bipartisan act for this
and why is it not I guess supported by everyone
the Score Act? And what can really be done?
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Should it be broken up?
Speaker 5 (34:41):
Do you think into different bills?
Speaker 3 (34:44):
Yeah? I think, I mean, I think if it's going
to get passed, you know, through the Senate with needing
sixty votes, I think that it's going to have to
obviously going to have to be bipartisan supported. And in
order to do that, there's will have to be given
take from each and I I think that you know,
the definition or how they've they've treated athletes as not
(35:06):
being employees and making that, you know, a very black
and white provision of it. Is there some opportunity for
some nuance there. I think that there may be some
athletes that are much closer to employees than others and
just depend just based on how the nature of college
sports works. So I think if something is going to
(35:28):
get past, it's going to have to have a little
bit for each party that is interested in it, and
have to be bipartisan. Maybe they don't have to cover
everything that's in this initial version of the score Act,
and it can be kind of whittled down to some
of the more priority issues.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
You know, I do want to ask you this, you know,
when you I mean, you're you're you're writing all these
contracts for all these players, all these student athletes, and
you know, I just I'm curious about the integrity of
those contracts themselves, you know, because I hear about these athletes.
They they go into the transfer portal, they agree to,
you know, move to this new university, and then the
money's not really there and the promises aren't met, and
I'm just curious, like in your day, you know, in
(36:06):
your neck of the woods, the contracts that you're drafting
for these athletes, I mean, are they are they hard
and fast? Are they are they enforceable? Are they subjective?
I'm just curious, you know, in your gut you know today,
do you feel that these athletes are protected?
Speaker 3 (36:25):
A lot of we we work with the schools on
the contracts, and a lot of the schools we work
with are very understanding that they're working with in some cases,
you know, eighteen year olds, in some cases seventeen year olds,
and a guardian has to sign the contract, and so
there there is a lot of effort to try to
explain it and to ensure that the player signing it
(36:47):
understands to make sure they have adequate representation in terms
of an agent or legal counsel for themselves. So the
ones that we work on, I think there is an
effort there to ensure they're enforceable. University still protected, but
not in a way that's so onerous and one sided.
But I think there's a lot of contracts out there
(37:08):
and a lot of you know, third party in IL
deals where it is really one sided and student athletes
are signing away their rights and perpetuity for you know,
fifty dollars or one hundred dollars to put up some
social media posts. So there's still a lot of need
for student athletes to have good representation or just some
(37:29):
education about you know, what should they look for? Not
somebody getting fifty dollars deal doesn't need you know, shouldn't
probably shouldn't spend money on an attorney to review that.
But can they can they be given you know, ten
things to look for in some of these contracts education
provided by their school.
Speaker 7 (37:47):
Our thanks to Kelly Irwin Fagan for joining us. She's
partner at Ccha Law and share of its sports law practice.
And that does it for this edition of The Bloomberg
Business of Sports. For my cow co leagues Damien Sassaur
and Vanessa Perdomo, I'm Michael Barr. Tune in again next
week for the latest home the stories moving big old
(38:07):
money in the world of sports, and don't forget catch
our podcast on all of your podcast platforms. You are
listening to The Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio
around the world.
This is the Business of Sports.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Sports are the greatest unscripted show owner.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
The next generation of players who really grew up with
tech and believe in tech.
Speaker 4 (00:09):
Your face is your ticket, your face is your wallet,
Your face is your access to a club.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
These are such icnic and important buildings for businesses.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
For fans, COVID was one of the best things that
ever happened to go.
Speaker 6 (00:21):
The NFL is a bulletproof business.
Speaker 7 (00:23):
Racing is unique because there is absolutely no reason why
we can't compete with the guys. I'm well, it's pro pickleball.
Speaker 6 (00:28):
Real, are people really going to tune into this? If
you're playing moneyball with a huge bag of money, you're
going to be.
Speaker 7 (00:34):
Really, really good.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (00:39):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports, where we explore
the big money issues in the world of sports. I'm
Michael Barr, along with my colleagues Damian Sasauur and Vanessa Berdomo.
Coming up on the show, we do a deep dive
on the nc DOUBLEA. With college football's new season coming up.
