The attorney for former New York Jets hostess Jenn Sterger sounded off after the NFL announced it fined Vikings QB Brett Favre $50,000 for failing to cooperate into a league investigation into whether Favre sent inappropriate text messages to Sterger when he was quarterback of the Jets.
"It clearly shows that an NFL star player was given preferential treatment and tells all other players that failure to cooperate may cost you some money but it will not result in other punishment," said James Conway.
Conway added that the "decision is an affront to all females and shows once again, that the NFL remains the good old boys' league."
It also is another example of the broad discretion afforded to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell who has sole authority for enforcement of the rules. Goodell's method of exercising his "sole authority" seems to have a lack of consistency.
The Favre case came to the league's attention months ago. While the NFL immediately launched an investigation into Favre's conduct, it's failure to timely arrange interviews of those involved led many observers to suggest that the league deliberately dragged its feet so as not to derail Favre's streak of consecutive games played.
The timeline to complete the Favre investigation compared to other actions taken by Goodell this season is staggering. For example, in October Steelers linebacker James Harrison delivered a helmet-to-helmet hit on Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi prompting the league to debate whether to adopt stricter rules for illegal contact. Harrison was fined $75,000 in less than one week and shortly thereafter stricter rules were in place.
"Spygate II" is another example. On November 12, Commissioner Goodell learned about former Broncos Head Coach Josh McDaniels' involvement in the filming of a 49ers practice in violation of league rules. Less than a week later, Goodell's investigation was complete and McDaniels was fined $50,000.
Goodell may have "complete authority" to investigate and punish players, however, Attorney Conway and other critics have a legitimate complaint in that the Commissioner seems to come up with different game plan depending on the subject of the investigation.
News, commentary, and legal updates from Preti Flaherty's Sports Law attorneys
Olympic Champion Charged with Threatening to Kill His Wife with an Illegal Firearm
The 2008 Olympic Marathon Champion and Olympic Record holder, Samuel Wanjiru, was charged today in Kenya with threatening to kill his wife, Tereza Njeri, with an illegal firearm. The 2010 Chicago Marathon Champion was release on Sh300,000 bond ($3,700 USD).
Wanjiru, widely regarded as the world's greatest marathoner, won the 2009 London Marathon in 2:05:10 and the 2009 Chicago Marathon in a course record time of 2:05:41. He is the former world record holder at the half marathon (58:35).
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Olympic%20champion%20Wanjiru%20charged%20over%20threat%20to%20wifes%20life/-/1056/1080978/-/93oaq5/-/index.html
Wanjiru, widely regarded as the world's greatest marathoner, won the 2009 London Marathon in 2:05:10 and the 2009 Chicago Marathon in a course record time of 2:05:41. He is the former world record holder at the half marathon (58:35).
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Olympic%20champion%20Wanjiru%20charged%20over%20threat%20to%20wifes%20life/-/1056/1080978/-/93oaq5/-/index.html
Eligibility Consequences if Taurasi’s Drug Test is Positive
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
On December 24, the Turkish Basketball Federation released a statement that a preliminary drug test performed on former UConn Husky and Phoenix Mercury guard Diana Taurasi was positive for the stimulant modafinil. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, modafinil is classified a wakefulness promoting agent and is used to treat excessive sleepiness, sleeping disorders, and other sleep-related conditions. Modafinil is currently on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (“WADA”) Prohibited List under “non-specified” stimulants and a positive test for the drug calls for a two-year suspension under the World Anti-Doping Code.
Taurasi, who is currently playing for Fenerbahce of Istanbul, submitted to a routine drug test in early November. The sample she submitted was divided in half and, last week, her “A” sample was returned with a positive test. Taurasi is presently serving a temporary suspension while she awaits the results of the “B” sample. If the “B” sample is negative, then the results of the “A” sample are considered a false positive. If, however, her “B” sample is positive for modafinil, Taurasi’s eligibility for 2012 Olympics, the Turkish Basketball Federation, and the WNBA could be in jeopardy.
Pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code, the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample constitutes a violation. WADA has adopted a strict liability standard for drug tests, meaning the intent and knowledge of the athlete in taking the substance has no impact on the results. Specific circumstances, however, can be taken into consideration when a decision-making board or tribunal issues a sanction. This is particularly important for many athletes participating in international competitions in light of the controversial rule promulgated by International Olympic Committee (“IOC”).
