# Google Survives Second Breakup Attempt & LA Clippers Unprecedented Fine

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 9 Sep 2026, 32 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/d7792293-3ddd-495e-87d7-b4c00045dac5/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Antitrust law expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School, discusses a second judge ruling that Google will not be broken up despite violating antitrust laws. Sports law expert Martin Edel, co-chair of the sports practice group at Goulston & Storrs, discusses the unprecedented punishment meted out to the LA Clippers. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:09] Speaker 2: The federal government won its second antitrust case against Google.
[0:13] Speaker 2: But once again, Google has escaped without having to pay
[0:17] Speaker 2: the penalty the government asked for, a forced breakup. In
[0:21] Speaker 2: April of 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema found that Google illegally
[0:26] Speaker 2: monopolized two advertising technology markets. But last week, Judge Brinkema
[0:32] Speaker 2: decided against a forced sale of Google's ad exchange. instead
[0:37] Speaker 2: ordering proposed behavioral changes to Google's business. It's the second
[0:42] Speaker 2: time in a year that a court has denied the
[0:44] Speaker 2: government's attempt to break up the company, even though it
[0:47] Speaker 2: was found liable for engaging in illegal monopoly tactics. Last September,
[0:53] Speaker 2: Judge Amit Mehta, after finding that Google's tactics for dominating
[0:58] Speaker 2: online search were illegal, ruled that Google didn't have to
[1:02] Speaker 2: sell off its popular Chrome web browser. Why did both
[1:06] Speaker 2: judges refuse to order a breakup? Joining me to answer
[1:10] Speaker 2: that question is antitrust law expert Harry First, a professor
[1:14] Speaker 2: at NYU Law School. Harry, why order behavioral remedies instead
[1:19] Speaker 2: of a breakup? That would solve the problem.
[1:22] Speaker 3: Well, two parts. We don't know what the behavioral remedies
[1:25] Speaker 3: are exactly. She said she took, quote, most of what
[1:30] Speaker 3: the parties asked for. I think they were pretty close
[1:34] Speaker 3: on that. So most of is not all of. So
[1:39] Speaker 3: we just don't know exactly what it is. But no
[1:42] Speaker 3: doubt it will include some sort of a monitor and
[1:44] Speaker 3: it's continuing. And, you know, the question is how long.
[1:48] Speaker 3: And that is a problem with behavioral remedies is that
[1:52] Speaker 3: you have to continue to behave and you need a
[1:55] Speaker 3: parent to watch out and hit them when they don't.
[2:00] Speaker 3: So there's that. And then She said she's not ordering
[2:03] Speaker 3: the structural remedies that the Justice Department and the state
[2:07] Speaker 3: plaintiffs asked for, but she didn't say why, because that's
[2:11] Speaker 3: presumably in her opinion, which she gave the parties 14
[2:16] Speaker 3: days to take a look at to make sure there's
[2:18] Speaker 3: no confidential information in there that they would like redacted.
[2:24] Speaker 1: So we're in the.
[2:25] Speaker 3: Waiting game now, and so... If we could judge by
[2:30] Speaker 3: what was reported from the hearing on remedies or hearings
[2:34] Speaker 3: on remedies, I think she's a pretty practical judge and
[2:39] Speaker 3: not a pushover judge for anybody. And I think she
[2:43] Speaker 3: was skeptical, as one might be, about how this was
[2:47] Speaker 3: going to happen. You're sitting there, you're a judge in
[2:51] Speaker 3: the Eastern District of Virginia, and now you've got this
[2:55] Speaker 3: high-tech thing that you're You know, you have to oversee and,
[2:59] Speaker 3: you know, you don't want to be blamed if it
[3:01] Speaker 3: goes haywire and how's it going to happen. And the
[3:05] Speaker 3: Justice Department didn't come in with a buyer or with
[3:09] Speaker 3: anyone having apparently expressed interest in acquiring the exchange, the
[3:15] Speaker 3: advertising exchange. So she was concerned about how it would
[3:20] Speaker 3: happen and over what time.
[3:23] Speaker 2: So you also had Judge Mehta finding that Google ran
[3:27] Speaker 2: an illegal monopoly in search and not ordering a breakup
[3:32] Speaker 2: there either. I mean, both respected federal judges. What does
[3:37] Speaker 2: it take to get a judge to say, Google, you
[3:40] Speaker 2: committed anti-competitive acts. We need to break you up.
