“The NFL’s search of Mr. Goodell’s ESI (electronically stored information) shall be limited to communications: (i) with Mr. Flores, the Texans, or about this action; (ii) about the Case head coach hiring cycles in which Mr. Flores was a candidate; and (iii) the Dolphins’ Arbitration,” wrote magistrate judge Sarah Cave.

The case has largely been on ice since it was filed on February 1, 2022 as the NFL sought to put the lawsuit, which names the league and six teams, into arbitration. After several time consuming twists and turns, judge Valerie Caproni earlier this year ordered all defendants to try the case in court–though three of the teams are currently appealing that order. That order finally opened discovery, both served on the league and the teams, and on Flores himself.

Flores has sought wide ranging discovery covering many years, and which encompassed non-head coaches, from NFL executives to team operations. The NFL opposed, and magistrate judge Cave largely sided with the league.

“The NFL is not required to (i) produce the Non-Coach Discrimination Complaints or the NFL-Wide Discrimination Complaints, or (ii) run Plaintiffs’ ESI search terms specific to the Kaepernick and Gruden incidents, but the NFL shall conduct a reasonable search for and produce the Race Discrimination Complaint Procedures,” she wrote.

The six teams are the Miami Dolphins, which sparked the litigation by firing Flores as head coach; the New York Giants, Houston Texans, Denver Broncos, Arizona Cardinal, and Tennessee Titans. The discovery demands are tailored for each team, but all six are pushing back. For example Flores wanted discovery on the Giants head coaching search earlier this year. The court turned that down, and noted Flores had even subpoenaed Brian Daboll, who the Giants hired in 2022 over Flores..

There is the Denver Broncos situation, where a team executive is declining to hand over his personal phone. Keith Bishop is the vice president of security, and was during the 2018-2019 head coach search period at issue in their case.

“The Broncos have been forthcoming that Keith Bishop, their Vice President of Security during the 2018–2019 hiring cycle, has responsive text messages on his personal device, but he has refused to permit the Broncos’ counsel to conduct a search, and so they have requested that the Court order Mr. Bishop to cooperate with the search,” she wrote. “Accordingly, the Court orders Mr. Bishop to make his personal phone available to the Broncos’ counsel for a search of his ESI for the period from December 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. “ And she added, “Mr. Bishop is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions.”

In addition to Goodell, Cave ordered limited ESI searches on former general counsel Jeff Pash, and media relations executives Brian McCarthy and Katie Hill. This is in addition to the four executives the NFL had already agreed to: Dasha Smith, EVP and Chief Administrative Officer; Troy Vincent, EVP of Football Operations; Jonathan Beane, SVP for the NFL’s Leadership and Inclusion; and (iv) Ken Fiore, VP for Player Personnel. The NFL had objected to more than this quartet.

Flores filed his class action lawsuit February 1, 2022, after the Miami Dolphins fired him, claiming racial discrimination. The case initially was brought against the NFL and the Dolphins, the New York Giants, and the Denver Broncos. The Giants and Broncos interviewed Flores for head coach positions in what he dubbed sham processes. Months later he added former head coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton as plaintiffs, and as defendants their former teams, the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans, as well as the Houston Texans

Cave also ordered limited discovery on the ESI of deceased Houston Texans owner, Janice McNair.

“The Texans respond that Mrs. McNair suffered a significant health event in January 2022, and the Texans’ interview of Mr. Flores occurred on January 14, 2022, so she is not likely to have any unique documents,” Cave wrote. “While we acknowledge that Mrs. McNair’s health issues may have limited her involvement in the 2022 hiring cycle…the Texans shall run the agreed ESI search terms against Mrs. McNair’s corporate ESI for the period from December 1, 2022 through January 14, 2022, and provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a hit report, about which the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether further review and production is necessary. “

That is just one of several interesting tidbits contained in a slew of letters sent this week by the defendants to the judge defending their approach to discovery. While the case was filed February 1, 2022, discovery only truly got under way in recent months after the federal judge overseeing the case ordered all disputes should occur before her–and not in arbitration. She lifted the years old stay on the case that had blocked discovery.