We'll take a look at the latest following the NCAA
settlement the House some of the latest legal headlines involving
(01:04):
college sports and more. Plus we'll also take a look
at how some of the Trump administration's policies could be
reshaping America's soft power in the world of sports. We'll
explain that all that and more is on the way
on the Bloomberg Business of Sports. But first we continue
to follow the turmoil in the NFL Players Association. One
(01:25):
of the latest discoveries the union's former leaders. We're working
in secret on a venture capital fund with the hopes
that one day it would raise enough money to invest
in an NFL franchise. Bloomberg US sports business reporter Randa
Williams has been following this story, and he joins us
now to discuss. Randa, Welcome back to the Bloomberg Business
(01:49):
of Sports.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
As always, thank you for having me now.
Speaker 7 (01:52):
You wrote a great article, man, it's so much to
talk about here in your article. The former head of
the National Football League Players Association now, when he left
Howell's project for the union's secret venture fund project also left,
and he had hoped it would raise enough funds to
invest in an NFL team. I just don't see other
(02:17):
NFL team owners voting for that one.
Speaker 6 (02:20):
Yeah, neither do I I think it was a little
far fetched, but he had, from what my sources told me,
he had reason to believe that this was a way
that NFL players could gain equity in teams, I mean,
and the NFL owners voted to ban that as part
of contract negotiations. Aaron Rodgers tried it, Caleb Williams tried it,
and evidently they're like, no, this isn't.
Speaker 7 (02:40):
Going to happen.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
When Lloyd howl came in at the time, he mentioned
during his press conference that in his conversations with the league,
well at the time, no one had reported the firms
that the league was having conversations with, which obviously goes
back to his position at Carlisle, and so he had
started basically bringing together they're a quiet group of people
(03:01):
at the NFLPA to look into raising funds and hopes
of one day buying into a team. Now, what team
would allow that and what owners would approve that. I
don't think we'll ever find that out.
Speaker 8 (03:12):
It's interesting because I was trying to figure out who
it would actually be the most beneficial for, obviously other
than Lloyd Howe himself, because is it beneficial to the players?
I mean, they kind of have that seat, but also
at the same time, if owner did allow it, technically
that means the players or whatever the PA would be
(03:33):
in on the best interest of the franchise.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
I don't know that the project got far enough to
figure out like the intricacies of how this would work,
like what does exiting look like in this proposed plan?
And another part of this is like, if you're one
of the NFL's greatest earners, so let's think like Mahomes,
Alan Jackson, Burrow, They're all going to earn probably another
three hundred million dollars in their career. At a certain
(04:00):
point they might just want to buy in themselves and
not want to go as part of this union thing. Now, obviously,
with Lloyd being gone for a multitude of reasons, I
don't think that the new executive director is going to
come in and be like, yes, venture fund, that's definitely
at the bottom of his to do list.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, Randall, talk to us about David White, who is
the new interim I believe director I talk is that
going to be a permanent position? Is he going to
be the permanent leader of the NFL Players Association?
Speaker 6 (04:27):
So he was interviewed alongside Lloyd when Lloyd was hired,
not at the same time, but he was another candidate,
And it's to be determined. I think that luckily he's
in a time of labor piece like when Lloyd was
in his tenure, he was talking about the biggest contention
point was whether or not they could get an eighteen
game season done. At first Lloyd was in favor of it,
(04:47):
then at the Super Bowl he changed gears a little bit.
It's unclear how David feels about this, and the union
doesn't really put their executive director in front of journalists
much like outside of the super Bowl interview that they
have during super Bowl Week, they don't really speak that much.
So I don't know how David feels about this.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
Now.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
The first thing that he has to get in order
is to rally the NFL players. Like Lloyd's actions as
executive director and also J. C. Tretder as well have
divided a lot of players and there's a lot of uncertainty,
and so who is going to be the person to
rally the troops, And I think it has to be
David White.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
I want to go back to Aaron Rodgers now in
his heyday, obviously he was with the Green Bay Packers.
But because the way the Packers' ownership is structured compared
to the Jets, I'm assuming that's why he put it
in the try to anywhere the Jets contract.
Speaker 6 (05:43):
Yeah, that's part of it.
Speaker 7 (05:44):
He could.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
I mean, no one can buy into the Packers. I
don't even think the Packers can ever be sold. But
at the time of his Jets tenure, he's thinking about
like long term, and I don't know how much he
would have asked for. I imagine it would have been a
very small stake. We've seen people five point five percent
of Charles Woodson bought point one percent, but you got
to remember, point one percent of like the Giants is
(06:06):
going to go for millions of dollars. So it would
have been very beneficial to Rogers because, of course, NFL
valuations has shown no sign of slowing down, in large
part because no one is stopping watching the NFL. The
Super Bowl had one hundred and twenty seven million viewers,
so Rogers rightfully, so I was like, let me get
in on this, and then the NFL owners had a
quick impromptu meeting. Everybody voted no, and that was the
(06:28):
end of it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Well, you know, Randall, while we're talking about NFL sports
teams valuations, I can't help but point out the Chicago
Bears resetting the playing field at eight point eight billion dollars.