[3:44] Speaker 3: Trying to think of what metaphor to reach for. So
[3:46] Speaker 3: I'm not going to reach for any of them. The
[3:48] Speaker 3: first thing I would say is the divestiture, the breakup
[3:52] Speaker 3: that the plaintiffs sought in the search case was actually
[3:56] Speaker 3: not so central in some sense to the case they presented.
[4:01] Speaker 3: So they wanted Chrome divested. They didn't make how Google
[4:06] Speaker 3: used Chrome to help to make Google search a monopoly
[4:12] Speaker 3: or to maintain the monopoly. The focus, I mean, that
[4:15] Speaker 3: was a part, but it wasn't the focus. And the
[4:19] Speaker 3: government didn't say that they'd actually done anything illegal with Chrome.
[4:23] Speaker 3: So the legal case for divesting Chrome was probably weaker
[4:28] Speaker 3: than it should have been if they had actually built
[4:30] Speaker 3: that case when they were trying the liability case for,
[4:35] Speaker 3: you know, what did you do wrong? So on remedy,
[4:38] Speaker 3: the first thing the judge says, okay, we found here's
[4:40] Speaker 3: what parties did wrong. Now what's the remedy for what
[4:43] Speaker 3: they did wrong? I mean, I'm not, you know, an engineer.
[4:46] Speaker 3: You know, I'm not an entrepreneur. I got a case
[4:48] Speaker 3: in front of me. And that's what I'm remedying. So
[4:52] Speaker 3: although it would have made sense to divest Chrome, and
[4:56] Speaker 3: in fact, there was a buyer for Chrome that had surfaced.
[5:00] Speaker 3: There was an offer for Chrome, you know, that was
[5:02] Speaker 3: pretty substantial. It was on the table from an AI
[5:05] Speaker 3: search firm. So Judge Mehta was also concerned about how
[5:09] Speaker 3: this was going to work. because Chrome is an international platform.
[5:12] Speaker 3: You know, exactly how is it going to work? So
[5:14] Speaker 3: in some sense, the cases are distinguishable. The divestiture that
[5:18] Speaker 3: the plaintiffs sought in the ad tech case is actually
[5:23] Speaker 3: central to the theory of liability. You know, their control
[5:28] Speaker 3: of the exchange, which is what the plaintiffs wanted divested,
[5:32] Speaker 3: was critical for Google's control of this whole market and
[5:37] Speaker 3: for Google managing to squeeze more money out of the
[5:41] Speaker 3: parties than they otherwise would have the publishers in particular
[5:45] Speaker 3: and the judge found that so it was really central
[5:48] Speaker 3: to the case so in that sense legally it's more
[5:51] Speaker 3: important they don't have a buyer and so that cuts
[5:54] Speaker 3: the other way and judges are judges i mean they're
[5:57] Speaker 3: generally conservative with a little city you know they recognize
[6:01] Speaker 3: their judges they're not business people and um they're concerned
[6:06] Speaker 3: about doing this so in a way It's not surprising
[6:09] Speaker 3: they're cautious, but it's in some ways a little more
[6:13] Speaker 3: disappointing in the ad tech case because control of that
[6:18] Speaker 3: exchange between both sides is really critical to Google being
[6:24] Speaker 3: able to squeeze monopoly profits out of this market.
[6:27] Speaker 2: Google's ad tech stack sits between publishers selling display space
[6:33] Speaker 2: and advertisers bidding on it giving the company this powerful
[6:37] Speaker 2: position in how prices are set and which ads appear.
[6:41] Speaker 2: Do you think behavioral remedies can actually cure anything?
[6:46] Speaker 3: Behavioral remedies do something. And if they're well designed, you know,
[6:50] Speaker 3: they can do something. They maybe can prevent Google from
[6:54] Speaker 3: preferencing things. I don't know exactly. It's complicated how these
[6:57] Speaker 3: auctions run. And Google, in fact, changed the auction rules
[7:01] Speaker 3: on an ongoing basis.
[7:02] Speaker 1: I mean, so.
[7:04] Speaker 3: Something will change. But, you know, the fundamental insight from
[7:08] Speaker 3: economics is follow your incentives. You know, people act in
[7:12] Speaker 3: their incentives. So if Google still owns the platform in between,
[7:17] Speaker 3: you know, the buyers and the sellers, both sides, they
[7:20] Speaker 3: have certain incentives that an independent buyer doesn't have. So,
[7:25] Speaker 3: you know, as a general matter, putting that in someone
[7:27] Speaker 3: else's hands, their incentive then is to run that marketplace
[7:32] Speaker 3: as efficiently as they can. So I would rather that.
