Wednesday, October 31, 2012

It's Official: McCann is a "Top NBA Mind"


Finally, sports lawyers are getting their due. A few months ago I declared 2012 the "Summer of Sports Law."  With no end to the NHL lockout in sight, the O'Bannon v NCAA case growing steam and national attention, and the power of Roger Goodell being litigated on a daily basis, the demand for insight from sports lawyers is growing—although for some reason our pay isn’t.

Anyways, The Sporting Charts (www.sportingcharts.com) just posted a list of the Top 50 NBA Minds to Follow on Twitter here.  Not surprisingly, our own Michael McCann (@McCannSportsLaw) was listed.  Join me in congratulating Mike on continuing to help grow this important field—and if you don’t follow him on Twitter, consider this your wake-up-call.

[Of course since my account (shameless plug @WarrenKZola) was noticeably absent I’m sure there some sort of accounting error for which I'll definitely sue.]  Seriously...congrats Mike!

Two Updates on the Sports Gambling Front

The past several weeks have saw a number of developments on the sports gambling front.  First, the federal lawsuit filed by the NCAA and the four major North American team sports leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL) challenging New Jersey's move towards regulated sports betting continues to move forward.  The most recent news involves depositions being scheduled for the league commissioners and the NCAA president.  For more background on the legal and corruption aspects of sports gambling, here is a link to a paper Tassos Kaburakis and I co-authored that was recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Legal Aspect of Sport.  Also, for a comprehensive history of gambling-related federal legislation since 2000, we wrote a piece that was just published in Gambling Law Review and Economics.

Second, authorities in New York and Nevada (working in concert with the FBI, it appears) made a number of arrests earlier this week in connection with an 18 month illegal sports gambling investigation.  The DA's press release alludes to several offshore sports books.  A recent Las Vegas Review-Journal article provides more detail on the sting operation.  For a copy of the full 259 page indictment, click here.

The issue of Arab Jews: Manipulating a Justified Cause



RSIS presents the following commentary The issue of Arab Jews: Manipulating a Justified Cause by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at  RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
________________________________________

No. 202/2012 dated 31 October 2012

The issue of Arab Jews:
Manipulating a Justified Cause

By James M. Dorsey
     
Synopsis

A recent United Nations conference on the rights of Jews forced to flee Arab countries in the wake of the establishment of the State of Israel focuses attention on a long overlooked consequence of the Middle East conflict. It also complicates the revival of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations.

Commentary

THE PLIGHT of Palestinians uprooted and driven out of large chunks of historic Palestine to make way for a Jewish state lies at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That epochal dispute dominated policies towards and perceptions of the Middle East for much of post-World War Two history.

Efforts to achieve a definite resolution have foundered, but have produced a de facto status quo that serves the interests of two key parties to the conflict: Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip. Neither truly wants the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, preferring instead a long-term ceasefire that would allow for economic growth in the hope that time will gain them a strengthened negotiating position.

Battle of narratives

This month’s brief flare up of Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel and Israeli counterstrikes hardly detracted from this understanding. On the contrary the attacks enabled Hamas to burnish its credentials as a resistance movement and fend off criticism from more militant Palestinian factions that accuse it of having gone soft and allowed Israel to project it as a continued terrorist threat, maintain its refusal to formally do business with Hamas and ensure that the peace process remains in a deep coma.

To further undermine the centrality of the Palestinian issue that has been significantly diminished  by the wave of popular revolts sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as well as the split between Hamas and the Al Fatah-led Palestine Authority on the West Bank, Israel supported by Jewish leaders is equating Palestinian rights with those of Arab Jews who once lived in the Arab world but were forced to leave their homelands. It is a move perceived by Palestinians and even a minority of Jews as a cynical manipulation of a justified cause.

The Israeli move adds one more dimension to the Palestinian-Israeli battle of narratives that has served to camouflage the real intentions of Israel and Palestinian leaders since the inception of an Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is part of a larger campaign that aims to reduce, if not delegitimise Palestinian rights by opposing Palestinian efforts to upgrade their status at the United Nations and calling for the dismantling of UNWRA, the UN agency responsible for the welfare of Palestinian refugees. The move further seeks to mend chinks in the armour of US public support for Israel.

At the core of the battle of narratives lies a definition of rights that has allowed both parties to ensure that peace negotiations do not produce the kind of painful compromises on both sides needed to achieve a definitive resolution of their deep-seated conflict.

Like everything else that is on the negotiation table, the solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees as well as that of Arab Jews is evident to all. Palestinians would get an independent state of their own alongside Israel and be compensated for losses suffered in territories that are part of the Jewish state. Similarly, Arab Jews would be compensated for their losses. Few, if any, Palestinians are likely to want to physically return to Israeli rule and even fewer Arab Jews would opt for a return to their ancestral homelands.

Devil in the details

Nevertheless, the devil is in the details. Palestinians would settle for compensation and a state of their own but     insist on doing so on the basis of an Israeli recognition of their right to return to their ancestral homes. Such recognition would amount to Israeli acknowledgement of Palestinians being the original owners of historic Palestine. In effect, it would deny Israel’s narrative that it represents the resurrection of the Jewish state in lands that always belonged to the Jews.

To reinforce that narrative and reject the Palestinian right of return, before raising the rights of Arab Jews Israel has insisted in recent years that Palestinians upgrade their recognition of Israel’s right to exist by acknowledging its right to exist as a Jewish state – a demand that transcends accepted diplomatic protocols. In doing so, it prepared the ground to use Arab Jewish rights as a tool to further undermine Palestinian demands for recognition of their right to return, by rejecting Palestinian suggestions that Arab Jews too should have the right to return to their Arab countries of origin rather than Israel.

The Israeli effort to portray the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as one of competing refugee claims also serves to counter Palestinian efforts to upgrade their United Nations observer status to that of a non-member state as well as a rupture in crucial American Christian support for Israel. Palestine Authority officials are confident that the UN General Assembly will next month vote in favour of the upgrade. Israel is likely to argue that Palestinian rights cannot be viewed independently of those of Arab Jews.

As Palestine pushes for recognition, leaders of the Presbyterian Church this month urged US Congressional leaders to reconsider aid to Israel because of its alleged violations of human rights. In seeking to shift the conflict’s paradigm, the Israeli focus on Arab Jewish rights calls into question the emphasis on the Palestinians of one important faction of the bedrock of US support for Israel.