And let's just think about some of the more recent transactions.
The Niners were went for eight point six, the Eagle
freight point three, and the Dolphins for eight point one.
I'm talking taking on some minority investors. Yep, this, I.
Speaker 7 (06:48):
Mean is a big, big number.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
I mean, even adjusting for all of those previous transactions.
That's what we do here at Bloomberg Intelligence. We kind
of try to smartly adjust for things in real time.
I mean, I was only coming up with a seven
point seven four value billion dollar valuation for the Bears
and they go for eight point eight. I mean, my god,
this is just resetting the bar.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
No, it does. What's the most interesting to me? And
I'll go on record and say that the Bears are
the biggest sleeping giant in the NFL by far. They
have the third or fourth largest market, depending on if
you want to put Houston in front of them. But
they have the smallest stadium in the NFL, probably the
oldest stadium in the NFL and they're struggling to build
a new stadium, probably in Arlington Heights. And with that
(07:27):
in mind, the eight point eight number is staggering, but
of course, like you still need a stadium built. And
at that point you look at Josh Harris, for example,
who has this three point eight billion dollar facility that
he helps to open by twenty thirty. What does the
Bears go for? When they were talking about putting this
on the lake Front, the number they floated around was
four point six billion. That was with all the infrastructure.
(07:48):
The stadium itself would have been three point two. Now,
granted the Lakefront stadium is dead and they haven't got
into the specifics in Arlington Heights, but with that in mind,
you add a stadium onto the valuation of eight point
eight and you very quickly get to a ten number,
which is very, very high.
Speaker 7 (08:04):
I want to talk about the Chicago Bears and their board.
They weset all that. Edward McCaskey. He's the son of
Board Secretary Patrick McCaskey. He was named the seventh member
of the panel. He replaced his grandmother, Virginia McCaskey, who
died in February at age one. Hundred two. How much
of an impact will Edward McCaskey now have.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Can I just for an audience for Michael, let's just
talk about who Virginia McCaskey is, the daughter of the
founder of Georgiow who bought the team in nineteen twenty
four for one hundred dollars.
Speaker 7 (08:38):
Crazy.
Speaker 8 (08:38):
Anyone who doesn't believe in women's sports should remember that
one hundred years ago.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
So just give them a little bit dollars one hundred
years ago.
Speaker 7 (08:49):
They didn't even have leather helmets back then. Yeah, but
the Sky I have an impact.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
I mean well, I think the Bears board is one
of the more private boards of all the NFL ownership groups.
Like George McCaskey is not getting on a podium. He'll
talk to reporters, of course, but he's not one of
the more forward facing owners in the NFL, and neither
are the board members. The most often people at the
NFL league meetings that are speaking are Bears President and
(09:16):
CEO Kevin Warren and occasionally Ed McCaskey. And so with
that in mind, I am interested to see if ed
McCaskey has any impact on the stadium front. Now that's
been Kevin Warren's project, of course, but they have a
long way to go, and I mean, maybe he comes
in with a new fresh mindset, he starts talking about
any way to fund this, or maybe he's lobbying.
Speaker 7 (09:38):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (09:38):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what they do on
the stadium front. The thing that I find interesting and
you pointed out those numbers earlier Damon about which teams
have gone recently, and they're all for the minority stakes,
but different than we thought. Right, we thought private equity
was going to come in and rechange the private the valuations.
But these minimal two percent six percent deals are changing valuations.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
Do you think that they should have an impact like that?
Speaker 8 (10:03):
It feels I think.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
That this is a impact of private equity. There are
some people who might disagree with me, but what you're
seeing from my vantage point is that private equity gets
approved in August twenty twenty four, you immediately have two
deals in approved in December that's Dolphins and that's Bills,
and then three months after that in March you have
a Chargers deal. I think that is March or May,
(10:27):
one of those two league meetings, and of course you
have all these minority stakes. Now all of these ownership groups.
If you go back to the Eagles, the Eagles considered
private equity. I believe the forty nine ers considered it
as well, and so what I think is probably happening
is that it is a new investment pool for these
owners to look at. And evidently then they have these
conversations with private equity firms, they have these conversations with
(10:48):
individual investors, and then whoever is the right investor, and
the right investor in the right fit, and they have
the most money they go with. And so with the
Bears in particular, this is a small stake. I'm sure
that they may eventually look further into private equity, of course,
because private equity is going to help with the stadium funding.