[7:36] Speaker 2: The government would rather that too. Do you think Judge
[7:39] Speaker 2: Brinkema had some valid reasons for being cautious for this
[7:43] Speaker 2: more restrained approach?
[7:46] Speaker 3: I can understand why she's cautious. But I think this
[7:50] Speaker 3: really was the relief that you needed to get competition
[7:53] Speaker 3: going in this market. And I mean, in some ways,
[7:56] Speaker 3: it's not as critical. Messing around with search is one thing.
[8:00] Speaker 3: There's a lot more money involved there. You know, here
[8:05] Speaker 3: it's only six or seven billion. But it was central
[8:08] Speaker 3: to the case, and it seemed to me there was
[8:11] Speaker 3: a good case for it. I wish, although I know
[8:13] Speaker 3: how hard this is, I wish the government plaintiffs had
[8:17] Speaker 3: something more concrete when they presented the case working on
[8:22] Speaker 3: the remedy to the judge. I think there's a natural
[8:26] Speaker 3: tendency to, you know, spend a lot of time on
[8:29] Speaker 3: the liability, you know, because then you never get to
[8:32] Speaker 3: the remedy if you don't get through liability. but maybe
[8:35] Speaker 3: not as much time working on the remedy itself. I
[8:40] Speaker 3: can't say whether they did or didn't hear, but not
[8:42] Speaker 3: having some idea of who the buyers might be or
[8:46] Speaker 3: some indication that there might be interest. It must have
[8:49] Speaker 3: been tough to stand up in court when the judge
[8:52] Speaker 3: asked and they said, oh, don't worry about it. Actually,
[8:56] Speaker 3: the lawyer for the Justice Department said it would be
[8:58] Speaker 3: inappropriate now to have a buyer before you. So it
[9:02] Speaker 3: is a little disappointing, but I'm waiting to see what
[9:05] Speaker 3: she writes in her opinion, and then to see what
[9:08] Speaker 3: happens with the appeal, whether the Justice Department, you know,
[9:15] Speaker 3: whether the lawyers who really made a strong case for
[9:18] Speaker 3: this can convince the higher-ups in the Justice Department that
[9:24] Speaker 3: they should appeal it, and whether, you know, you have
[9:27] Speaker 3: very strong state plaintiffs' offices, you know, representing the states,
[9:31] Speaker 3: and they could very well take.
[9:35] Speaker 2: This up on their own well we've seen the states
[9:37] Speaker 2: be more aggressive than the federal.
[9:40] Speaker 3: Yes and successful so um there are three offices involved
[9:46] Speaker 3: among others but that are particularly strong colorado california new
[9:51] Speaker 3: york and uh i could see a world in which
[9:54] Speaker 3: they do appeal it's not over until it's over someone
[9:58] Speaker 3: once said right Yes, that.
[10:00] Speaker 2: Someone was in the baseball space, I believe, and not
[10:03] Speaker 2: the ad tech space. Harry Stanley Woodward, the number three
[10:09] Speaker 2: official currently overseeing antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department, said,
[10:16] Speaker 2: The timing of the court's order reflects the tradeoffs between
[10:19] Speaker 2: immediate relief and remedies obtained through years of litigation. What
[10:24] Speaker 2: does he mean by that?
[10:25] Speaker 3: We done here. The chances are that the Justice Department
[10:28] Speaker 3: will not appeal. That would be your bet. That's how
[10:31] Speaker 3: I read that. You know, years of litigation. Oh, my God,
[10:34] Speaker 3: we might have. Now, they are appealing the Google search remedy.
[10:38] Speaker 3: So years of litigation didn't seem to. And Woodward, he hasn't,
[10:43] Speaker 3: you know, moved his office yet. to a different floor
[10:45] Speaker 3: of the Justice Department. He's still there. The antitrust division
[10:49] Speaker 3: still has no permanent head. I mean, things haven't changed
[10:53] Speaker 3: in that sense. If I recall correctly, I think he
[10:56] Speaker 3: signed the briefs in the Court of Appeals. So, you know,
[11:02] Speaker 3: he is willing to appeal Google search. So, you know,
[11:06] Speaker 3: that's a we're done here sort of statement to me. But,
[11:10] Speaker 3: you know, the Justice Department is not the only plaintiff.