Palestinian issue at stake

The campaign for recognition of the rights of Arab Jewry could not come at a more politically opportune moment for Israel. It reinforces pro-Israeli support in Congress to limit the definition of a Palestinian refugee to those who were physically displaced when the Jewish state was created in 1948. The definition would deprive a majority of Palestinians born after the founding of Israel of any possibility to put forward a claim. It coalesces with proposals in Congress to equate Arab Jewish rights to those of Palestinians.

At the bottom line, the absence of a credible peace process has created a vacuum in which the very definition and importance of the Palestinian issue is at stake. It is a process in which Israel is benefitting from an Arab world that increasingly is preoccupied with either regime survival or post-revolt transition, a deeply divided Palestinian polity, and an international community that mistakenly believes that Palestine has taken a permanent backseat to more pressing issues such as Iran and the calls for political change.

Palestine may well for now be on the backburner; it is however unlikely to remain there.

James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.
________________________________________
Click herefor past commentaries.
Find us onFacebook.
Due to the high number of publications by our RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS), RSIS maintains a separate subscription facility for the Centre. Please click here to subscribe to the Centre's publications.




Monday, October 29, 2012

Video of Yale Law School Hot Topics in Sports Law Panel

I moderated the Yale Law School panel last week on hot topics in sports law - a video of the panel is available online. Jimmy Golen was one of the distinguished panelists, as were Craig Masback (Nike), Charles Mechem (LPGA), and Nell DeVane (ESPN). We covered a wide-range of topics, including the legality of age limits in sports, viewing college sports as minor leagues, Ed O'Bannon v. NCAA (and the paying of college athletes), whether the NCAA should have punished Penn State, Title IX, morals clauses (including with Lance Armstrong) etc.  Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, in the audience, had several insightful comments about Penn State and the NCAA. Here's the video -- and thanks to Warren Zola for finding and sharing it:
In the Legal Zone: Hot Topics in Sports Law from Yale Law School on Vimeo.

Symposium: The Impact of Concussion Lawsuits on the Future of Football


The Mississippi Sports Law Review at the University of Mississippi School of Law is hosting an incredibly timely symposium entitled "The Impact of Concussion Lawsuits on the Future of Football."  I am honored to be participating in this symposium which will be held Friday, November 9, 2012, at the Robert C. Khayat Law Center at 1:30 p.m., room 1078 (free and open to the public).

From the symposium website: "Once thought to be a badge of honor that doctors could quickly 'cure' with a sniff of smelling salt, concussions have now become the subject of litigation that could threaten the future of football and other contact sports. Recent medical studies consistently show serious long-term effects for athletes who have had multiple concussions, including serious brain trauma and reduction in life expectancy. Where re-entering the game after a concussion, or even the week after a concussion, used to be common practice, there is an increasing burden on team physicians and the athletes themselves to consider the implications of going back onto the field. In light of this research, the four major American sports leagues have implemented concussion policies and procedures, but many question if these policies alone are sufficient to protect the athletes from permanent injuries."


Sunday, October 28, 2012

Politics overshadow African championship final


Al Ahly militants

By James M. Dorsey

Next week’s African Championship League final between crowned Cairo club Al Ahly SC and Tunisian title defender Esperance Sportieve de Tunis is as much a battle of the titans as it is a struggle for the future of Egypt.

At stake in the November 4 match in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria's Borg El-Arab Stadium, the first leg of the finals, is not only the African championship title but also a gamut of highly political issues, including the need for reform of law enforcement; the role of police and security forces in ensuring security in stadiums; the relationship between the club, its players and its fans; the right of fans to attend matches; and the campaign to remove associates of ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak from soccer and eradicate corruption.

The match will be the first to be played by Al Ahly in front of its fans who have been banned from the few international and domestic matches that their club has played since professional soccer in Egypt was suspended eight months ago after 74 Al Ahly fans were killed in Port Said in a politically loaded brawl. The aftermath of the brawl looms large with militant, highly politicized, street battle-hardened fan groups known as ultras opposing a resumption of professional soccer as long as those responsible for the incident are not held accountable and the supporters’ political demands have not been met.

The last time Esperance played in Cairo in April 2011, two months after the ousting of president Hosni Mubarak, militant supporters of Al Ahly rival Al Zamalek SC stormed the pitch in what amounted to a reclaiming of the stadium from the security forces, Egypt’s most hated institution because of their role in enforcing the Mubarak regime’s repression. The storming marked the beginning of a post-revolt campaign by the militants, Egypt’s second largest civic group that played a key role in the protests that forced Mr. Mubarak to resign after 30 years in office, against the military and the law enforcement forces of the interior ministry. The campaign demanded the removal of Mubarak era officials and an end to corruption.

The militants known as ultras have booked a string of political victories in recent months in which they have attacked the offices of the Egyptian Football Association (EFA), Al Ahly’s training ground and the premises of media organizations. They have prevented a lifting of the ban on domestic soccer, ironically supported by their archenemy, the security forces who fear renewed clashes in the stadiums, the scene of years of often violent protests in the run-up to the demise of the Mubarak regime. A string of Mubarak era officials have been forced to resign or withdraw their candidacies for office and the Illegal Gains Authority has banned the chairman of Al Ahly, Hassan Hamdi, from travel and frozen his assets on suspicion of corruption.

The militants are further demanding justice for their 74 dead colleagues before professional soccer matches are resumed. They are frustrated with the slow progress in legal proceedings against 74 people, including nine mid-level security officers, accused of involvement in the Port Said brawl that is widely believed to have been an attempt that got out of hand to punish the militants for their role in the popular revolt and to cut them down to size. The militants also want the security forces to be deprived of their responsibility for security in the stadiums and want to see the initiation of a process of reform of the police force.

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Essam El-Erian, this month publicly backed the militants, saying he agreed that premier league soccer should remain suspended as long as the group that brought President Mohammed Morsi to office is battling its political opponents. "The Ultras were one of the most powerful forces to participate in last year's revolution. The Premier League will only resume after the final whistle is blown on this political match, which I hope ends in a draw," Mr. El-Erian said in a tweet. Mr. El-Erian was referring to divisions over the drafting of a new constitution and the judiciary’s failure to hold accountable officials responsible for the death of protesters during last year’s anti-Mubarak protests.