In addition to the Broncos, the other team defendants are the Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, Tennessee Titans, Arizona Cardinals and Houston Texans. The Dolphins firing Flores after the 2021 season sparked the lawsuit.

Discovery disputes are an every day occurrence in the lifecycle of most cases, particularly complicated class action discrimination lawsuits like this one. Flores alleges systemic racism in the NFL caused his firing and his failure to secure a new head coach job; he is defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings.

Occasionally a discovery dispute will lead to a public disclosure that is newsy. Last week for Front Office Sports for example, I exclusively reported that Panini, which is suing Fanatics, accused its trading card competitor of stealing the plaintiff’s trade secrets, basing that on a sealed document. And yesterday I exclusively reported here Flores lawyers want to unseal a Korn Ferry document that undergirds a new discrimination allegation (little news here, the magistrate judge gave the go ahead today for Flores to file a supplemental complaint, which could mean the document gets disclosed–or sadly the complaint could be heavily redacted too).

So far, discovery letters that have come in from the NFL and most of the six teams in the last couple of days. Here are some of the interesting nuggets I plucked out.

• The Denver Broncos are pushing back against what the team describes as broad discovery demands, pointing out they are being sued on only one count that revolved around the 2019 decision by then executive John Elway to hire Vic Fangio over Flores. The Broncos defend what they have produced so far in discovery, but notably wrote about efforts to get key employees to hand over their phones, that “Keith Bishop, the Broncos understand he has relevant text messages, but he will not permit a search.” Bishop is a team vice president of security.

• Flores’ lawyers are asking for documents on Colin Kaepernick and Jon Gruden. The former started kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest police violence, causing a years long controversy, and effectively running him out of the league. Gruden was fired as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders when racist emails he apparently wrote were leaked. “Requests concerning Colin Kaepernick and Jon Gruden, along with other requests raised by Flores at the August 14 conference, are likewise not relevant or discoverable,” the NFL’s outside counsel wrote to the court. “If the Court determines these requests are outside the purview of this letter, the NFL requests the opportunity to elaborate on their lack of relevance. “

• In these discovery processes, each side designates who is a custodian of the relevant electronic documents that are to be searched. Defendants always want to shrink the number, and plaintiffs of course the opposite. Flores wants commissioner Roger Goodell, former chief legal officer Jeffrey Pash, and communications officials Katie Hill and Brian McCarthy as custodians. The NFL opposes this, and has offered instead Dasha Smith, EVP and Chief Administrative Officer, responsible for the League’s inclusion function; (ii) Troy Vincent, EVP of Football Operations, responsible for inclusion initiatives related to the head coach candidate pool; (iii) Jonathan Beane, SVP, League Leadership & Inclusion, responsible for inclusion policies applicable to head coach hiring; and (iv) Ken Fiore, VP Player Personnel, responsible for club reporting of interview and hiring information.

• The Houston Texans are fighting the Flores ask that the accounts of Janice McNair, the recently deceased owner of the team, be considered a custodian. “We believe it is unlikely that Mrs. McNair possesses a unique responsive ESI that would not be captured through the other agreed-upon custodians.” ESI is the acronym for electronically stored information.

• The New York Giants are objecting to the Flores team demand that Big Blue turn over documents related to their most recent head coaching search, which resulted in John Harbaugh’s hire. “The Giants’ 2026 hiring cycle is discoverable for the same reasons: whether practices tracked earlier cycles and those of other teams, and whether the Giants meaningfully considered Black candidates is relevant to the class claims,” Flores lawyers wrote the court. To which the Giants counsel responded, “That half-hearted assertion identifies neither a feature of the 2026 cycle bearing on Flores’s 2022 discrimination claim nor any non-cumulative evidence unavailable from the earlier cycles already within discovery.”