[11:14] Speaker 3: You know, as there were in Google search, there are
[11:15] Speaker 3: state plaintiffs here, and they certainly could appeal. They filed
[11:21] Speaker 3: independent appeals in the search case as well, although their
[11:26] Speaker 3: positions were pretty much the same. And in the Google
[11:30] Speaker 3: search case, both the Justice Department and the states objected
[11:34] Speaker 3: to part of Judge Mehta's order, not to the failure
[11:37] Speaker 3: to divest Chrome. No one's actually objecting to that. but
[11:42] Speaker 3: to the failure to stop these conditional payments that Google
[11:46] Speaker 3: has used to stay dominant in search. So both the
[11:52] Speaker 3: states and the federal government appealed in Google search. Now,
[11:56] Speaker 3: whether the states, if the federal government chooses not to
[12:00] Speaker 3: appeal in this case, whether the states would appeal anyway,
[12:08] Speaker 3: they're all going to be filing briefs because Google's going
[12:10] Speaker 3: to appeal anyway. the liability decision. So, you know, it's
[12:15] Speaker 3: not like the Justice Department says, oh, thank God we
[12:17] Speaker 3: can move our lawyers, you know, into immigration cases or
[12:21] Speaker 3: whatever else they do in the Justice Department. No, they
[12:24] Speaker 3: still have to defend Judge Brinkham's decision on liability unless
[12:29] Speaker 3: someone above Woodward says, I'm done with these cases, man.
[12:34] Speaker 3: Just throw in the towel. But they haven't done that yet.
[12:36] Speaker 3: So they're still chugging along.
[12:39] Speaker 2: Why would Google appeal this is a win, isn't it?
[12:43] Speaker 2: What more can they hope for? To get the judge's
[12:45] Speaker 2: decision overturned? That seems unlikely.
[12:48] Speaker 3: Well, yeah, it seems unlikely. But, you know, unlikely doesn't
[12:53] Speaker 3: seem to dissuade any litigants these days. But, you know,
[12:57] Speaker 3: so more time and not having an adverse decision on
[13:02] Speaker 3: the books, you know, has its own utility for any monopolist,
[13:08] Speaker 3: you know, to be able to wipe that out. So,
[13:10] Speaker 3: They have said they're going to appeal her liability decision,
[13:14] Speaker 3: and I have no reason to think otherwise.
[13:16] Speaker 2: So what about European regulators?
[13:20] Speaker 3: Oh, they're having fun kicking Google, yeah. I mean, in
[13:23] Speaker 3: the search case, they imposed a very large fine, which
[13:27] Speaker 3: at one point had triggered the president to suggest that
[13:32] Speaker 3: he was going to retaliate with tariffs. We haven't heard that,
[13:36] Speaker 3: but we never hear the end of anything, so who
[13:39] Speaker 3: knows what will happen. So there was a very lengthy
[13:42] Speaker 3: opinion in Google search. I haven't seen a decision in
[13:46] Speaker 3: ad tech, I don't think. But I mean, Europeans have
[13:51] Speaker 3: preserved the option of ordering a divestiture restructuring, but they
[13:57] Speaker 3: haven't used it. And they're particularly unlikely to use it,
[14:00] Speaker 3: I think, against an American tech firm. It's really be
[14:04] Speaker 3: pushing things, maybe legally, but certainly politically. So They're actually
[14:09] Speaker 3: not as concerned about structure as we've been in the U.S. So,
[14:15] Speaker 3: you know, they're a little more comfortable with regulating monopolies,
[14:19] Speaker 3: and that's the way they've gone with the Digital Markets Act.
[14:22] Speaker 3: They're not trying to break up the major tech companies,
[14:25] Speaker 3: but trying to control their behavior.
[14:28] Speaker 2: Is the Microsoft case the only time that a court
[14:31] Speaker 2: has ordered a breakup of a tech company, at least
[14:34] Speaker 2: at the trial level?
[14:36] Speaker 3: There have been other briefings. breakups. Yes, I mean, the
[14:41] Speaker 3: one people turned to is Standard Oil, American Tobacco, back
[14:45] Speaker 3: at the beginning of antitrust. And the other one that
[14:49] Speaker 3: people often point to, which was done by consent, but
[14:53] Speaker 3: sort of under the gun of federal legislation and also litigation,
[14:58] Speaker 3: was the breakup of the AT & T system, which
[15:02] Speaker 3: really was a, you know, quite a historic event. So,
[15:06] Speaker 3: It's been pretty rare and used sometimes when it's easy
[15:11] Speaker 3: in a sense, when the illegal act has been acquiring
[15:15] Speaker 3: a company and you can still just sort of, you know,
[15:18] Speaker 3: break it apart that way. But these companies, the tech companies,
[15:22] Speaker 3: it happens not to be the case with some of them,
[15:24] Speaker 3: but some of them just have grown sort of organically,
[15:27] Speaker 3: so not so much through acquisition, although there's been a
[15:31] Speaker 3: lot of acquisitions. You're talking Facebook? Facebook, right.