In 2008, the IOC adopted a rule that would automatically disqualify an athlete from the next Olympic Games if he or she had received a suspension of more than six-months due to an anti-doping violation. The IOC’s rule, commonly known as “Rule 45”, has been criticized for sanctioning athletes with additional penalties in direct violation of the World Anti-Doping Code. Nevertheless, “Rule 45” has yet to be challenged before any tribunal where the IOC has also been a party.
It is important to recognize that until the results of Taurasi’s “B” sample are returned positive, she has not committed an anti-doping violation. All the same, in the event that the results are positive, many questions loom about the future of her career.
For example, it is unclear whether Taurasi would remain eligible for the Turkish Basketball Federation. Given the league’s initial compliance with the WADA process, it is possible that the league would extend her current suspension. Many professional leagues in North America have been critical of the WADA process and it is possible that a WADA doping violation would mean little to her eligibility for the WNBA. However, the media fallout from the positive “A” sample coupled with Taurasi’s 2009 WNBA suspension for a DUI conviction could mean harsher than normal consequences from the WNBA. Finally, if Taurasi tests positive for modafinil – she would join a list of athletes whose anti-doping sanction places their 2012 Olympic eligibility in jeopardy. Taurasi would have to clear multiple hurdles to maintain her eligibility if she is found to have tested positive a second time for the drug and she receives a two year ban. The two year ban beginning now would make her ineligible for the Games regardless of “Rule 45”. As such, she would have to appeal any ban or suspension that keeps her out of international play through June of 2012. Next, if Taurasi receives a ban of something less than two years but anything more than six months, she would have to challenge “Rule 45” directly in an arbitration proceeding where IOC is a party. To do this, she would likely have to be named to the U.S. Olympic basketball team before any legitimate challenge could be made.
Until an athlete directly challenges “Rule 45”, a sanction of more than six months means no London 2012. Taurasi might be the ideal athlete to challenge the rule given her alleged violation is the result of stimulant used to treat sleep-related disorders and she is one of the top basketball players in the world. Arguably, the United States has a lot to lose if she is ineligible to compete and thus might be willing to expend resources to challenge the IOC rule before the highest court of international sport, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In the coming weeks, Taurasi’s eligibility will be on the forefront of international sport topics. Her possible failure might be the first time many leagues deal with a highly publicized WADA violation and could be precedent setting for many athletes and leagues in the future.
Taurasi, who is currently playing for Fenerbahce of Istanbul, submitted to a routine drug test in early November. The sample she submitted was divided in half and, last week, her “A” sample was returned with a positive test. Taurasi is presently serving a temporary suspension while she awaits the results of the “B” sample. If the “B” sample is negative, then the results of the “A” sample are considered a false positive. If, however, her “B” sample is positive for modafinil, Taurasi’s eligibility for 2012 Olympics, the Turkish Basketball Federation, and the WNBA could be in jeopardy.
Pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code, the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample constitutes a violation. WADA has adopted a strict liability standard for drug tests, meaning the intent and knowledge of the athlete in taking the substance has no impact on the results. Specific circumstances, however, can be taken into consideration when a decision-making board or tribunal issues a sanction. This is particularly important for many athletes participating in international competitions in light of the controversial rule promulgated by International Olympic Committee (“IOC”).
In 2008, the IOC adopted a rule that would automatically disqualify an athlete from the next Olympic Games if he or she had received a suspension of more than six-months due to an anti-doping violation. The IOC’s rule, commonly known as “Rule 45”, has been criticized for sanctioning athletes with additional penalties in direct violation of the World Anti-Doping Code. Nevertheless, “Rule 45” has yet to be challenged before any tribunal where the IOC has also been a party.
It is important to recognize that until the results of Taurasi’s “B” sample are returned positive, she has not committed an anti-doping violation. All the same, in the event that the results are positive, many questions loom about the future of her career.