But in regards to the forty nine ers, the forty
(11:09):
nine ers had conversations, they went another way. The Eagles
had conversations, they went another way. And the exact reasoning
for that is unclear, but it doesn't really matter because
it is what the NFL wants to see. They want
to see more of these minority transactions so that if
owners want to get more capital they can, and that's
what's happening. So I think it's a it's an inadvertent
(11:30):
impact that private equity is having, and there will be
more deals to come. Sixth Street hasn't made a deal yet,
and neither has Dynasty Carl Isle and Curtis Martin Ran.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Do you think the Giants sell for ten billion?
Speaker 6 (11:40):
I do think that sticks a pass. The reason, let
me explain, agree, if the Coach family is involved and
considering what they bought into BSc, which is of course
the nets and the Liberty, they have a lot of money,
a whole lot of money. And so if you're competing
against the Coach family and you're putting up money, what
if they say we want the full ten percent and
we'll go one point five billion. Well that's a ten
(12:01):
point five billion dollar valuation. And who's gonna be willing
to own ten percent of the team? Have no you know,
that's to control and just say I just want to
be a fan and you know, participate and help you all.
There's not a lot of people who are going to
be offering one point five billion dollars for anything. They're
not going to control.
Speaker 7 (12:18):
Our Thanks to Bloomberg, US sports business reporter Randa Williams
for joining US up next, we take a look at
how America is wielding soft power in the world of
sports and how new policies might be reshaping that influence.
For Damien Sasaur and Vanessa Perdomo, I'm Michael Dahar. You
are listening to the Bloomberg Business of Sports Bloomberger Radio
(12:40):
around the world.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
This is Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports. Will we explore
the big gunny issues in the ear to sports. I'm
Michael Barr along with Damian Sassaur and Vanessa Perdomo. The
US has long wielding soft power in the world of sports,
but recent changes to US foreign and immigration policies could
be reshaping that soft power and affecting athletes around the world.
(13:17):
Bloomberg opinion columnists Adam Mentor's latest Peace discusses this and
he joins us now that tell us about it. Adam,
Welcome to the Bloomberg Business of Sports.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Glad to be back.
Speaker 7 (13:28):
I want to talk about one of the articles, and
you hit a point. America is undermining its soft power
in sports, and part of this is because with new
travel restrictions that's going on and all that's going on,
and people are afraid, you know, vice and this and that.
(13:52):
That has changed the landscape in sports.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
It absolutely has. You know, the Trump travel bands they're
loosely called, are really starting to impact who can come
to the US and why they come to the US
in terms of sports. And we're seeing this with the
Little League World Series, which is happening right now. It
took an exemption from the Secretary of State Marco Rubio
(14:18):
to get the Latin American representatives a team from Venezuela
Cardinales Little League into the country, and that's fairly unprecedented.
I mean, usually and historically international athletic events in the
US have welcomed and have had no problem welcoming competitors
from all over the world, and all of a sudden,
since the beginning of June, that's no longer the case.
(14:39):
We've seen visa denials for teams and then we've seen
unbelievable red tape having to be cut through, as we
have with this Venezuelan Little League team. So it's a
real shift.
Speaker 8 (14:51):
It's interesting and also if you could explain a little
bit of the idea of what the term soft power
means guards to in regards to this topic.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Sure, sure, well, hard power is you know what, it
kind of sounds like military means pariffs, these kinds of
things that are ways of extending US power kind of
with a with a big stick, or if we will,
with a baseball bat. Soft power is a little bit different.
It's it's cultural power.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
You know, it's.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Going to China and seeing a lot of kids wearing
James Harden jerseys, which you will see they love Harden
over there. You know that's those kids aren't just embracing
James Harden, They're kind of embracing the American values, the
creativity that a guy like James Harden embodies on the court.
So that's the kind of thing that is much harder
(15:42):
to acquire and much harder project. But the US has
been able to do it for decades. And one of
the ways it's been able to do that is through
sports and in these travel bands, as I argue in
this recent piece, are starting to undermine that traditional soft
power that the US has wielded.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
One thing, when you know the State Department's denying these
is to members of Senegal's national women's basketball team or
Cuba's national women's volleyball team, We've got FIFA World Cup
coming to town, We've got the Olympics coming to LA.