[15:34] Speaker 1: I mean, Meta.
[15:35] Speaker 3: Right, but also... Google AdTech, I mean, the tool, the
[15:39] Speaker 3: platform for publishers, you know, stems from an acquisition of DoubleClick,
[15:44] Speaker 3: which the Federal Trade Commission allowed in 2007, I believe.
[15:49] Speaker 3: And the district court found was not a violation of
[15:52] Speaker 3: any trust laws, but, you know, it did stem from
[15:55] Speaker 3: acquiring DoubleClick. And it's still called DFP, DoubleClick for publishers.
[16:01] Speaker 2: So we'll hear more about this latest decision from Judge
[16:03] Speaker 2: Brinkema later in the month. And then the inevitable appeals.
[16:08] Speaker 2: Never-ending litigation. Thanks as always, Harry. That's Professor Harry First
[16:12] Speaker 2: of NYU Law School. For the past year, the Los
[16:17] Speaker 2: Angeles Clippers have been under investigation by the NBA for
[16:22] Speaker 2: circumventing the salary cap. The Clippers were accused of using
[16:26] Speaker 2: endorsement deals to pay star player Cowie Leonard. Last Wednesday,
[16:31] Speaker 2: the NBA imposed one of the toughest penalties in its history,
[16:35] Speaker 2: citing deals it says were designed to circumvent the salary cap.
[16:40] Speaker 2: The league stripped the Clippers of five first-round draft picks,
[16:44] Speaker 2: fined the team $ 30 million, suspended owner Steve Ballmer and
[16:48] Speaker 2: two executives, and ordered Leonard to pay $ 700, 000. In response,
[16:54] Speaker 2: the Clippers say they vehemently reject the NBA's findings and
[16:59] Speaker 2: will challenge them. The team has good reasons to fight.
[17:03] Speaker 2: While the $ 30 million fine is a trifle to a
[17:06] Speaker 2: franchise owned by one of the world's wealthiest people, draft
[17:10] Speaker 2: picks are different. Joining me is Martin Edel, co-chair of
[17:14] Speaker 2: the sports practice group at Galston Stores. So tell us
[17:18] Speaker 2: what happened, Marty.
[17:19] Speaker 1: Okay, so the Clip Day had put out a press
[17:22] Speaker 1: statement saying they didn't do this, but there's a detailed
[17:26] Speaker 1: investigative report by a well-known law firm, Wachtell Lipton, which
[17:32] Speaker 1: concluded that for a number of years, Steve Ballmer, the
[17:38] Speaker 1: principal owner of the Clippers, assisted Cowie Leonard through his
[17:46] Speaker 1: uncle and agent, Uncle Dennis, he calls him, Dennis Robertson,
[17:50] Speaker 1: in putting together what seemed to be sham deals, sponsorship deals. Leonard,
[17:55] Speaker 1: for instance, got $ 28 million over four years to deal
[18:00] Speaker 1: with Aspiration Parks. What did he do for that? I
[18:04] Speaker 1: think the legal term is bupkis. He did nothing. He
[18:08] Speaker 1: had deals with Boingo. He had deals with Daktronics. He
[18:12] Speaker 1: had deals with Lockton. Again, did nothing, was paid millions
[18:17] Speaker 1: of dollars in consulting fees, even though these companies, according
[18:21] Speaker 1: to the Wachtell-Lipton report, had no consulting arrangements with anyone.
[18:27] Speaker 2: So they were using that to get around the salary cap.
[18:31] Speaker 1: Correct. You know, again, a player of Cowley Leonard's stature
[18:36] Speaker 1: was being paid tens of millions of dollars per year.
[18:41] Speaker 1: But Uncle Dennis and supposedly Leonard thought that wasn't enough.
[18:46] Speaker 1: So they wanted sponsorship deals, which didn't require him to
[18:50] Speaker 1: do anything. And Ballmer, according to the Wachtell-Lipton report, along
[18:55] Speaker 1: with his executive vice president for basketball operations and some
[19:00] Speaker 1: other executives, facilitated deals with these companies.
[19:05] Speaker 2: And what's your take on the punishment that was imposed here?
[19:09] Speaker 1: The Clippers lost. Each of their first-round draft picks for
[19:14] Speaker 1: a five-year period starting in 2029, that's an enormous penalty.
[19:20] Speaker 1: Is there precedent for it? Let me start with that.