For example, it is unclear whether Taurasi would remain eligible for the Turkish Basketball Federation. Given the league’s initial compliance with the WADA process, it is possible that the league would extend her current suspension. Many professional leagues in North America have been critical of the WADA process and it is possible that a WADA doping violation would mean little to her eligibility for the WNBA. However, the media fallout from the positive “A” sample coupled with Taurasi’s 2009 WNBA suspension for a DUI conviction could mean harsher than normal consequences from the WNBA. Finally, if Taurasi tests positive for modafinil – she would join a list of athletes whose anti-doping sanction places their 2012 Olympic eligibility in jeopardy. Taurasi would have to clear multiple hurdles to maintain her eligibility if she is found to have tested positive a second time for the drug and she receives a two year ban. The two year ban beginning now would make her ineligible for the Games regardless of “Rule 45”. As such, she would have to appeal any ban or suspension that keeps her out of international play through June of 2012. Next, if Taurasi receives a ban of something less than two years but anything more than six months, she would have to challenge “Rule 45” directly in an arbitration proceeding where IOC is a party. To do this, she would likely have to be named to the U.S. Olympic basketball team before any legitimate challenge could be made.
Until an athlete directly challenges “Rule 45”, a sanction of more than six months means no London 2012. Taurasi might be the ideal athlete to challenge the rule given her alleged violation is the result of stimulant used to treat sleep-related disorders and she is one of the top basketball players in the world. Arguably, the United States has a lot to lose if she is ineligible to compete and thus might be willing to expend resources to challenge the IOC rule before the highest court of international sport, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In the coming weeks, Taurasi’s eligibility will be on the forefront of international sport topics. Her possible failure might be the first time many leagues deal with a highly publicized WADA violation and could be precedent setting for many athletes and leagues in the future.
Preti Sports Law Blog Named One of the Top 50 Blogs Covering the Sports Industry
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Preti Sports Law Blog is one of 10 in the Sports Law Blog category and received the following accolades:
Preti Flaherty’s Sports Law Practice Group understands the challenges and legal needs facing professionals in the sports arena.
To see the complete list of the Top 50 Blogs Covering the Sports Industry click here
Preti Flaherty’s Sports Law Practice Group understands the challenges and legal needs facing professionals in the sports arena.
To see the complete list of the Top 50 Blogs Covering the Sports Industry click here
Shaq’s suit for trademark infringement in Nevada reaches summary judgment stage
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
While Shaquille O’Neal keeps busy conducting the Boston Pops and playing center for the conference leading Boston Celtics, his legal team in Nevada has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a trademark infringement case involving the trademark SHAQTUS. The alleged infringer registered the domain names SHAQTUS.COM and SHAQTUS.NET and sold clothing under the name SHAQTUS ORANGE CLOTHING COMPANY. The Defendant’s online clothing store featured among other things an animated character wearing a number 32 Phoenix Suns jersey (the number Shaq wore when he played for the Suns in 2008).
The Summary Judgment Motion brought by O’Neal’s lawyers seeks judgment on the trademark claims and on a rights of publicity claim brought under a Nevada state statute that protects against the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s image. Shaq’s legal team is seeking a permanent injunction, payment of attorney’s fees and an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
The Defendant’s opposition to the Summary Judgment Motion is due in mid-January.
The Summary Judgment Motion brought by O’Neal’s lawyers seeks judgment on the trademark claims and on a rights of publicity claim brought under a Nevada state statute that protects against the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s image. Shaq’s legal team is seeking a permanent injunction, payment of attorney’s fees and an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
The Defendant’s opposition to the Summary Judgment Motion is due in mid-January.
Learning from the Cam Newton Case
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
NCAA President Mark Emmert summed it up best in his comments earlier in the week that "many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could shop around a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete's eligibility."
A closer look at the NCAA review process shows that student-athletes are much more likely to be spared from a suspension or other penalty as opposed to a school which is found to have broken the rules. A major reason is the differences in the review processes involved. Student-athletes are funneled through the "resinstatement" process versus schools which are subjected to "enforcement" proceedings. Enforcement allows investigators the time to build a much stronger case and therefore has a better chance of resulting in sanctions.