I mean, what about your average run of the mill,
you know, fan from abroad or family member who wants
to watch their child participate in some of these events.
Are they gonna have this? Do we expect they're gonna
(16:20):
have similar problems here?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Absolutely they will. I mean again, there's certain countries that
will have no problem. If you're coming from the UK,
you know, you're probably gonna be able to get in
and see, you know, your child die for the UK
diving team at LA twenty eight. But the problems come
is exactly you point out with the fans. The travel
bands make exemptions for major athletic events, and it was
(16:45):
the Olympics and the World Cup that everybody had in mind,
but it does not make the bands do not make
exemptions for fans. And so if your country is on
the list of around a dozen countries Venezuela, Cuba, some
West Africa countries, and it's likely to expand to more countries,
(17:05):
you may not be able to get in. And it
kind of undermines, not kind of underminds, it definitely undermines
one of the reasons theoretically why the US would want
to hold events like this. I mean it's to showcase
our country, to showcase our venues, to showcase our openness, ironically,
and and to showcase how well we can host an event.
(17:26):
You know, these aren't just about hosting the World Cup.
They're advertising our ability to host other kinds of events.
And if people can't get their people into the country,
they're going to look elsewhere.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
Well.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
I agree with most things that Adam Andntor is mentioning here,
Michael Barr, but I mean, let's be clear, UK athletes
getting into the US. It's just as long as cure Starmer.
You know, Prime Minister of UK treads in the line
carefully with the White House. You know, we can black. Hey,
I don't think anything is setenced doone here, but yeah,
well enough.
Speaker 7 (17:52):
You know, I when I realize is that, like and
you said it best at them. This isn't just like
with baseball or basketball or something like that. This impacts
because I'm a motorhead in the f one. I mean,
you know everything the fans. You know, if you're from
Brazil and you're rooting for your driver and this and
that whatever, or even the drivers for that matter. This
(18:14):
impacts everything.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah, that's a great point because again the travel bands,
you know, they make an exemption for major sporting events. Well,
you know obviously in the Olympics, in the World Cup.
You know, what is the Miami Grand Prix. Does that qualify?
You know, does the Las Vegas Grand Prix qualify? You know,
is Marco Rubio gonna, you know, be sitting in his
(18:38):
office signing travel exemptions for you know, team members from
from countries that are or that are on the on
the travel band list, or you know, for that matter,
is it going to be signing exemptions for people you
know who got caught up in a dragnet at the
you know, the consulate in Rio that day because some
visa officer was in a bad mood. I mean, this
(18:59):
really turns the soft power idea and the openness of
American sports on its head.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
And Vanessa, this does not help Las Vegas at all,
because they just came out with a report that said
that their visitors coming to the city went way down.
Speaker 5 (19:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (19:17):
I saw that as well. I mean it's interesting after
we've seen so many sport events in Vegas, then the
downtick happened, which is definitely something to pay attention to.
Speaker 7 (19:27):
Adam.
Speaker 8 (19:27):
I'm curious because this in your article you talked about
how this could affect or NC double A athletes, because
we've seen a huge uptick in that in the last
few years I played, you know, Division one, they got
free scholarships, you know, I mean, and no, no matter
what sport they played in. It it's a massive, you know,
(19:48):
part of college athletics. So how is it going to
affect that.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, it's it's first worth noting that, you know, the
the number of international athletes coming to the US to
play in NC double A sports is ballooned over the years.
In the piece, we note that in twenty twenty three
twenty four, around seven percent of D one athletes are international. No,
not all of those are scholarship athletes. A lot of
(20:13):
them are. But you also have the case where you
have international athletes from from countries that don't have a
training program saying swimming or diving, which are very popular examples.