[19:24] Speaker 1: The answer is there's precedent for forfeiting first-round draft picks.
[19:28] Speaker 1: That happened with Joe Smith. a first-round draft pick back
[19:33] Speaker 1: in the 1990s who had two contracts, one of which
[19:38] Speaker 1: was presented to the league and the other of which
[19:41] Speaker 1: was hidden. And when the league found the hidden contract, why?
[19:45] Speaker 1: Because Joe Smith fired his agent who negotiated that deal.
[19:50] Speaker 1: and the agent turned over this hidden contract. Anyway, Smith
[19:54] Speaker 1: was not permitted to invoke the Larry Bird rule, which
[19:58] Speaker 1: is a rule dealing with how much a player could
[20:00] Speaker 1: pay and how much the team would charge under the
[20:02] Speaker 1: salary cap. His contract was voided, and I think it
[20:06] Speaker 1: was the Minnesota Timberwolves was also deemed to forfeit a
[20:11] Speaker 1: number of draft picks. So that's where we get that number.
[20:15] Speaker 1: The $ 30 million, I'm not sure where we get. I
[20:18] Speaker 1: just haven't had the time to do all the research
[20:21] Speaker 1: on that. But I'm sure there's some compensatory aspect to it.
[20:25] Speaker 1: and maybe some punitive aspect as well. Throwing executives out
[20:30] Speaker 1: of basketball for a period of time, and both without pay. That,
[20:34] Speaker 1: I think, presents a bit of a problem, how they
[20:37] Speaker 1: can be suspended without pay. Robertson was thrown out of
[20:42] Speaker 1: basketball for five years. This is the Uncle Dennis character.
[20:46] Speaker 1: And yes, Cowley Leonard was fined $ 700, 000, which is supposedly
[20:52] Speaker 1: the amount he actually pocketed. Not entirely clear to me
[20:57] Speaker 1: why he would pocket so little.
[20:59] Speaker 2: Now, the Clippers sent a letter to the NBA commissioner,
[21:03] Speaker 2: Adam Silver, promising to explore... every legal remedy to address
[21:08] Speaker 2: this gross injustice. Do they have legal remedies here?
[21:12] Speaker 1: So the answer there is yes. Everybody always has a
[21:16] Speaker 1: legal remedy. The question is, what is the likelihood of
[21:21] Speaker 1: success or even them bringing a legal action? They have
[21:26] Speaker 1: to tell a court that that they're undermining the very
[21:31] Speaker 1: agreements they signed, the owner's agreement, the league agreement with
[21:35] Speaker 1: the team, which gives the commissioner the unbridled authority to
[21:40] Speaker 1: investigate and punish people who violate what goes on there.
[21:48] Speaker 1: That is a right which is non-arbitrable and not legal.
[21:54] Speaker 1: under the agreement. So they're saying that notwithstanding their agreement
[21:58] Speaker 1: to that, they never thought that would happen to them,
[22:00] Speaker 1: so therefore they should be relieved of it. Not a
[22:03] Speaker 1: very good argument. You know, I think the one thing
[22:05] Speaker 1: to keep in mind is what the NBA did here
[22:09] Speaker 1: was it investigated before it acted. That's sometimes better than
[22:14] Speaker 1: other professional leagues, which seem to have a more knee-jerk reaction. Here,
[22:19] Speaker 1: they hired a well-known firm. The firm, according to its report,
[22:23] Speaker 1: conducted 73 interviews, reviewed over 200,000 pages, made each of
[22:30] Speaker 1: their findings or proposed findings available to Leonard's attorney, to
[22:38] Speaker 1: Balmer and the Clippers' attorney, so they could challenge or
[22:42] Speaker 1: give more information. That's at least the rudiments of fundamental
[22:47] Speaker 1: due process. I mean, it's a civil action. Due process
[22:51] Speaker 1: doesn't apply to private leagues, but they've given them the
[22:55] Speaker 1: rudiments of due process, which makes the challenge even more difficult.
[22:59] Speaker 2: So we'll have to see where that goes. Let's turn
[23:02] Speaker 2: now to a Louisiana judge on Friday issued a preliminary
[23:07] Speaker 2: injunction against the NCAA in a high-profile eligibility case. the
[23:13] Speaker 2: judge's ruling clears the way for LSU to list some
[23:17] Speaker 2: former NFL players on its roster. So is this about
[23:22] Speaker 2: whether former NFL players can return and play college football?