The reinstatement process, which Cam Newton recently experienced, always begins with the school acknowledging to the NCAA that a rule has been violated. Immediately the NCAA is playing "catch-up" on the situation and learning from the school rather than from its own investigators. Newton's case is well known, centering on allegations that his father shopped his services in exchange for cash. Once the school notifies the NCAA of the violation the school can choose whether to seek reinstatement. According to the NCAA, it is rare for schools not to seek reinstatement. However, it happens frequently in cases where the student did something against advice given by the school.
In seeking reinstatement, the school makes its case before the a reinstatement panel explaining the circumstances. A major factor in whether the student-athlete is resinstated is personal culpability. The question facing the panel in Cam Newton's case was whether he was aware or should have been aware that his father was soliciting schools for money. The process moves quickly with the reinstatement panel issuing its decision on a student-athlete's eligibility sometimes in a day or two. Newton was reinstated because the panel found he was not to blame.
In comparison, the enforcement process focuses on the schools and can take months or in some cases years to complete factoring in appeals. Here, the process is flipped with the enforcement staff generally initiating an investigation rather than the school. The school is made aware of an investigation by written notice. Monitoring recruiting is the most well known function of the enforcement staff. On balance, this process is more closely aligned with a formal legal proceeding in that enforcement staff has discovery tools where it interviews the school, student-athletes, and other witnesses. As a result, an enforcement case against a school has the potential to be much stronger than a resinstatement case against a student-athlete.
Once the enforcement investigation is complete, a school is informed of alleged violations. The school then has 90 days to respond and hearings are held thereafter before the Committee on Infractions. The Committee then announces whether penalties such as loss of scholarships or bans on post-season play are appropriate. The school then has the opportunity for an appeal hearing.
Student-athelete cases like Cam Newton's are generally dealt with in the reinstatement process rather than the enforcement process because of the timeline involved. The NCAA has taken the position that it would be unfair to student-athletes to declare them ineligible for what in some cases would amount to an entire season pending the outcome of the enforcement process especially in the event a student-athlete is cleared of any wrongdoing.
While many college football fans might conclude from the Newton case that the reinstatement process is broken it did provide a timely review so that Newton had the opportunity to not miss any games. If the misconduct was limited to Newton's father this seems like a reasonable and fair result. Critics would say the danger is that there was not enough time for the NCAA to properly investigate and the facts relied upon were provided to the reinstatement panel by Auburn University. Although, the NCAA has been adamant in suggesting that if Newton was found "culpable" he would have faced an appropriate sanction including possibly not being eligible for post-season play.
A closer look at the NCAA review process shows that student-athletes are much more likely to be spared from a suspension or other penalty as opposed to a school which is found to have broken the rules. A major reason is the differences in the review processes involved. Student-athletes are funneled through the "resinstatement" process versus schools which are subjected to "enforcement" proceedings. Enforcement allows investigators the time to build a much stronger case and therefore has a better chance of resulting in sanctions.
The reinstatement process, which Cam Newton recently experienced, always begins with the school acknowledging to the NCAA that a rule has been violated. Immediately the NCAA is playing "catch-up" on the situation and learning from the school rather than from its own investigators. Newton's case is well known, centering on allegations that his father shopped his services in exchange for cash. Once the school notifies the NCAA of the violation the school can choose whether to seek reinstatement. According to the NCAA, it is rare for schools not to seek reinstatement. However, it happens frequently in cases where the student did something against advice given by the school.
In seeking reinstatement, the school makes its case before the a reinstatement panel explaining the circumstances. A major factor in whether the student-athlete is resinstated is personal culpability. The question facing the panel in Cam Newton's case was whether he was aware or should have been aware that his father was soliciting schools for money. The process moves quickly with the reinstatement panel issuing its decision on a student-athlete's eligibility sometimes in a day or two. Newton was reinstated because the panel found he was not to blame.
In comparison, the enforcement process focuses on the schools and can take months or in some cases years to complete factoring in appeals. Here, the process is flipped with the enforcement staff generally initiating an investigation rather than the school. The school is made aware of an investigation by written notice. Monitoring recruiting is the most well known function of the enforcement staff. On balance, this process is more closely aligned with a formal legal proceeding in that enforcement staff has discovery tools where it interviews the school, student-athletes, and other witnesses. As a result, an enforcement case against a school has the potential to be much stronger than a resinstatement case against a student-athlete.