• It’s not just discovery on the NFL and the six teams, but their demands for documents from Flores. One area they are looking at is his reputation. The Texans and Broncos submitted a joint letter stating, “Defendants understand, for example, that Plaintiff threatened the General Manager to whom he reported and developed contentious relationships with certain key Dolphins players, and that Plaintiff discussed these incidents with Club representatives in subsequent hiring processes.” It’s not been previously reported that Flores “threatened” Chris Grier, the Dolphins then GM. But it has been reported the two were at odds and Flores wanted to take player choice decisions away from Grier.

The decisions on discovery disputes are made by the magistrate judge. But those rulings are appealable to the federal judge who oversees the case. At that point, appeals to higher courts are also possible.

What the new allegation is, and what is in that Korn Ferry document, is non-public information, at least at the moment. In a letter to the magistrate judge handling discovery in the case, however, Korn Ferry described the subject of the document as a head coach search the recruitment firm did for the Las Vegas Raiders.

“Korn Ferry is specifically requesting that Exhibit A remain under seal,” the company’s lawyers wrote the magistrate judge in a letter dated August 12. “Exhibit A references a confidential candidate search and was prepared by Korn Ferry in connection with a confidential search engagement with its client, the Las Vegas Raiders.”

The Raiders conducted head coach searches at the end of the 2024 season and again at the end of the 2025 season. Public reports in early 2025 said the Raiders hired Korn Ferry to assist in the hiring of a head coach and a general manager https://www.silverandblackpride.com/2025/1/11/24341227/raiders-news-jed-hughes-firm

Flores filed his class action lawsuit February 1, 2022, after the Miami Dolphins fired him, claiming racial discrimination. The case initially was brought against the NFL and the Dolphins, the New York Giants, and the Denver Broncos. The Giants and Broncos interviewed Flores for head coach positions in what he dubbed sham processes. Months later he added former head coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton as plaintiffs, and as defendants their former teams, the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans, as well as the Houston Texans. Earlier this year Flores added a retaliation claim https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/brian-flores-will-amend-lawsuit-to-include-retaliation-claim-over-arbitration-issue.

The case for more than three years did not move as the sides argued and appealed whether the dispute should go before a court, or an arbitrator as the NFL prefers. Ultimately the second circuit court of appeals ruled all the parties should be in court, and not arbitration.

The NFL has not objected, at least yet to the unsealing of the Korn Ferry document, but the Miami Dolphins have. The magistrate judge requested briefs on the subject to be filed in coming weeks.

The Dolphins and Titans are objecting to Flores adding a new allegation, one of the coach’s lawyers wrote today to the magistrate judge,

“The Dolphins, as well as the Titans, contend that it would be more `practical’ for Mr. Flores to hold off the filing of a Supplemental Complaint until a later point,” David Gottlieb wrote. “That gets the practicalities backwards. Mr. Flores is entitled to seek redress for his newly accrued anti-discrimination claims.”

Gottlieb would only confirm to this reporter that Flores is ready to add a new allegation, but he cited court confidentiality orders from revealing the nature of the allegation at this time or what is revealed in the Korn Ferry sealed document.

Two factions have been vigorously contesting since early June who has the legal right to claim the PTPA mandate. A group of players that includes Marco Trungelliti and Saisai Zheng filed a ten-count lawsuit last month against four players, former executive director Ahmad Nassar, current executive director Romain Rosenberg, and Winners Alliance, which funds the PTPA. The four players that have been PTPA directors and are named defendants are Ons Jabeur, Vasek Pospisil, Hubert Hurkacz, and Bethanie Mattek-Sands.

But yesterday the plaintiffs–who are suing under the PTPA name in Superior Court in Washington, D.C.–dropped Nassar and Winners Alliance from the lawsuit, as well as eight of the 10 counts. The two counts that remain, which names the four players and Rosenberg as defendants, ask the court to declare the plaintiffs’ June 3 board meeting as valid. There they sacked Rosenberg and directed their general counsel to investigate the relationship between Winners Alliance and the PTPA.