The interior ministry threw down a gauntlet last week when it announced that 15,000 Al Ahly fans would be allowed to attend the match against Esperance. The ministry’s decision came as players and fans held rival demonstrations for and against a lifting of the ban on soccer.

Players and fans clashed in early October in front of a Cairo hotel where Nigeria’s Sunshine Stars were staying in advance of a game against Al Ahli. The Al Ahli militants said they wanted to ensure that the Nigerian team made it safely to the match. Four police officers and 13 Al Ahly fans were injured last week in a clash between security forces and militants in front of a television station.

It was not immediately clear whether the militants would use the match against Esperance to press their demands or would boycott it in line with their opposition to a resumption of soccer. The militants exempt international matches from their rejection of a lifting of the ban on domestic premier league soccer. They have also agreed to the resumption in late November of matches in Egypt’s lower leagues.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Broadcast Rights, Unjust Enrichment, and the Student-Athlete

At the professional league level there is a long history of disputes and court challenges over property rights in the live game broadcasts.  However, the interest of the NCAA, conferences and universities in live game broadcasts from a property rights perspective has never been challenged in court.  Who owns the copyright to the broadcast of the live game?   What is the origin of the legal right of the NCAA, conferences and universities to the billions in revenue generated by their licensing of the right to broadcast the live games?   Assuming the NCAA, conferences and universities do in fact have some sort of property right or other legal right to sell these rights to networks, should they be recognized as the exclusive rights holder?  Do college players also have some sort of property right or other legal right to a portion of the licensing revenue based upon their substantial contribution to the broadcast of the game?  Afterall, the players are the sine qua non of the broadcast because it obviously does not exist, and it would not generate billions in revenue, without their contribution and year-long preparation. 

My article published this fall in Cardozo Law Review traces the historical development of broadcast rights in the professional sports leagues.  In essence, the courts have held that professional clubs have a quasi-property interest in the right to license the broadcast rights to the networks.  The network is the author of the broadcast and assigns to the league its ownership in the copyright to the broadcast pursuant to a provision in the broadcast licensing agreement.  And college sport has followed on the coattails of the professional sports league model.  Basically, the network pays the NCAA, conferences and universities billions of dollars to let their camera crew enter the stadium door and capture the game being played.  Yet nobody has challenged this exclusive putative quasi-property right of the NCAA, conferences and universities.

There are legitimate reasons to recognize an exclusive right for the professional clubs that arguably do not apply to tax-exempt public universities.  While difficult to explain in any detail in a blog post, a couple distinctions are worth mentioning briefly.  For example, professional clubs are for-profit entities with individual owners who put substantial private investment at risk through their purchase and operation of a team.  Also, professional players are employees of the clubs, which is legally significant in evaluating the property right because the Seventh Circuit in Baltimore Orioles v. MLBPA held that the players' claim to a portion of the licensing revenue was precluded on the basis of copyright law's "works for hire" doctrine  and the players can negotiate with the clubs over the value of their individual contributions to the broadcast.  College players, on the other hand, cannot be subject to the works for hire doctrine simply because, well, college sport has consistently maintained the position that the players are not employees or independent contractors who can be hired.  Viewed within the construct of common law unjust enrichment which is premised on the idea of distributive justice, my article argues that universities obtain an unjust benefit at the players' expense by retaining exclusively for themselves the portion of the increasing rights fees that would normally and equitably be paid to the players for their substantial contribution to the value in the live game broadcast.  My article also addresses whether copyright law preempts an unjust enrichment claim in this context and I explain why I do not believe that it would.

In the O'Bannon litigation, the class did not assert a claim to live broadcast licensing revenue in its complaint.  Just last month, however, the class filed a motion seeking to revise the class definition to include live game broadcast licensing revenue.   If the court ends up denying their request, I nevertheless expect to ultimately see this case coming soon to a theatre near you....

Thursday, October 25, 2012

San Francisco Bay, America's Cup Venue

One of the more striking scenes from the world of sports this week was the pitchpoling of the Oracle America's Cup yacht in San Francisco Bay during reported 25 knot winds.  Seeing this video of the capsizing was a reminder of how important the venue of a sporting event is, including venues for sports other than the major four sports, and how the attorney working with a sporting event must consider the challenges of the venue in preparing contracts for the event.

For an America's Cup regatta, one of the challenges posed by the venue is spectator proximity to the action and safety.  Unlike previous America's Cup regattas held far offshore where few spectator boats might venture, this America's Cup will be held close to shore where there will be many spectator boats.  They likely won't be high-performance racing boats like an America's Cup yacht, but they will be close to the action, on the water, and close to each other, possibly in high winds or rough seas.  Spectator safety risks must clearly be assessed, with the goal of keeping these fans safe during the event while allowing them to enjoy the action.  The America's Cup organizing authority's contracts with the relevant authorities have to address safety issues so that liability is minimized -- where can spectator boats be positioned during a race, how will safety be monitored, how many boats will be allowed in an area, what spectator boat credentials or registration will be required, what liability waivers will be obtained.  By accounting for these issues in contracts, the excitement of America's Cup racing can remain the focus during the event.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Revolt in the Middle East: Arab monarchies next?


RSIS presents the following commentary Revolt in the Middle East: Arab monarchies next? by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at  RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg


No. 200/2012 dated 24 October 2012

Revolt in the Middle East:
Arab monarchies next?
 By James M. Dorsey

      
Synopsis

The ever sharper sectarian divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East constitutes the Achilles heel of Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They have been resisting political reforms and seeking to insulate themselves from the wave of popular protests that have swept the region for the past two years.
Commentary
ARAB MONARCHS pride themselves on having so far largely managed widespread discontent in their countries with a combination of financial handouts, artificial job creation, social investment and in the cases of Jordan and Morocco, some constitutional reform. Yet, in the shadow of the escalating civil war in Syria, it is monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan that are on the cusp of the region’s convoluted transition from autocracy to more open political systems.

To be sure, the situations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan differ substantially from one another. Yet, individually and taken together they feed the worst fear of monarchs and their Western backers: a successful popular revolt in one monarchy will open the door to serious challenges to autocratic royal rule in the rest of the region’s mostly energy-rich monarchies. And underlying the differing circumstances is a deeply felt sense of social, economic and political disenfranchisement of the people that fuels the discontent in all three nations.