Once the enforcement investigation is complete, a school is informed of alleged violations. The school then has 90 days to respond and hearings are held thereafter before the Committee on Infractions. The Committee then announces whether penalties such as loss of scholarships or bans on post-season play are appropriate. The school then has the opportunity for an appeal hearing.
Student-athelete cases like Cam Newton's are generally dealt with in the reinstatement process rather than the enforcement process because of the timeline involved. The NCAA has taken the position that it would be unfair to student-athletes to declare them ineligible for what in some cases would amount to an entire season pending the outcome of the enforcement process especially in the event a student-athlete is cleared of any wrongdoing.
While many college football fans might conclude from the Newton case that the reinstatement process is broken it did provide a timely review so that Newton had the opportunity to not miss any games. If the misconduct was limited to Newton's father this seems like a reasonable and fair result. Critics would say the danger is that there was not enough time for the NCAA to properly investigate and the facts relied upon were provided to the reinstatement panel by Auburn University. Although, the NCAA has been adamant in suggesting that if Newton was found "culpable" he would have faced an appropriate sanction including possibly not being eligible for post-season play.
Red Sox Pitch Around Luxury Tax on Gonzalez Deal
Monday, December 6, 2010
On again, off again. That was the story Sunday as the Red Sox attempted to hammer out a contract extension with 1B Adrian Gonzalez on the heels of a trade the Sox made with San Diego to acquire the left-handed slugger. The deal is now reportedly complete with a Monday news conference having been scheduled by the Sox.
The fact that Gonzalez and the Red Sox did not agree to a long-term extension on Sunday left many scratching their heads because the trade included three top prospects from the Sox farm system. But aside from complexities involving the expected roughly $170 million and 6-8 years it will take to lock up Gonzalez, the Sox may have held off on finalizing the deal to save money under MLB's luxury tax rules.
Under the luxury tax, the league evaluates each team's payroll in December. For every dollar that a club is over the amount set by the league they owe a tax. This year, the threshold is set at $178 million. That means when the league looks at a team's payroll next week (December 12) it will assess a tax based on what the team spent between December 2009 - December 2010. While this figure is essentially a team's 2010 payroll, it is used to calculate a team's 2011 luxury tax. For example, the Yankees spent more than $200 million dollars in 2010 and their 2011 luxury tax will be determined based on that payroll figure.
Focusing now on the Red Sox, by not officially signing Adrian Gonzalez to an extension until after December 12, Gonzalez's salary for the upcoming season will not count for purposes of the money owed by the Red Sox for the 2011 luxury tax. Rather, it will get pushed off until 2012. The Sox used the same strategy when they signed P Josh Beckett to a contract extension last April.
The Washington Nationals, however, who just signed Jayson Werth to a 7-year $126 million dollar contract will have the value of Werth's contract for the upcoming season reflected in their 2011 luxury tax.
The fact that Gonzalez and the Red Sox did not agree to a long-term extension on Sunday left many scratching their heads because the trade included three top prospects from the Sox farm system. But aside from complexities involving the expected roughly $170 million and 6-8 years it will take to lock up Gonzalez, the Sox may have held off on finalizing the deal to save money under MLB's luxury tax rules.
Under the luxury tax, the league evaluates each team's payroll in December. For every dollar that a club is over the amount set by the league they owe a tax. This year, the threshold is set at $178 million. That means when the league looks at a team's payroll next week (December 12) it will assess a tax based on what the team spent between December 2009 - December 2010. While this figure is essentially a team's 2010 payroll, it is used to calculate a team's 2011 luxury tax. For example, the Yankees spent more than $200 million dollars in 2010 and their 2011 luxury tax will be determined based on that payroll figure.
Focusing now on the Red Sox, by not officially signing Adrian Gonzalez to an extension until after December 12, Gonzalez's salary for the upcoming season will not count for purposes of the money owed by the Red Sox for the 2011 luxury tax. Rather, it will get pushed off until 2012. The Sox used the same strategy when they signed P Josh Beckett to a contract extension last April.
The Washington Nationals, however, who just signed Jayson Werth to a 7-year $126 million dollar contract will have the value of Werth's contract for the upcoming season reflected in their 2011 luxury tax.