The next day the four named player defendants and Rosenberg had their own board meeting, where they agreed to fire the general counsel. This group is now suing the general counsel, Wajid Mir, in a separate action in Illinois federal court. The second count asks the judge to declare the June 4 meeting invalid. The judge, Robert Okun, has already said in court that both meetings don’t appear to be legal because of quorum and notice problems.

The dismissed counts were for breach of fiduciary duty; for a judicial order to remove Pospisil and Sands as directors; tortious interference; that the June 3 group get access to the PTPA; unjust enrichment; breach of contract (this is just against Winners Alliance; and what promissory estoppel, a judicial term that essentially means even if there was not a contract, the parties made promises to each other.

Counts one and two, which remain active, essentially asks the court to validate the June 3 group over the June 4 group.

Why the drastic change? Usually it means the party dropping the charges knew it couldn’t win on them. The plaintiffs had asked for a temporary injunction that would give them access to the PTPA. The Superior court judge largely turned them down. There is also always the chance this was a cost saving move. Unlike the June 4 group, which has Winners Alliance resources to tap into, the plaintiffs in the DC case do not appear to have deep pockets. The changes to the lawsuit are being made without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled.

The former Wimbledon champ will surely appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports what is widely viewed as a draconian punishment. The panel, an appeals platform for the ITIA, which oversees drug testing and betting in the sport, in the end said its hands were tied on the length of suspension, which it claimed is established by the World Anti Doping Authority. They could have used extenuating circumstances to lower the term, but ruled even if the player suffered from generalized anxiety at the time of the incident as she claimed, it is not enough to reduce the punishment.

A few things jumped out of me, none more so than what I would describe as the gratuitous inclusion of a text Vondrousova sent to her boyfriend when the doping control officer (DCO) was buzzing her at her residence in Prague. “At 8:05 p.m. the player sent a text message on WhatsApp to her boyfriend Andrew Paulson, who is also a Czech professional tennis player. The message, translated into English, read, “So, like here is ringing some cunt from the doping.”

One can see the headlines, former Wimbledon champ calls doping officer a cunt. Ostensibly the three member panel would likely contend they needed the text to prove Vondrousova knew at the time the woman buzzing her apartment was from doping control and not some maniac trying to get in. Of course, they already have her communications with her agent establishing the same point. One could also have just paraphrased the text to the boyfriend.

As a journalist, the more color the better. But there is an undercurrent among some tennis players that the ITIA is out to get them. Right or wrong, inclusion of this text is not helpful in that regard.

Vondrousova also had four different medical professionals submit reports that she suffered an acute stress reaction (ASR) that night in December when the DCO showed up unscheduled. The panel disregarded three of these reports, and only considered the fourth. They contrasted that final report with one of their experts, who concluded she may have had anxiety but not a medical condition like ASR.

Another highlight is Vondrousova, who has tested and passed 83 drug tests in her career, said she did not know that testers were allowed one unascheduled visit a year (the rest are done within a one hour period supplied by the athlete.) According to her testimony, her agent, Enric Molina, did not know this either when she called him that fateful night.

When Maria Sharapova was suspended for taking meldonium weeks after it hit the banned list, her agent then also took some of the blame for not being up on the drug moving into the banned category. Vondrousova and her agent clearly did not know, and she wasn’t alone. Andy Roddick on his podcast said early in the process that if the tester had come outside the one hour window the ITIA was at fault. A few days later he said he was wrong and that the ITIA can test once annually for each player at an undesignated time.

Who the ITIA believes and doesn’t is a complicated subject. They believed Jannik Sinner’s defense that a member of his team used contaminated gel during a massage that in the end led to his three month suspension last year. By contrast, Vondrousova’s defense of a stress reaction when a stranger she did not know buzzed her was dismissed by the panel.