Playing the sectarian card

A 26-year old Shiite in the Eastern Province, the oil-rich heartland of Saudi Arabia, has come to symbolise the threat to the kingdom’s ruling family. Khalid al-Labad, who was on a wanted list because of his willingness to protest in a country that bans all demonstrations, was killed last month by security forces as he sat on a plastic chair in front of his house in silent protest in the rundown town of Awamiya. Two of his teenage relatives also died in the attack. Their death brought to 16 the number of people killed in the last year in clashes between protesters and security forces.

As in Bahrain last year before the ruling family opted for the sectarian card and brutally cracked down on calls for reform, protesters in the Eastern Province are only calling for equal opportunity in employment, an end to religious discrimination, as well as the release of political prisoners, and not the departure of the ruling Al Saud family.

In Bahrain, the minority Sunni Al Khalifa monarchy succeeded in temporarily crushing mass protests by the majority Shiites and driving them out of the capital Manama. However the frustration and anger in Bahrain continues to bubble to the surface in protests mostly in villages on the Gulf island more than a year after the Saudi-backed crackdown. Two teenaged Shias killed in recent weeks symbolised the popular unrest.

The deaths of the teenagers highlight the failure of Bahrain and Saudi rulers to recognise that their protests were rooted in an increasing unwillingness to accept discriminatory domestic policies and attitudes fuelled by the demand for social, economic and political dignity sweeping the region, rather than the product of agent provocateurs sent by predominantly Shiite Iran. Their deaths also highlights the rulers’ failure to learn the lessons of the revolts last year that toppled the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen and the resilience of Syrians in confronting a regime whose brutality overshadows anything the Middle East and North Africa has witnessed in the last two years. Brutality no longer intimidates, it fuels dissent and the resolve to defy it.

Like in Bahrain where the crackdown has produced even deeper resentment, investment in housing and other social projects in the Eastern Province has done little to quell anger that increasingly is turning violent. Protests are staged virtually every weekend in Awamiya and other towns in the region.

Benefit of the doubt

At first glance, resource-poor Jordan, although economically weaker than the Gulf states and far more threatened by multiple conflicts on its borders, has a marked advantage compared to either Saudi Arabia or Iran. It has no significant Shiite population, no ability to blame its domestic woes on an Iranian bogeyman and a monarch who has nominally embraced the notion of reform and refrained from calling in the security forces in responding to expressions of dissent.

Yet, Jordan this month witnessed the largest demonstration in demand of political and economic reform and an end to corruption since the eruption in December 2010 of mass demonstrations that swept across the region from the Gulf to the Atlantic coast of Africa. Jordanian King Abdullah’s failure to truly address widespread concerns among both the tribal and Palestinian components of his population is reflected in the appointment of its fourth prime minister in 20 months. So is his insistence to hold elections in January on the basis of an election law that prompted the resignation earlier this year of one of his prime ministers, rather than responding to popular calls for true electoral reform.

Nonetheless, King Abdullah, like his namesake in Saudi Arabia, continues to enjoy the benefit of the doubt; an asset Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah has wasted. “Our regime is good at talking about reform. As for reform itself, it still has a long way to go… there is still hope. In our monarchical system, reform is possible, and we have a history of reform that we can build upon,” said Jordanian activist Zaki Bani Rashid in a commentary in The Guardian earlier this month.

The facts on the ground decry the notion that Middle Eastern and North African revolts threaten republics rather than monarchies. That is true only if monarchs leverage the one real asset they have as opposed to the republican leaders who have so far been deposed: a degree of legitimacy that persuades the disgruntled to give them the benefit of the doubt provided they truly address real concerns rather than hide behind security forces.

Bahrain is a revolt in waiting calling for regime change; Saudi Arabia is heading for a similar fate in its economically most vital eastern region while Jordan has taken the first step but not the second on the road to reform.


James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog.


Click here for past commentaries.
Find us on Facebook.
Due to the high number of publications by our RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS), RSIS maintains a separate subscription facility for the Centre. Please click hereto subscribe to the Centre's publications.

Beyond the Pitch: World soccer’s political battles (WSG v JMD)


Anto of Beyond the Pitch and Change FIFA’s David Larkin discuss starting at minute 28:45 in this broadcast “the ongoing case of Mohammed Bin Hammam with the AFC in crosshairs, how this case could be a flashpoint that can be exploited by both Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini given their political connections and motivations as 2015 comes into view. We explore why Mohammed Bin Hammam is such an important figure, what his case tells us about sports governance and sporting justice inside football and how journalists such as James Dorsey are becoming shocking casualties throughout this process as football continues to subvert the concept of transparency by controlling information and shooting the messenger, even threatening them with legal action over sources.”

The broadcast was posted as world soccer body FIFA suspended Mr. Bin Hammam for another 45 days pending an investigation into charges that he last year bribed Caribbean soccer officials to secure their support for his electoral challenge of Sepp Blatter’s FIFA presidency. Mr. Bin Hammam was earlier suspended for 90 days after the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) overturned FIFA’s banning from involvement in soccer for life of the Qatari national. The former FIFA vice president has also been suspended as president of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) pending an investigation into his financial and commercial management of the group.

In a statement, Mr. Bin Hammam’s lawyer Edmund D. Gulland denounced FIFA’s extension of its suspension on the grounds that the soccer body had provided no justification for the measure. “The basic tenet of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty after a trial conducted according to due process. The situation that Mr Bin Hammam is facing is even more bizarre - a man who has prevailed in a trial by an independent legal body continues to be punished in an arbitrary manner…. The reasons for FIFA’s actions are of course political. Mr Bin Hammam stood against Mr Blatter in the presidential election. And he stood on a ticket of reform and restructure – wanting not only an ethical organisation, but one whose power was more devolved from the centre. So he was a threat not only to Blatter but also to the FIFA administration in Zurich. He has also made repeated calls for Blatter’s conduct in the Presidential elections to be examined,” Mr. Gulland said.