The Basics of MLB Arbitration
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
On midnight Tuesday the deadline passed for Major League Baseball free agents to either accept or decline salary arbitration offers made by their former team. Shortstop Derek Jeter's negotiations with the Yankees have been well reported. Jeter and the vast majority of free agent big leaguers declined arbitration offers from their teams because of the likelihood of landing bigger dollars in negotiating deals. This offseason Frank Francisco, a relief pitcher on the Rangers accepted arbitration.
Free agents aren't the only players who end up in an arbitration hearing. If a player and a team are unable to reach a contract they may agree to salary arbitration provided that the player falls into one of three groups: 1) a player with three or more years of service but less than six years of service may file for arbitration; 2) a player with two or more years of service if he has spent 86 days of the preceding year in the majors; and 3) a player who has filed for free agency who accepts an arbitration offer from his club.
Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon is an example of the first group. After the 2008 season, Papelbon was eligible to go to arbitration with the Red Sox based on his years of service after earning $775,000. The Red Sox and Papelbon were able to avoid an arbitration hearing by agreeing to a one-year deal for $6.25 million. Papelbon is not eligible for free agency until after the 2011 season. Filing for arbitration was Papelbon's only leverage against the Red Sox to earn a pay increase because he's never been able to test the open market.
Rangers relief pitcher Frank Francisco is an example of the third group. Since Francsico filed for free agency, he is technically off the Rangers roster. Although, players like Francisco who then accept arbitration offers are returned to their team's roster later in December. At this point, Francisco and the Rangers may continue to negotiate a contract or opt for an arbitration hearing.
Arbitration hearings are held in January. First, the player and the club submit a salary proposal to a three person panel of arbitrators. In February, hearings are held before the panel which is similar to oral arguments before an appellate court. Each side is given one hour to make their case with an additional thirty minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing.
In making its decision, the panle considers the following factors: 1) the player's contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership; 2) the club's record and attendance; 3) any and all of the player's special accomplishments including All-Star appearances and awards; and 4) the salaries of comparable players in the player's service-time class.
While the rules do not weigh one factor above another, it is widely understood that the salaries of comparable players is most important. The two sides may not refer to team finances, prior offers, or opinions about the player's value from the media.
After deliberating, the panel mandates a one-year, guaranteed salary for the player without offering an opinion or rationale for its decision.
Free agents aren't the only players who end up in an arbitration hearing. If a player and a team are unable to reach a contract they may agree to salary arbitration provided that the player falls into one of three groups: 1) a player with three or more years of service but less than six years of service may file for arbitration; 2) a player with two or more years of service if he has spent 86 days of the preceding year in the majors; and 3) a player who has filed for free agency who accepts an arbitration offer from his club.
Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon is an example of the first group. After the 2008 season, Papelbon was eligible to go to arbitration with the Red Sox based on his years of service after earning $775,000. The Red Sox and Papelbon were able to avoid an arbitration hearing by agreeing to a one-year deal for $6.25 million. Papelbon is not eligible for free agency until after the 2011 season. Filing for arbitration was Papelbon's only leverage against the Red Sox to earn a pay increase because he's never been able to test the open market.
Rangers relief pitcher Frank Francisco is an example of the third group. Since Francsico filed for free agency, he is technically off the Rangers roster. Although, players like Francisco who then accept arbitration offers are returned to their team's roster later in December. At this point, Francisco and the Rangers may continue to negotiate a contract or opt for an arbitration hearing.
Arbitration hearings are held in January. First, the player and the club submit a salary proposal to a three person panel of arbitrators. In February, hearings are held before the panel which is similar to oral arguments before an appellate court. Each side is given one hour to make their case with an additional thirty minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing.
In making its decision, the panle considers the following factors: 1) the player's contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership; 2) the club's record and attendance; 3) any and all of the player's special accomplishments including All-Star appearances and awards; and 4) the salaries of comparable players in the player's service-time class.
While the rules do not weigh one factor above another, it is widely understood that the salaries of comparable players is most important. The two sides may not refer to team finances, prior offers, or opinions about the player's value from the media.
After deliberating, the panel mandates a one-year, guaranteed salary for the player without offering an opinion or rationale for its decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