There are many drugs that only stay detectable in the system for short periods of time, so the point of the rule is unlike with scheduled visits, the athlete can’t time a drug he or she might be ingesting. That is why the panel had no use for the clean drug test she submitted to days after she declined to let in the DCO.

The DCO and the player have different memories of what happened that night. Vondrousova said the DCO buzzed and buzzed over a dozen times, adding to her anxiety. The player said the form she signed later that night confirming she had declined the test was not explained to her and she just signed it to make the DCO go away. The DCO says she buzzed twice, and explained the form (I have to say, if someone told me I couldn’t practice my job for four years if I signed, I wouldn’t sign.) Vondrousova’s apartment complex does not have a camera to show who is at the door, so the DCO couldn’t show her credentials from the entryway.

Vondrousova later that night took her dog, described as a small Italian greyhound for a walk and encountered the DPO, who gave her the form to sign that would lead to the four year ban.

.

This surely a first in pro tennis; class action notices mass emailed to a group a court filing described as more than 4,000 players.

“There are approximately 4,000 active professional tennis players and thousands more retired professional tennis players who meet the requirements” to be a class member, the court filing explained.

This is likely the first class settlement notice ever sent to pro tennis players, who by definition are independent contractors and thus would be hard to legally corral in a class. That’s because one of the legal thresholds for a class is “commonality,” which means there must be strong similarities among the class.

To step back, last year the PTPA and roughly a dozen former and current players sued the ATP and WTA Tours, later adding the four Grand Slam, for antitrust injury caused by alleged collusion to keep prize money and other benefits down. Somewhat surprisingly, in December Tennis Australia agreed to a settlement.

The settlement does not award any damages, but requires TA to cooperate with the plaintiffs; this is called an “icebreaker deal” in that it allows the plaintiffs with the new information to chip away at the defendant’s argument.

But just because class members are not due any compensation, they still must approve the settlement. Dates of mailing, for opposition and closing are not set yet. Nor is the web site address that will act as a clearinghouse for settlement members: www.TennisPlayersLitigation.com

But the settlement notice lays out the steps that are to be taken to notify players (any person who played in an ATP or WTA event since March 18, 2021 is eligible.)

According to the settlement papers, the campaign will seek 5.5 million digital impressions with messages on digital platforms. “Impressions may also be purchased to run display ads on one or more industry-related websites and/or e-newsletters, which may include, but are not limited to, either Tennis.com, TennisChannel.com, TennisViewMag.com, MyTennisHQ.com, LastWordOnTennis.com, and/or TennisHead.net, among others.”

The campaign will also include, “Direct outreach to sports agencies who represent professional tennis players associated with the ATP or WTA, across all rankings, to inform their clients of the Damages Settlement opt-out, which may include, but are not limited to, Creative Artists Agency (CAA), Octagon, GSE Worldwide (GSE), SeventyTwo Sports Group, Elite Athlete Agency, StarWing Sports, and Wasserman.”

Players have three choices: do nothing, which is akin to a yes vote; object in writing or at a hearing; or opt out and preserve their right to sue the TA.

The other five defendants in the antitrust case–the two tours and three Slams-are not covered by the settlement. How the settlement notice is affected by the competing factions seeking control of the PTPA is unclear. The five defendants have already asked the federal court in the wake of the civil war at the PTPA to remove it as a plaintiff.

The civil war at the PTPA is complex, as is what the sides are seeking, but one very telling line from the judge offers a likely roadmap for how it will end: “I find that for most of their claims, the plaintiffs have not clearly established that they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits. That does not mean that they won’t succeed. It just means that it’s just not clear to me, at this point, that they are substantially likely to do so.”

The PTPA was founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2020, with backing from Winners Alliance, an investor in athlete focused endeavors. The PTPA is designed to rep pro tennis players, but is best known for the antitrust lawsuit it brought against the Slams and Tours and Djokovic’s withdrawal from the organization.