Mr. Gulland’s assertion that the worst corruption scandal in FIFA’s 108-year old history is in part political may indeed ring true. Anto and David Larkin’s discussion on the podcast offers interesting perspectives and insights and no doubt the blame in FIFA and regional soccer organizations goes round with Mr. Bin Hammam’s case serving as the tip of the iceberg and a potential monkey wrench to force long overdue reform and restructuring. That, however, does not take Mr. Bin Hammam and his associates off the hook of having to answer publicly a series of questions raised in part by an internal AFC audit conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) earlier this year.

The first 28 minutes of the podcast offers a fascinating discussion of “how racism has become yet another key political wedge issue that can be used as currency in the battle for control and commerce rather than a real instrument for change” as well as “how even FIFA and (European soccer body) UEFA continue to fail the anti-racsim and anti-discrimination efforts worldwide, essentially undermining the process for change because the monopoly of administrators in the game show little to no regard for people of colour, minorities or even the cause for women, working on a perverse calculus where even the press is used as tool for collecting cheap political points.” The podcast also looks at how UEFA president Michel Platini “is positioning himself and UEFA for his bid for the FIFA Presidency.”

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

RIP Russell Means

Activist, actor, musician, agitator, politician and former American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Russell Means passed today from esophageal cancer, at the age of 72.  He died at his ranch located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota,  the place where he was born in 1939.  Means was a fierce advocate of American Indian rights and led dozens of protests and uprisings throughout his life ranging from seizing the Mayflower II in Plymouth, Mass on Thanksgiving day in 1970 (protesting discriminatory treatment of American Indians), to orchestrating a 1971 prayer vigil atop the Mount Rushmore monument in South Dakota (dramatizing Lakota claims to the Black Hills), to organizing cross-country caravans in 1972 to Washington, D.C. (protesting a century of broken treaties by the U.S. government), to leading a boycott of Cleveland Indian games in the 1990s (protesting the use of Chief Wahoo as a racist, caricatured mascot/logo).

Russell Means' method of protest was often controversial and violent.  He was arrested many times, served time, shot several times, and criticized as an "opportunist" by critics.  According to the New York Times: "Strapping, and ruggedly handsome in buckskins, with a scarred face, piercing dark eyes and raven braids that dangled to the waist, Mr. Means was, by his own account, a magnet for trouble — addicted to drugs and alcohol in his early years and later arrested repeatedly in violent clashes with rivals and the law. He was tried for abetting a murder, shot several times, stabbed once and imprisoned for a year for rioting. He styled himself a throwback to ancestors who resisted the westward expansion of the American frontier. With theatrical protests that brought national attention to poverty and discrimination suffered by his people, he became arguably the nation’s best-known Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse."

In protesting Chief Wahoo as mascot and logo of the Cleveland Indians, Russell Means referred to its continuing use as "unconscionable."  He was outspoken throughout his life challenging professional sports franchises and collegiate athletic programs use of American Indian mascots and mimicry of sacred native culture and tradition.  When asked about Florida State's mascot Chief Osceola, Means responded that "we’re the only entire ethnicity in America that is still stereotyped."  In describing American Indians as the only minority group in the United States that is still stereotyped, Means focused in on an interesting phenomenon that has been written about by scholars and debated in symposia:  Why when it would be unthinkable to call a sports team by a racially charged nickname in connection with African American, Latino or Asian citizens, is it still somehow tolerated to refer to teams as "Redskins," "Indians," "Braves," "Blackhawks," "Utes," and "Seminoles"?

Russell Means is most recognized for two well known portrayals, though very divergent:  First, he led a 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, the site of the 1890 massacre of more than 350 Lakota men, women and children, often referred to as the last major conflict of the American Indian wars, where protestors demanded strict adherence by the federal government to all Indian treaties.  Second, he starred as Chingachgook in Michael Mann's 1992 epic "The Last of the Mohicans" alongside Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe.  Means received critical attention for his portrayal of the fiery, brave father/leader of the Mohican people.

Russell Means used his notoriety to advocate on behalf of equality on behalf of American Indians until his untimely death.

Outsourcing NCAA enforcement

An excellent and thoughtful essay in The Atlantic from my friend and law school classmate Stephen Miller, arguing that the NCAA should charge an outside body with conducting major investigations and punishments. Steve is a former Scalia clerk and AUSA; his practice now includes representing athletes in NCAA proceedings. He also is a lifelong Kentucky fan, so he is personally familiar with the vagaries of NCAA enforcement.

This is an interesting take, especially if we begin from the premise that the NCAA is here to stay, that there is good reason to regulate intercollegiate athletics and the conduct of student-athletes (in terms of amateurism, academics, etc.), and that self-regulation, given the structure of college sports, is unworkable.

Friday, October 19, 2012

AU returns the Middle East and Africa’s most abused stadium to soccer


Al Shabab gunmen in Mogadishu Stadium

By James M. Dorsey

In a sign of improved security in Somalia, African Union (AU) troops will return Mogadishu Stadium, the most abused sports facility in a region with a history of battered stadiums, to the Somali Football Federation (SFF).

The AU decision highlights the recent, significant setbacks suffered by Al Shabab, the Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militia that banned soccer alongside bras, music, movies, moustaches and gold fillings during the years that it controlled large chunks of football-crazy Somalia, including the stadium.

It also celebrates the SFF’s leading role in resisting Al Shabab’s austere lifestyle based on an interpretation of Islamic law that is contested even in jihadist circles and successful campaign to win back child soldiers by offering them a future in soccer.

The return follows a meeting in the stadium earlier this week between commanders of the African Union peacekeepers in Somalia (AMISOM) and SFF officials led by secretary general Abdi Qani Said Arab.

“In December 2010 we held the first edition of regional football tournament in more than 20 years and that tournament had yielded positive results in terms of disarming child soldiers, creating friendship among people and spreading football throughout the country,” Mr. Arab said after the meeting.

Mr. Arab was referring to an SFF campaign backed by world soccer body FIFA and local businessmen under the slogan ‘Put down the gun, pick up the ball” that threw down a gauntlet for the jihadists by luring child soldiers away from them.

"However difficult our situation is, we believe football can play a major role in helping peace and stability prevail in our country, and that is what our federation has long been striving to attain. Football is here to stay, not only as game to be played but as a catalyst for peace and harmony in society," said Shafi’i Moyhaddin, one of the driving forces behind the campaign, in an interview last year.

