(06-20-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Have you handled many of these cases Frank? GOR cases were mostly entertainment based prior to application to sports. I'm not an attorney but I've read up on these and enforceability was determined by whether one party was unduly burdened by the change. Since application to sports is more recent than performing arts cases I don't think anyone can be quite so sure how pay for play goes down vs amateur status. Both the nature and level of investment change. So I'll wait on a settled case.

At least the money at stake is significant enough now it's more likely to go to court.

I've dealt with IP licenses, so I understand the concept.

The "unduly burdened" standard is extremely high, where you effectively have to show that the business entity itself legitimately cannot function as an ongoing concern to continue with the agreement. The fact that underlying labor costs might be rising as a result of a legal change (which is what pay to play would entail) would be almost impossible to show as an undue burden because everyone in the entire industry would be experiencing the same issue whether they have a GOR agreement or not. Whether college sports are considered professional or amateur is irrelevant to the legal analysis. At the end of the day, it's all just labor costs rising - the ACC schools can't claim that they have new undue burden because of having to play players any more than they have to compete with the Big Ten and SEC for higher coaching salaries. Rising labor costs are simple free market economics and the courts aren't going to break contracts on that basis.