State law could be trouble for brokers in Manziel case

[TexasTowelie]

If Johnny Manziel did violate NCAA rules by receiving money for signing autographs, a Texas law could put the people who allegedly paid him at risk of being sued by Texas A&M.

Christian Dennie, an attorney with Barlow Garsek & Simon in Fort Worth writes the state of Texas passed legislation in 1987 to make “a person who violates a rule of a national collegiate athletic association … liable for damages in an action brought by an institution.”

To be liable, the person must have known or reasonably should have known a rule was violated and the violation must lead to disciplinary action against the student or institution.”

Manziel, who became the first freshman to win the Heisman last year, is being investigated by the NCAA. ESPN has reported it is for possibly receiving payment from memorabilia brokers for signing autographs in Florida, Connecticut and Texas this year. If he is found to have been paid for signing, it could compromise his amateur status and put his eligibility at risk.

More at http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2013/08/state-law-could-be-trouble-for-brokers-in-manziel-case/?cmpid=rrhoustontx .

[font color=maroon]I'm not an attorney, but wouldn't the question whether Texas law applies be based upon the jurisdiction where the violations occurred? If the deals were brokered and the commission of the offenses occurred outside of Texas, then I don't understand how state law would have standing in court since it is doubtful that there was an intention to libel or slander Texas A&M.

I think that Texas A&M has a stronger case against Manziel and his family for any loss of revenue since they are the persons who would have known that any NCAA rules were violated and the university shares in the responsibility to see that their athletes remain in compliance. I do not see why a broker should be held to a higher standard than either the family or the university since they most likely never had any reason to read those rules or have knowledge of the same.

Any mention of a lawsuit by Texas A&M against the brokers appears to be an effort to intimidate in order to suppress information while the investigation is being conducted.[/font]

[mbperrin]

1. The harm of the actions would occur in Texas, with the loss of revenue at the games.

There's your jurisdiction.

I do think there must be punishment of all the malefactors if something actually happened, and this is not a put up job by brokers who couldn't get all they wanted for free.

[TexasTowelie]

2. How would they calculate the loss in revenue though?

If the Aggies lost the game against Alabama early in the season whether or not Manziel played, then the TV interest and ticket sales would decline anyway. There are no guarantees that every game is going to be a sellout so it becomes very difficult to determine the amount of damages. It isn't as easy to calculate that loss as it would be to calculate the loss of someone who is injured that loses their salary from work.

The largest amount that has been mentioned as far as payments by any of these brokers are concerned is $10,000. I doubt that a broker would raise more than $100,000 for the signed items and I doubt that any of the brokers have very deep pockets. Texas A&M could get a $10 million or a $100 million judgment in their favor, but what good would it do if the defendants in a lawsuit can't pay it?

As it states in the article, to be liable, the person must have known or reasonably should have known a rule was violated and the violation must lead to disciplinary action against the student or institution. That is a significant burden to prove in a court of law and the Manziel family would be more likely to know it is a violation than a broker trying to make a quick buck on eBay.

[mbperrin]

3. The value would be completely destroying the businesses that are corrupting

college sports and getting an ongoing injunction to prevent their operation as long as a penny was owed. I'd like that. These brokers are experts in the rules and laws by definition - that's their business. If they don't know, they're incompetent and certainly need to be out of business, anyway.

I'm sure an actuary can calculate a present value of future loss. My accountant says that it would go something like this: ticket revenues from the last non-Manziel season subtracted from last season, and some adjustment upwards since expectations and sales can reasonably be higher this year than last. Go ahead and triple it for three potential seasons left.

Would give something to argue about, anyway. And that's why we have courts - to make this determination as well.


Honest brokers have nothing to fear - crooks should be out of business, broke, and shamed. I'm tellin' ya, I've got this redneck populist streak that I can't beat down somedays.

[TexasTowelie]

4. Shsssh!

I applied for a job as an actuarial analyst position at the regional insurance company just over the hill in town. It would be my luck that this might arise as one of my first assignments if I'm hired so I don't want a conflict of interest to arise; therefore, I might have to send a DU mail you for verification of those calculations. I can already see that we could get into another discussion about whether Manziel would stay three years versus one year so...