Mahad Mohammed was one of hundreds of children the association assisted in swapping jihad for soccer, the only institution that competed with radical Islam in offering young populations a prospect of a better life.

“People were afraid of me when I had an AK-47; now they love and congratulate me. I thank the football federation, they helped me. I just drifted into being a soldier; it is hard to say how it happened. Some friends of mine ended up being fighters and they used to tell me that it was a good and exciting life and much better than doing nothing or being on the streets. After I spent some time doing that, I understood that it wasn’t like that at all and I was happy to get out.” Mahad said.

The SFF hopes to host in December a soccer tournament for the first time in more than two decades in the 70,000-seat stadium that was built with Chinese aid in the 1970s and once was the region’s largest sport facility.

The tournament would symbolize Somalia’s fragile retreat from the brink following a string of military defeats by Al Shabab at the hands of the African peacekeepers and Somali military. Al Shabab last month lost control of its last urban outpost but still has a foothold in southern and central parts of the country. Hassan Sheikh Mohamud became in September the first Somali president to be elected by parliament and inaugurated since the country slipped into civil war in 1991.

Mogadishu stadium, occupying strategic ground in the northern part of the city, has since been controlled by a host of militias, including Al Shabab which used it for training and public executions until last year when the AU established its command headquarters in the facility.

As a result, the facility topped the list of abuse of stadiums that bear the scars of the battles fought on their terrain in a swath of land stretching from the Gulf to the Atlantic coast of Africa in which militants and autocrats use stadiums for their own purposes.

In Iraq, deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's sadistic son Uday humiliated national soccer team players in Baghdad’s Stadium for the People when they failed to perform. US and Iraqi forces discovered mass graves in several Iraqi stadiums since the overthrow of Saddam.

Syrian security forces have in the last 20 months herded anti-government protesters into stadiums in Latakia, Dera’a and Baniyas. The use of the stadiums evoked memories of the government's 1982 assault on the Syrian city of Hama to crush an earlier uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in which at least 10,000 people were killed. A 1983 Amnesty International report charged that the city’s stadium was used at the time to detain large numbers of residents who were left for days in the open without food or shelter.

Christian militia men responsible for the 1982 massacres in the Beirut Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla to which Israeli invasion forces turned a blind eye converted a local soccer pitch into their staging ground.

Egyptian stadiums were for years the venue of pitched battles between security forces and militant soccer fans who refused to concede control of a space they considered their own to a regime they increasingly saw as brutal and corrupt.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

World Cup qualifier: A battle for Iranian women’s rights


Fatma Iktasari second from left) and Shabnam Kazimi (second from right) defy ban on women (Source:  http://bahal31.persianblog.ir) 

By James M. Dorsey

When Iran beat favourite South Korea this week in a 2014 World Cup qualifier, it was not the only battle being fought in Tehran’s Azadi stadium. So was the fight for the right of women to attend soccer matches in the Islamic Republic.

Fatma Iktasari and Shabnam Kazimi, dressed in the men’s clothes they wore to disguise themselves and illegally enter the stadium to watch the match, showed the victory sign in a picture published on an Iranian blog after the match. They were posing together with male friends and an Iranian flag.

A poem accompanying the picture read:

“Heroes, warriors

Dream one day of a workshop with the kids in the ‘freedom’ gym

The name ‘Iran’ did not vanish until the moment of victory and yelling

The days of Good Hope to India

My people even a little bit happy, happiness experienced once again

I was glad that we were always on their side.”

The two women’s act of defiance like an earlier apparent willingness by the Iranian soccer federation to allow women into stadium for Asian Football Confederation (AFC) championship matches this summer sparked significant debate on Iranian social media networks with many participants praising the two women’s courage.

Their protest highlighted the schizophrenic conditions of women’s soccer in the Islamic republic where women, properly dressed in line with Islamic precepts, are allowed to play soccer in front of all-women audiences but are banned from entering an all-men stadium as spectators.

The protest also revived an effort in the middle of the last decade by women soccer fans to defy the ban by dressing up as men. The campaign was depicted in Offside by filmmaker Jafar Panahi, who is currently serving a six year jail sentence for “creating propaganda against the Iranian republic.” Mr. Panahi, a key figure in Iran's cinematic New Wave movement, was further banned from film making, travel and speaking to the media for a period of 20 years.

Offside described the fictionalized arrest by police of six young women and girls who smuggled themselves dressed as men into Tehran's stadium to watch Iran's national team play Bahrain. A more recent movie, Shirin Was A Canary, recounts the tale of a girl who is expelled from school for her love of soccer

The campaign waged albeit by a small group of women prompted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to lift the ban in 2006 in a move that was overruled in an early public disagreement between the two men.
Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani argued at the time that "women looking at a man's body even if not for the sake of gratification is inappropriate.”

Some sources close to the Iranian government believe however that Mr. Khamenei may as yet relent on the issue of women’s attendance at soccer matches in advance of next year’s presidential election. “Given the economic situation, Khamenei needs to give social groups something,” one source said.

Solmaz Sharif, the founder of Shirzanan, an on-line Farsi-language women’s sports website created after she was refused a license to establish a magazine, highlighted in a recent commentary in The Huffington Post the inherent contradictions in Iranian policy after the women’s volleyball team was allowed to compete in front of mixed gender audience at the London Olympics.

“Although the Iranian government has permitted some women's teams to participate in international competitions, it greatly restricts their participation in domestic games. For instance, no men are allowed to watch women's games in Iran. This raises a few questions about the intentions of Iranian sporting officials: If it is "Islamic enough" for women to play in front of global audiences, then why they can't play in Iran? And such international participation doesn't meet Islamic requirements, did the Iranian government merely agree with it to avoid international pressure?” Ms. Sharif wrote.

Hopes were dashed this summer when contrary to expectation the AFC failed to impose its standards by insisting that women would be allowed into the stadium to watch AFC Under-16 Championship matches that were being played in Iran.

The hopes were sparked when AFC Director of National Team competition Shin Mangal was quoted by Shiite news agency Shafaqna as saying that "so far as AFC is concerned, there should be no sex discrimination regarding the presence of men and women at stadiums."

The AFC said it had received assurances from Ali Kaffashian, the head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation (IRIFF) that it would comply with AFC regulations. The AFC quoted Mr. Kaffashian as saying at the drawing of the groups for the tournament that the IRIFF is “fully ready to follow all the requirements and instructions from AFC.”