The lawsuit in DC is brought by an entity billing itself as the PTPA and two players, Marco Trungelliti and Saisai Zheng. They argue they and then general counsel Wajid Mir on June 3 held a board meeting with four other supposed board members: Taylor Townsend, Anna Rodionova and two anonymous players (they are believed to be Frances Tiafoe and Xiyu Wan).

They fired the executive director, Romain Rosenberg, and empowered Mir with investigating alleged corruption in the PTPA-Winners Alliance partnership. But on June 4, a different board met and instead fired Mir (and would later sue him in federal court), alleging he was trying to stage a coup.

So the lawsuit was brought by the June 3 committee, and asked the judge to declare the June 4 vote invalid, sideline Rosenberg, and allow them access to PTPA accounts. He granted none of these requests.

The best he did was order the June 4 committee, which for now appears to be the real committee, to give board members, as required by bylaw, seven days notice of meetings, to preserve all documents, and the defendants (the June 4 committee) give 14 days notice before appointing any new committee members.

Judge Robert Okun told a court hearing Monday that neither the June 3 or June 4 committees were lawfully constituted. He denied the June 3 group’s argument that three of the June 4 committee members’ terms had expired. Under DC law if a board member’s term ends, but no replacement is named, the board member keeps the seat. He also ruled the June 4 committee did not have the proper quorum or give enough notice to Townsend and Zheng.

But he did not strip the June 4 groups of its control of the PTPA, nor sideline Rosenberg. The case now moves forward, and barring a successful appeal, looks rather like a long shot for the plaintiffs. Of course new evidence can always emerge, and different arguments filed, but again, for now the PTPA remains under the control of its pre-lawsuit board and management.

The tennis players’ group, which is in existence to serve pro tennis players, is split between two litigious factions. The main force behind the PTPA plaintiffs in today’s hearing is Wajid Syed, the former–or current–general counsel of the PTPA (more on his status in a moment). But in one of the many oddities of this case, he is not a named plaintiff in the DC case. Named plaintiffs are what is called the PTPA and two player board members Zheng Saisai and Marco Trungelliti. This group, which also includes player board members Taylor Townsend and Anna Rodionova voted June 3 to oust the incumbent executive director with a vote that also included two new but anonymous player board members. That’s key because six board members are required for a quorum.

In court last week, counsel for the June 3 bastion of the PTPA said of why their names are not in the record, “We just, to respect their wishes, given their celebrity and even their prominence in this field-that is the reason that we did not disclose their names in our papers.”

They agreed to disclose the names privately to the judge. In any case I can report the duo are Frances Tiafoe and Xiyu Wang. I can’t speak for Wang’s celebrity–she ranks 89th on the WTA Tour, but Tiafoe is a big get for the PTPA, which other than its now departed co-founder Novak Djokovic, has been light on top players manning its board or even voicing support.

Tiafoe’s name is listed in an exhibit to a court filing by Anastasia Skavronskaia—a PTPA employee aligned with the June 3 group— as being on the board. Of course which board is the question, as the one that met on June 4 claims to be the real board and fired the general counsel Syed and presumably does not consider Tiafoe a real board member. To make matters more confusing, the June 4th board, which is closely aligned with Bill Ackman backed Winners Alliance, is suing Syed in federal court in Illinois.

The June 3 group says Syed was about to investigate claims of corruption in the Winners Alliance-PTPA relationship and that’s why the other board fired him days later.

At the heart of the battle for control is the question of which board is legitimate. It gets arcane, but the arguments concern the PTPA bylaws and Washington, D.C. charity rules, which dictates things like how many days notice a board member is required to have before a meeting and what is the status of board members whose terms have expired but no replacement has been named.

The June 4 crew called what happened June 3 a coup. What the plaintiffs today are asking for–this is the Syed aligned June 3 group–is for the other PTPA to give them access again to association accounts and recognize they had fired the executive director.

Judge Robert Okun hypothesized during last week’s hearing he could find both groups did not have lawfully constituted boards, a scenario that would make the situation even murkier.