They can't train as well, say in Singapore, as they
can somewhere in the US. They will pay tuition to
schools to take these kids and train them. That's a
(20:33):
business opportunity for these colleges and universities first of all,
but even where you're talking about the scholarship athletes, I mean,
it's there's a lot of uncertainty there. I mean, if
you're a basketball program and you're counting on, you know,
a student coming in from you know, say Serbia, and
I'm just throwing this out there, I don't know if
any one programs have it to play basketball. And there's
(20:55):
visa delays that not only gives you pause for the
future about whether you're going to be recruiting these kinds
of athletes because you know you're not going to have
the student athlete there, the athlete there. But on the
other side of the equation, say you're a Serbian, very
talented Serbian, you know, eighteen year old center. You may
have other opportunities. They may not be as lucrative as
(21:16):
playing in D one basketball is these days, but at
least you know you can get the visa to say,
go play in Spain. And so again it's it's cutting
the US off from international talents. So it's going to
lower theoretically the level of competition across American college sports,
and it's also going to it's also going to hurt
the business of college sports.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
I also want to talk about and you wrote another
good article and this involves Bryce Harper, you know, first
baseman for the Philadelphia Phillies making three hundred and thirty
million dollars. He got into a let's call a little
tift he did. Yeah, you know, well, he was talking
(21:57):
to Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred and it ended
up with Harper saying, oh, yeah, your brother Blow's bubblegum
and then it all broke loose. You wrote a great
article that should a three hundred and thirty million dollar
player be the face for getting more pay fights?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yes, I mean I think you know. The Harper confrontation
with Manfred is interesting because it was Manford going to
the Phillies Phillies team meeting to basically just talk about
what's going on in the business of baseball. And he
does this with every team, just updating them. And Harper,
who we know just from watching him on the field,
(22:44):
he has a bit of a temper. He sensed that
Manfred was about to start talking about salary cap, which
is something that the player's union and and Harper have
a post for many years, and he got up and
used an expletive telling them where to go, and Manfred
fired back, and you know, cooler heads prevailed and they
(23:06):
stopped talking about the salary cap. But my point in
this piece is, you know, a guy like Bryce Harper
has done really well without a salary cap in baseball.
I mean, he's got the three hundred and thirty million
dollar contract, so it's natural that he wouldn't want one.
But that discussion, Guys like Harper are really the exceptions
in baseball, and anybody who follows baseball knows that most
(23:27):
of the players on most rosters aren't making that kind
of money. Most of them are struggling with salaries around
one million dollars a year. Now, I would be happy
to have a salary of one million dollar a year,
or even the MLB minimum of seven hundred and sixty
thousand dollars a year, but they're locked into contracts that
don't allow them to get to that level of compensation
three years. And so those are the players who I
(23:49):
argue should be talking, not not Harper.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, Adam, I mean, you couldn't be more right on
this front. I mean, this number just stood out to
me in your article. I just have to for our
audience here. In twenty fifteen, the media Major League Baseball
player salary was one point sixty five million. Today, ten
years later, it's only one point three five million. It's
gone down down. I mean that is just mind numbing
when you think of all just how big the Major
(24:13):
League MEMLB is and how many players there are, and
minor leagues and everything that goes hand in hand with it.
I mean, it's it really does. I mean, it does
bode in favor of a salary caps something like what
you see in the NFL and some other professional sports
leagues now, right.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
And it also pushes against the narrative that I think
many fans have about baseball, which is that the salaries
keep spiraling upward. But that's not the case. And that's
that's uh, it's it's worth keeping in mind again. You know,
Bryce Harper has you know, he's he's ridden that narrative.
(24:49):
But but for most of these players, they're they're stuck
in six years of service that is there, you know,
their rookie contracts, I mean right, they're stuck, you know,
on a team, unable to negotiate really their contracts. There's
some movement, there's some contractual stuff but they can't. They
can't you know, they can't get their value. They're underpaid.
Speaker 7 (25:10):
Our thanks to Bloomberg Opinion columnists Adam Mentor for joining us.
For more from Bloomberg Opinion, visit Bloomberg dot Com, Slash
Opinion or opi n go on the Bloomberg Tournament. Up next,
we take a deep dive on the latest headlines in
college sports for Damien Sassauer and Vanessa Bernomo. I'm Michael Barr.
(25:31):
This is the Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Around the world.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
This is Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
Thanks for joining us on the Bloomberg Business of Sports,
where we explore the big money issues in the world
of sports. Michael Barr along with Damien Sassauur and Vanessa Bernomo.
The college football season is right around the corner, and
it comes in the middle of a lot of change
in the college sports landscape. Kelly Irwin Fagan is a
partner at Church, Church, Hittle and antrim Or CCHA and
(26:11):
chair of its sports law practice. She's also a former
college athlete and previously worked in enforcement at the NCAA's
national office. Kelly joins US now to weigh in on
some of the latest legal headlines and regulatory changes shaping
the world of college sports. Kelly, Welcome to the Bloomberg
Business of Sports.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Thank you so much for having me. I look forward
to talking with you all today, well.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
Back in the day, and thank you for joining us again.