[23:27] Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a little broader than that. The NCAA
[23:33] Speaker 1: said as a one-time matter that players who graduated, I
[23:38] Speaker 1: forget the year, 2021 or 2022, are now entitled as
[23:43] Speaker 1: a one-shot deal to be eligible for five years to
[23:47] Speaker 1: play college ball. 42 players filed the lawsuit in Louisiana
[23:54] Speaker 1: State Court. Those players were from different sports. Some were
[23:58] Speaker 1: from football, some from baseball, some from soccer, and they
[24:02] Speaker 1: claimed they had the right to play the fifth year.
[24:05] Speaker 1: Included among that group were certain professional players who claimed
[24:10] Speaker 1: that they were making less money as professionals than they
[24:13] Speaker 1: would as college players. And therefore, they should be entitled
[24:18] Speaker 1: to receive their fifth year of eligibility and play again.
[24:23] Speaker 1: Some of these professional football players had played for Kiffin
[24:27] Speaker 1: at Ole Miss, so he was sort of happy to
[24:29] Speaker 1: take them back. Others had not, but LSU could promise
[24:34] Speaker 1: them significantly more dollars than they were getting as pros
[24:37] Speaker 1: to play that fifth year. That's what the case was about.
[24:41] Speaker 2: I mean, let me ask a silly question. How many
[24:44] Speaker 2: years are these players in school? College is supposed to
[24:48] Speaker 2: be about four years, right?
[24:50] Speaker 1: Yeah, well, you know, you went through it in four years.
[24:53] Speaker 1: Sometimes players go in four years, sometimes five years. There
[24:57] Speaker 1: were a couple of examples last season of some players
[25:00] Speaker 1: seeking a ninth year of eligibility. The line between being
[25:05] Speaker 1: a college student and being a professional employee at the
[25:11] Speaker 1: college is rapidly evaporating. So we mentioned before they were
[25:17] Speaker 1: being paid less as pros than they would, which seems counterintuitive.
[25:22] Speaker 1: But as a college player, they can get name, image,
[25:26] Speaker 1: and likeness dollars now paid by the school. That could
[25:29] Speaker 1: amount to several million for a well-regarded player. There's something
[25:35] Speaker 1: called the House case, which was a settlement for media
[25:38] Speaker 1: revenues to be paid to college athletes, where the athletes
[25:43] Speaker 1: now are entitled to, I think this is right, 22%
[25:48] Speaker 1: of the media revenues that the school gets. And so
[25:53] Speaker 1: that's an increasing number every year. The school decides which
[25:57] Speaker 1: players will be eligible for that amount. I told my son,
[26:02] Speaker 1: for example... that as a crew racer, he would probably
[26:06] Speaker 1: get nothing. If he were a football quarterback, he might get, again,
[26:11] Speaker 1: several millions of dollars from that settlement. That's more than
[26:16] Speaker 1: they'll get.
[26:16] Speaker 2: I mean, it's completely changed college sports. I don't follow it,
[26:20] Speaker 2: but they used to be amateurs, right?
[26:23] Speaker 1: Yes, which gets us to that debate or college athletes,
[26:28] Speaker 1: college students or employees. And that's one that you and
[26:31] Speaker 1: I have talked about in the past. And unfortunately, we'll
[26:35] Speaker 1: keep recurring because there's no hard and fast answer right now.
[26:40] Speaker 2: And explain the ruling by the Louisiana judge.
[26:43] Speaker 1: A judge who supposedly has some ties to LSU, but
[26:47] Speaker 1: at least sits in Louisiana, ruled in favor of Louisianans.
[26:51] Speaker 1: The decision is not public. It hasn't been put out yet,
[26:55] Speaker 1: but he granted an injunction to the 42 players to
[27:00] Speaker 1: allow them to play the fifth year and for no
[27:03] Speaker 1: school or the NCAA to take retaliatory action against any
[27:09] Speaker 1: of these players. Since that time, since you want to
[27:12] Speaker 1: bring it down to the present, the following things have occurred.
[27:16] Speaker 1: First is Lane Kiffin has announced that he will not
[27:19] Speaker 1: Sign those five players yet. So they're not on his roster.
[27:26] Speaker 1: They weren't on his roster this past week where LSU
[27:29] Speaker 1: clobbered its opponent. I think it was 51 to 10,
[27:32] Speaker 1: but he's reserving that right. In the meantime, the SEC,
[27:36] Speaker 1: the conference in which LSU plays, has filed a lawsuit
[27:41] Speaker 1: against LSU because on August 25th, the SEC adopted a
[27:45] Speaker 1: rule that no player who signed a notice of intent
[27:49] Speaker 1: to play professional sports would be eligible for to play
[27:55] Speaker 1: college sports. This may be the anti-Lane Kiffin rule. And
[27:59] Speaker 1: they have opposed and said they're going to appeal the decision.