The Iranian soccer boss repeated his position in remarks to Iranian reformist newspaper Sharq. In an editorial the newspaper said "the youth championships could create a great change in Iranian football. They are an excellent opportunity."

An estimated 1,000 women in a rare instance were allowed last year into the Azadi stadium to commemorate the death of Nasser Hejazi, an internationally acclaimed defender who became in his last days an outspoken critic of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s economic policy.

The ceremony turned into an anti-Ahmadinejad protest with the crowds shouting “Hejazi, you spoke in the name of the people” “Goodbye Hejazi, today the brave are mourning.”

In late 1997 in Tehran, some 5,000 women stormed the stadium in protest the ban on women to celebrate revolutionary Iran’s first ever qualification for the World Cup finals. The protest erupted barely a month after the election of Mohammed Khatami as president at a time of anticipated liberalization. Men and women danced in the streets together to blacklisted music and sang nationalist songs as they did six months later when Iran defeated the United States.

“In terms of freedom of expression, soccer stadiums are nearly as important as the Internet in Iran now. The protest is more secure there because the police can't arrest thousands of people at once. State television broadcasts many matches live and the people use it as a stage for resistance. They're showing banners to the cameras and chanting protest songs which is why some games are broadcast without sound now,” says an Iranian sports journalist.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

O'Bannon v. NCAA: Where things stand

I have an article in the October 15th issue of Sports Illustrated that provides a legal analysis of recent developments in the Ed O'Bannon v. NCAA & Electronic Arts class action. 

Here's an excerpt:

* * *

Second, potentially damaging e-mails involving two other defendants—Collegiate Licensing Company (the NCAA's licensing partner) and Electronic Arts—have emerged. These e-mails portray CLC officials as worried about the legal impact of Electronic Arts's developing video-game characters using real college players' names and then removing those names before retail.

 * * *

Hope you can check it out on page 19 or through this SI Vault link.

Divided AFC blasts Bin Hammam’s ‘intimidation tactics’



Mohammed Bin Hammam

By James M. Dorsey

Acting Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Zhang Jilong in an uncharacteristic outburst has accused the group’s suspended president Mohammed Bin Hammam and his lawyer, Eugene Gulland, of adopting “intimidatory tactics” in his battle to defeat charges of bribery, corruption and financial mismanagement.

Sources close to the AFC said Mr. Jilong’s public attack on Mr. Bin Hammam, who has also been suspended as world soccer body FIFA vice president, followed a barrage of emails and other communications in which the Qatari national allegedly threatened and intimidated AFC executive committee members and staff. The sources said Mr. Bin Hammam had no right to contact individual AFC officials and should direct any communication’s to the group’s legal department.

Mr. Bin Hammam is under investigation by the Malaysian police as well as the AFC and FIFA. Mr. Gulland, in an email to this reporter, rejected Mr. Jilong and the source’s charges.

Mr. Jilong charged in a letter dated October 17 that Mr. Bin Hammam and Mr. Gulland’s “plan is intimidate and create technical legal issues and objections in the hope that the more serious allegations of secret commissions, bribery, corruption and other wrong-doings are never exposed to the light of day.”

The acting AFC chairman also rejected charges that the AFC’s investigation of Mr. Bin Hammam was riddled with conflicts of interest or that he had at any time benefitted personally from the disgraced official’s support. Mr. Bin Hammam reportedly asserted in a letter dated October 8 that he had made payments to Mr. Jilong. Mr.Bin Hammam first made the assertion in a meeting last month in London with FIFA investigators.

“Mr. Bin Hammam and Mr. Gulland do not want the Asian Football Confederation to consider the evidence that now exists and for which Mr. Bin Hammam must answer. The immediate task I believe is that we must all agree to allow our independent Judicial Bodies to hear the evidence and decide the case against Mr. Bin Hammam. We can then take the next steps in our journey of re-building the Asian Football Confederation,” M. Jilong said.

“Accordingly, AFC is investigating whether there are sufficient legal grounds to file an ethics violation against Mr. Gulland to stop improper legal defence tactics intended only to interfere with the independent functions of the AFC Judicial Bodies,” Mr. Jilong went on to say.

Mr. Bin Hammam was first banned for life in July of last year by FIFA from any involvement in professional soccer after the group’s ethics committee found him guilty of bribing Caribbean soccer officials to secure their vote in his failed electoral challenge to Sepp Blatter’s presidency. The ban was overturned by the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) on the grounds of insufficient evidence in a ruling that stressed that it was not declaring Mr. Bin Hammam innocent and that urged FIFA to present a properly investigated case.

Mr. Bin Hammam was this summer again suspended by FIFA and the AFC after an independent auditor’s report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) charged that he had used an AFC sundry account as his personal account and questioned the terms and negotiation procedure of a $1 billion master rights agreement (MRA) with the Singapore-based World Sports Group (WSG). The PwC report also raised questions about $14 million in payments by a WSG shareholder to Mr. Bin Hammam prior to the signing of the agreement.

A Singapore court at the request of WSG last month instructed this reporter to reveal his sources for his reporting on the report as well as Mr. Bin Hammam’s relationship to the company. A Singapore judge is scheduled to hear on October 30 Mr. Dorsey’s appeal against the ruling.

In an affidavit to the court, Mr. Dorsey asserted last month that he believed that WSG’s legal action was an attempt at “indirectly discovering who within the AFC may have breached their confidentiality and also suppress any well meaning or good intended person from coming forward in the future and is seeking to punitively punish those who may have spoken against them.”

In his letter to AFC members, Mr. Jilong noted that Mr. Bin Hammam was framing his communications as an AFC official. “As an example of this unwarranted interference, I would like to ask that we all stop for one moment and recognize that Mr. Bin Hammam’s communication to you as an AFC Official certainly is a violation of FIFA’s provisional ban against Mr. Bin Hammam. We have referred his actions to FIFA. The provisional FIFA ban which is still valid and has not been lifted was enacted or put in place to prevent Mr. Bin Hammam from participating in association football activities which includes sending letters to the AFC Disciplinary and Appeal Committees,” Mr. Jilong said.