It's back in the day of coach Dan Devine, back
in the day of coach bo Scham Beckley, back in
the day of coach Woody Hayes. It was pretty simple
to see the college landscape today. Just take all of
that and throw it up in the air, Cuz I
(26:59):
don't have a clue now what's going to happen, especially
with everything from NIL to how the new landscape is
shaping up. Can you inform us about it.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
I'll do my best. It's it's been a journey over
the past three or four years or so as the
college sports landscape has changed. But really, what was the imptus?
The huge impetus for a lot of the change was
the NCAA was having several of its rules challenged under
antitrust law and was not having success in defending the
(27:32):
legality of those rules and over a series of lawsuits
that has brought us to today. The one most talked
about most frequently is the House Settlement, and the House
Settlement has been approved and is being implemented this summer,
and schools are getting getting used to that and working
through that. Now along with the n c a A,
(27:52):
we're now in a world where schools can pay their
athletes directly for their NIL rights, and several years ago
that was not the case. And many many more years
ago when you were talking about schools weren't should not
have been paying student athletes at all other than their
scholarship and the benefits they got as a student athlete.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
I think you know what's interesting for me, Kelly, is
and I've been saying this since that was overturned and
all of the things that we're going to see after that,
because just because that was overturned doesn't mean, you know,
the lawsuits and all, you know, all of that stuff
is over. And I think one of the biggest things
is Title nine and how this like revenue sharing model
(28:35):
and college is paying athletes directory for the NIL relates
to Title nine And because what we're really seeing is
football players are going to get the biggest share of
that men's basketall players and women's basketball, but really it's
going to be male athletes. So can you tell us
a little bit about how Title nine is going to
(28:56):
come and do you think that they were going to
see fur their lawsuits for that?
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, under you know the jurisprudences, we know it today.
You know. Title nine applies to financial assistance that schools
provide to student athletes, and it has to be provided
proportionately between male and female student athletes. So the big
question that people are asking is these revenue share these
NIL payments, are those considered financial assistance and do they
(29:22):
have to be provided proportionately? And uh, there's probably different
views on that, but we haven't received any guidance as
to one way, or at least any guidance that's still
in place one way or another. So it'll likely be
decided in a court case. Like you alluded to, there's
been there's been a there's been there's a case against
(29:44):
the University of Oregon, the Schroeder case that does not
directly challenge this, but does challenge essentially our female and
male student athletes being treated equally in terms of their
publicity opportunities, which then translates into n IL opportunities.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Kelly, you are chair of the sports law practice at
c c CHA. You have seen it all, and I'm
just curious. You know, you know your day to day, right,
I mean you've dealt with everything from NCAA in fractions,
eligibility extensions, you know Title nine issues, as as Vanessa
points out, sexual harassment is like how much of your day,
(30:23):
how much of the cases, how much of the time
you're spending now is involved in NIL?
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Yeah, it's a big portion of it. I would say,
you know, half of my day is probably spent on
issues that touch in IL in some way, whether that's
in conjunction with another legal issue like Title nine or
at you know, writing a contract or negotiating a contract
for an NIL deal, helping with the the implementation. There's
(30:50):
a new enforcement group called the College Sports Commission that's
really just up and hunning, so trying to trying to
help schools figure out, you know what that's going to
look like. So it's it's what is that.
Speaker 7 (31:01):
Going to look like? Kelly?
Speaker 4 (31:02):
I mean, isn't that like is it Deloitte or Ernst
and Young? I mean, what is the composition of that? Like,
how do you how do you how do you work
with them?
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Yeah, the College Sports Commission is right now. I think
it's two employees, and then Deloitte is working with the
College Sports Commission on essentially the aspect of ANIL that
if you have a third party deal, the reporting aspect.
If you have a third party deal, then in some
cases it has to be for a valid business purpose
and for a range of compensation or fair market value.
(31:33):
So what that looks like, we don't know. It's in
its infancy, and it's eventually supposed to act as an
enforcement agency and then there's an arbitration process that can
that can come. So we're very early into what that
looks like, and hopefully over the next six or twelve
months that'll become a little bit more clear.
Speaker 7 (31:51):
Can we talk about the brand new Score Act and
President Trump's Executive Order on college Sports? Can you break
it down about the Score Act and President Trump's impact
on college sports for the audience.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
Yeah, the NCAA, for what we taught, we started talking
about the you know, all of this was really triggered
by the antitrust liability they faced, and there's now a
lot of different state laws that and states have got
State's Attorney generals have gotten involved, and so the NCAA,
this House Settlement, the forward looking component is last for
ten years, so that's not permanent, and they need a
(32:31):
way to try to avoid the constant litigation that they're
facing that I think Vanessa said isn't going away and
hasn't gone away. And so there's been a lot of efforts.