That’s why it is so interesting that Tiafoe has apparently decided to join the PTPA, according to the court exhibit as well as a source. Even before the litigation, the PTPA, which formed in 2020, struggled with recognition in the tennis world. They are best known for the antitrust case filed against the Grand Slams and two tours (the Australian Open is in the process of settling). Whether either side of the PTPA redux can speak to the antitrust attorneys was a bone of contention in the first hearing in the federal case.

Today’s Judge Okun ruling hopefully will begin to clear up the mess and decree which side is the real PTPA, though if one side loses badly appeal is most likely. Whatever the outcome it won’t be pretty. Just last week a lawyer for the June 4 group all but accused Townsend of lying in her declaration to the court.

”Townsend appears to have said some false things in her declaration in this case,” he told the court (the issue was whether PTPA co-founder Vasek Pospisil recruited her to the group). So a lawyer for a group that sees itself as advocating for tennis players, in court accuses the world number two in doubles of lying. It’s may only get uglier.

The case has been ongoing since November 19, 2024, but behind the closed doors of arbitration. What brought it to light is an NFLPA filing on July 13 in federal court in the southern district of New York seeking a judicial order to enforce a purported win in that arbitration.

In 2023, the NFLPA and Saber jointly announced their new partnership https://nflpa.com/partners/posts/saber-interactive-teams-with-nflpa-to-bring-wild-card-football-to-consoles-pc-on-october-10-featuring-hundreds-of-pro-football-superstars, “Saber Interactive, in partnership with the NFL Players Association and OneTeam Partners, is excited to announce the latest installment in the bestselling arcade-sports Playgrounds franchise: Wild Card Football. This over-the-top, pick-up-and-play video game features an authentic roster of hundreds of pro football superstars, including Colin Kaepernick, Jalen Hurts, Patrick Mahomes, Justin Jefferson, T.J. Watt, Joey Bosa, Ja’Marr Chase, Aaron Donald and many more.”

According to the federal court filing, the parties signed the licensee agreement on May 23, 2023. By September 30 2024, the NFLPA moved to terminate the agreement based on failure to pay, the court document states. Less than two months later the union filed the arbitration grievance. A month later Saber counter-claimed for fraud and breach of contract, according to the lawsuit.

“On November 11, 2025 the Panel issued an interim award granting claimants motion for summary disposition on the merits of their breach-of-contract claims and granting Claimants’ motion to dismiss Saber counterclaims, finding that Saber’s contractual arguments for not paying all guaranteed amounts were `strained’ and erroneous and that Saber’s counterclaims were meritless as matter of law,” the court filing reads. There were three arbitrators on the panel.

The union then adds, “ Saber has not complied with the Corrected Final Award and has indicated that it has no intention of doing so.”

In a footnote, the NFLPA wrote that on May 6 Saber wired the union $1.44 million, but because the amount did not satisfy its demand, the union plans on returning the payment. The final award is $1.75 million in unpaid guaranteed payments; $286,774.19 for the license agreement; $172,947.93 in interest; $878,216 in attorney fees; $40,936 in other costs; and $102,953.69 in arbitration fees.

There are no receipts for Saber payments to the union in the NFLPA’s three most recent annual reports filed with the Department of Labor.

Saber Interactive was sold in March 2024–just months before the union filed its grievance–to Beacon Interactive for a $247 million https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/embracer-group-sells-off-space-marine-maker-saber-interactive-and-most-of-its-studios-for-dollar247-million-but-the-price-could-go-a-lot-higher/

According to its website, Saber is “a worldwide publisher and developer consisting of 13 studios in the Americas and Europe.”

Sure Sports, founded in 2009, arranges loans between financial institutions and athletes. In the case of the fake McKinney loan, Sure Sports brought Aliya Sports Finance Fund together with whom it thought was McKinney. But in reality it was Luther Davis, who subsequently plead guilty to identity theft and wire fraud for arranging over $20 million of fraudulent loans (he also posed as Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Penix, and David Nojuko.) https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/georgia-men-plead-guilty-nearly-20-million-fraud-and-identity-theft-scheme-targeted

Aliya sued Sure Sports last year for failing to do due diligence on the McKinney loan, and the case may go to trial later this year. In its briefs, Sure Sports accused Aliya of not doing its due diligence.