[28:03] Speaker 1: That hasn't occurred yet, to my knowledge. The SEC has
[28:08] Speaker 1: also filed a separate action against Louisiana State and Lane
[28:13] Speaker 1: Kiffin to stop them from doing what they're doing, which
[28:17] Speaker 1: they amended today to claim that they may, if LSU
[28:23] Speaker 1: does not renounce what it has said it intends to do.
[28:27] Speaker 1: They can take a vote to toss LSU out of
[28:30] Speaker 1: the SEC. And that supposedly will occur Thursday.
[28:33] Speaker 2: And before I let you go, Marty, I just want
[28:35] Speaker 2: to talk a little bit about the investigation and prosecution
[28:40] Speaker 2: of some former NBA players involved in gambling. I think
[28:45] Speaker 2: the latest former professional basketball players to be accused of
[28:50] Speaker 2: changing their game performance to profit off illegal bets were
[28:57] Speaker 2: Malik Beasley and Ed Davis. Are these the same kind
[29:01] Speaker 2: of charges as were leveled against Terry Rozier, who's facing
[29:06] Speaker 2: trial next year?
[29:08] Speaker 1: Well, it's a different investigation, but it all stems from
[29:13] Speaker 1: gambling by players, which is an enormous problem right now.
[29:18] Speaker 1: not only for the professional leagues, but also for college sports.
[29:22] Speaker 2: These are charges for things that happened years ago. This
[29:25] Speaker 2: kind of thing is still going on. So prosecutions haven't
[29:29] Speaker 2: helped to stem it.
[29:31] Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I think the answer is it decided yes. Can
[29:35] Speaker 1: I take you back just for a moment? Yes. 2018
[29:39] Speaker 1: was a watershed year. Why? Because the Supreme Court announced
[29:43] Speaker 1: in Murphy against NCAA that the federal government could not
[29:48] Speaker 1: tell the states they could not permit gambling. In the
[29:51] Speaker 1: wake of that, 39 states, the District of Columbia and
[29:55] Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, all enacted gambling laws to permit gambling. They
[30:00] Speaker 1: wanted a piece of the revenues. States were hurting at
[30:03] Speaker 1: the time. Leagues needed the money. Teams needed the money.
[30:07] Speaker 1: So they all jumped on the bandwagon then. One entity
[30:11] Speaker 1: was left off the bandwagon, players. Now, you might say, okay,
[30:17] Speaker 1: but a player in the NBA who's a super max
[30:21] Speaker 1: player is going to be making $ 60 million a year.
[30:24] Speaker 1: Why does that player need more money? And the answer
[30:27] Speaker 1: is because he wants more money. So you have players
[30:32] Speaker 1: now thinking they can get in on the action as
[30:35] Speaker 1: gambling expanded from 2018 through today. So we had originally
[30:40] Speaker 1: you bet on the outcome. That's the traditional form of gambling.
[30:44] Speaker 1: As FanDuel and DraftKings expanded their platforms, you suddenly had
[30:48] Speaker 1: what we call prop betting. You could bet on any
[30:53] Speaker 1: statistic of any player. You want to bet the player
[30:56] Speaker 1: will miss a shot? Go for it. You want to
[30:59] Speaker 1: bet that a baseball player is going to get a
[31:02] Speaker 1: strike on the next pitch? you can bet on that.
[31:05] Speaker 1: This is all part of prop betting. I've not been
[31:08] Speaker 1: getting into prediction platforms, which is a whole other conversation.
[31:11] Speaker 1: So with all of this, the players wanted a piece
[31:15] Speaker 1: of the action or their friends and family wanted to
[31:18] Speaker 1: get in on the action through them. And so you
[31:20] Speaker 1: have them participating sometimes through the mob, as we saw
[31:25] Speaker 1: with Terry Rozier and his games. sometimes just illegally because
[31:31] Speaker 1: each of the leagues prohibits its players from betting on
[31:35] Speaker 1: that sport's contests, outcomes, statistics.
[31:41] Speaker 2: And so much money involved in sports gambling. Thanks so
[31:44] Speaker 2: much for joining me today, Marty. That's Martin Edel, co-chair
[31:48] Speaker 2: of the sports practice at Galston Stores. And that's it
[31:52] Speaker 2: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you
[31:55] Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
[31:57] Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[32:01] Speaker 2: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
[32:07] Speaker 2: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
[32:11] Speaker 2: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.