From a federal legislation standpoint. The Score Act is really
the furthest one that we've seen get to the floor
(32:52):
of the House. Whether it gets passed, I think is
a lot more questionable through the Senate. But basically the
goal of the Score Act and then the President Trump's
Executive Order that followed was to try to codify some
aspects of this House Settlement, to provide some protection to
the NCAA from anti trust scrutiny, to protect women's sports
(33:17):
in Olympic sports. There's a lot of language in the
Executive Order that was geared towards that and trying to
get schools to make sure that they are protecting those
and along with the Olympic movement, and to prohibit the
third party pay for play that continues to be not allowed.
But an area that is that I think is can
(33:39):
put a boundary that is pushed regularly and to to
to address the issue of student athletes as employment. So
it's a it's trying to hit a lot of different
things and one in one act and one bill, and
we'll see what happens and if it gets passed or not.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
The cure is thing for as we were talking about,
you know, the Score Act and things like that. Is it,
you know, like, should there be a bill like that
that tries to hit on everything, you know, Title nine,
all of these things under one employment status, all of
these things under one bill? Or should that really be
(34:21):
broken up into different things? Because from what I saw
it wasn't completely supported on both sides, right, So what
is you know, what is the bipartisan act for this
and why is it not I guess supported by everyone
the Score Act? And what can really be done?
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Should it be broken up?
Speaker 5 (34:41):
Do you think into different bills?
Speaker 3 (34:44):
Yeah? I think, I mean, I think if it's going
to get passed, you know, through the Senate with needing
sixty votes, I think that it's going to have to
obviously going to have to be bipartisan supported. And in
order to do that, there's will have to be given
take from each and I I think that you know,
the definition or how they've they've treated athletes as not
(35:06):
being employees and making that, you know, a very black
and white provision of it. Is there some opportunity for
some nuance there. I think that there may be some
athletes that are much closer to employees than others and
just depend just based on how the nature of college
sports works. So I think if something is going to
(35:28):
get past, it's going to have to have a little
bit for each party that is interested in it, and
have to be bipartisan. Maybe they don't have to cover
everything that's in this initial version of the score Act,
and it can be kind of whittled down to some
of the more priority issues.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
You know, I do want to ask you this, you know,
when you I mean, you're you're you're writing all these
contracts for all these players, all these student athletes, and
you know, I just I'm curious about the integrity of
those contracts themselves, you know, because I hear about these athletes.
They they go into the transfer portal, they agree to,
you know, move to this new university, and then the
money's not really there and the promises aren't met, and
I'm just curious, like in your day, you know, in
(36:06):
your neck of the woods, the contracts that you're drafting
for these athletes, I mean, are they are they hard
and fast? Are they are they enforceable? Are they subjective?
I'm just curious, you know, in your gut you know today,
do you feel that these athletes are protected?
Speaker 3 (36:25):
A lot of we we work with the schools on
the contracts, and a lot of the schools we work
with are very understanding that they're working with in some cases,
you know, eighteen year olds, in some cases seventeen year olds,
and a guardian has to sign the contract, and so
there there is a lot of effort to try to
explain it and to ensure that the player signing it
(36:47):
understands to make sure they have adequate representation in terms
of an agent or legal counsel for themselves. So the
ones that we work on, I think there is an
effort there to ensure they're enforceable. University still protected, but
not in a way that's so onerous and one sided.
But I think there's a lot of contracts out there
(37:08):
and a lot of you know, third party in IL
deals where it is really one sided and student athletes
are signing away their rights and perpetuity for you know,
fifty dollars or one hundred dollars to put up some
social media posts. So there's still a lot of need
for student athletes to have good representation or just some
(37:29):
education about you know, what should they look for? Not
somebody getting fifty dollars deal doesn't need you know, shouldn't
probably shouldn't spend money on an attorney to review that.
But can they can they be given you know, ten
things to look for in some of these contracts education
provided by their school.
Speaker 7 (37:47):
Our thanks to Kelly Irwin Fagan for joining us. She's
partner at Ccha Law and share of its sports law practice.
And that does it for this edition of The Bloomberg
Business of Sports. For my cow co leagues Damien Sassaur
and Vanessa Perdomo, I'm Michael Barr. Tune in again next
week for the latest home the stories moving big old
(38:07):
money in the world of sports, and don't forget catch
our podcast on all of your podcast platforms. You are
listening to The Bloomberg Business of Sports from Bloomberg Radio
around the world.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.