In his email, Mr. Gulland asserted that “a group of AFC officials working with FIFA” was “trying to seize control of the AFC.” As part of that scheme, Mr. Gulland said the officials and FIFA were “trying to take over the disciplinary decision-making machinery in order to make sure that Mr. Bin Hammam cannot return to AFC. They have threatened to bring disciplinary charges against anyone in Asian football who communicated with Mr. Bin Hammam to oppose their tactics.” Mr. Gulland said Mr. Bin Hammam had advised the AFC officials whose actions were “in violation of the law and AFC statutes” that he would take “legal measures to protect his rights if the officials persist in this conduct.”

The dispute over Mr. Bin Hammam has sharply divided the AFC with detractors of the suspended official acting in the name of the group without the knowledge of its most senior officials. As a result, Mr. Jilong in his letter warned that the AFC is at a crossroads.

“We have a simple choice to make in the face of the distractions being thrown in our direction. We can decide to roll up ourselves and do the work such as amending our controlling statutes to put in place comprehensive by-laws and regulations which actually create a system of governance that leads to transparency and accountability. Or, we can ignore the truth and go back to business like it was before while pretending that it is acceptable for one man to assume control of this Football Confederation and run it like it was his own private business,” Mr. Jilong said.

“I believe, I understand and know the direction we must take to get where we want to be – and I believe right now we must stay the course and see the legal process that has been started through to its end. I never asked to become the Acting President or to take on these incredibly difficult problems and responsibilities. But I will not run away from this work either and I ask for your help and support,” he said.

In its report, PwC said that “it is highly unusual for funds (especially in the amounts detailed here) that appear to be for the benefit of Mr Hammam personally, to be deposited to an organization’s bank account. In view of the recent allegations that have surrounded Mr Hammam, it is our view that there is significant risk that…the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder funds and that the funds have been credited to the former President for an improper purpose (Money Laundering risk)” or that “the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder the receipt and payment of bribes.”

Malaysian police last month arrested the husband of an associate of Mr. Bin Hammam on suspicion of helping steal documents related to one of the payments to Mr. Bin Hammam from AFC’s head office in Kuala Lumpur.

Mr. Bin Hammam has repeatedly denied all the charges. Mr. Bin Hammam last month reportedly furnished FIFA investigators with his own independent expert's report from London accountants Smith and Williamson into the AFC account that was said to include a line-by-line explanation of all expenditure.

WSG has so far not commented publicly on the PwC report or its relationship or that of its shareholder with Mr. Bin Hammam. However in an August 28, 2012 letter to this reporter WSG that threatened legal action, Group Legal Advisor Stephanie McManus asserted that “PWC are incorrect and misconceived in suggesting that the MRA (master rights agreement) was undervalued. They have neither considered the terms of the contract correctly, the market, nor the circumstances in which it was negotiated,” Ms. McManus wrote.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Yale Law School Alumni Weekend: Panels on Sports and Entertainment law

I'm thrilled to be part of this weekend's Yale Law School Alumni Weekend, which is centered on sports and entertainment law this year.  If you're in the New Haven area, you might consider registering for it and seeing what should be excellent panels and other events.


Saturday, October 20

9:30 – 10:45 AM
Panel Discussions (two concurrent sessions)

PANEL I. Streaming and Beaming:  Entertainment Where and When You Want It
Moderator:  
Bryan Choi, Thomson Reuters Fellow, and Director of the Law and Media Program, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
Panelists: 
Emily Bazelon '00, Journalist, Slate, and Senior Research Scholar, and Capote Fellow, Yale Law School
Richard Cotton '69, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, NBC Universal
Alfred C. Perry '87, Vice President, Worldwide Content Protection & Outreach, Paramount Pictures Corporation
Kenneth P. Stern '88, Co-founder and President, Palisades Media Ventures, and former CEO, National Public Radio
PANEL II. Many Voices, Many Eyes: The Promises and Pitfalls of Social Networks
Moderator: 
Margot E. Kaminski '10, Research Scholar in Law, Executive Director of the Information Society Project, and Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School
Panelists:
Lori B. Andrews '78, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law
James Grimmelmann '05, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Beth Simone Noveck '97, Visiting Professor, NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and MIT Media Lab, and Professor of Law, New York Law School
Madhavi Sunder, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis
11:15 AM – 12:30 PM
Panel Discussions (two concurrent sessions)

PANEL III.  Yours, Mine and Ours: Ownership of Cultural Capital
Moderator:
Susan M. Scafidi '93, Professor & President, Fashion Law Institute, Fordham Law
Panelists: 
Barton Beebe '00, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
David Boies II '66, Chairman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Kristelia A. Garcia '03, Frank H. Marks Intellectual Property Fellow & Visiting Associate Professor, The George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
Marc Porter '87, Chairman, Christie’s Americas and International Head, Christie’s Private Sales
PANEL IV.  In the Legal Zone: Hot Topics in Sports Law
Moderator:
Michael McCann, Director, Sports Law Institute, and Professor of Law, Vermont Law School
Panelists:
Eleanor (Nell) DeVane '93,  Vice President and Associate General Counsel, ESPN
Jimmy Golen '99 M.S.L., Sports Writer, The Associated Press
Craig A. Masback '92, Senior Sports Marketing Director, Greater China, Japan & Global Business Affairs, Nike; and former CEO, USA Track & Field (1997-2008)
Charles S. Mechem, Jr. '55, Commissioner Emeritus, Ladies Professional Golf Association; and Chairman and CEO, Taft Broadcasting Company
12:45 PM

All Alumni Luncheon
University Commons (Enter either on the corner of College and Grove Streets or from
Beinecke Plaza off Wall Street)

Opening Remarks:
John R. Firestone '85, President, Yale Law School Association Executive Committee, and Partner, Pavia & Harcourt LLP
Robert C. Post '77, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Presentation of the Yale Law School Association Award of Merit to:
David Boies II '66, Chairman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Presented by: Dean Robert C. Post '77

Remembrances:
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak '48 (1922-2012), Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1978-2012); and dean, Yale Law School (1965-70) and University of Pennsylvania Law School (1975-78).  
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach '47 (1922-2012), Associate Professor, Yale Law School (1952-56); U.S. Attorney General (1965-66), and Senior Vice President and General Counsel, IBM (1968-86).
80th Birthday Celebration:
The Honorable Guido Calabresi '58, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law and dean (1985-94), Yale Law School