Now, Sure Sports writes in the new complaint that it hired Yerechmiel Holt to conduct due diligence on the McKinney loan.

“A reasonably competent attorney performing due diligence on a transaction of this nature and magnitude would have pursued available means to independently confirm that the individual presenting as Xavier McKinney was in fact Xavier McKinney, including, without limitation, direct contact with McKinney’s NFL team or agents of record, verification through the NFL Players Association, comparison of biographical or biometric data against publicly available or readily accessible sources, or other contemporaneously available identity verification measures commensurate with the size and nature of the transaction.,” Sure Sport charges in the complaint, filed in Florida state court.

So Sure Sports accuses a contractor it hired of failing to do the due diligence. At the same time in the Aliya case defense, it’s argued that the fund failed to perform adequate due diligence.

In the Holt complaint, Sure Sports claims Holt also served as general counsel to Aliya, a fact the loan agency wrote it was unaware of. That was a conflict of interest Sure Sports charges.

“Holtz failed to disclose to Sure Sports the existence of his concurrent representation of ASFF; failed to advise Sure Sports that it had the right to seek independent legal counsel; and failed to obtain Sure Sports’ informed written consent to his dual representation.”

Holt charged Sure Sports $3,200 for his services, according to a receipt included in the complaint.

Sure Sports is asking the court that in the event it is held liable to Aliya, that Holt in turn pay some of the amount in proportion to his role.

Holt did not return queries about the Sure Sports complaint.

The FBI arrested Davis in late 2024 in a loan closing sting that Sure Sports arranged.

Its unclear what happened to the money he fraudulently obtained.

But yes this is largely an inside baseball riff (sorry) about the ever expanding niche of sports business journalism because it’s not every day that one of the entrants takes a potshot at another. I am referencing JohnWallStreet’s broadside against Sportico and its somewhat unusual announcement that it is essentially going into the business it covers.

“Very serious journalists GTFO,” JohnWallStreet (@howielongshort) tweeted at Sportico, which had announced, “Sportico launched Sportico Studio, a new video and content platform that helps brands reach sports business audiences through sponsored content, storytelling, and multimedia campaigns across digital, social, and events.”

“These fuckin losers once had a meltdown because Amazon sent a grill to the office.,” John WallStreet tweeted.

For those not familiar, JohnWallStreet, which is run by the industrious Corey Leff, is a hyper focused newsletter about sports business, a micro b to b publication that offers often detailed stories about hard core sports businesses. It has an event business, and Leff is generally well thought of in sports business inner circles. Sportico, also a B to B, is a more general news site that covers top sports business stories,

Now before getting into Sportico’s newest business line, it should be noted conflicts of interest are generally par for the course in this space. All the platforms–SportsBusiness Journal, Front Office Sports, Sportico, and JWS (there are others)–stage conferences for the industry. Walking the tight balance between covering the industry and celebrating the industry is a tough one, and a balance that it seems many of these outlets don’t give much care to executing. I know this from first hand experience. If you are a publication and a reporter is working on an investigative piece on your major conference title sponsor, that is a delicate path to walk and decisions are tilted by dollars.

What Sportico announced though appears as a major escalation in embedding with the industry. The initiative Sportico describes-” a new video and content platform that helps brands reach sports business audiences”--sounds like one of any number of agencies that the journalists at Sportico, and the other platforms, might cover.

I am not one to shout out GTFO like Corey–he is more bold than I–but admittedly I did a double take when I read the announcement. I won’t judge Sportico. Any place that keeps journalists employed has my respect, and they do a great job reporting IMO. They probably owe it to their readers to explain why they are doing this, who will run it, and how any perceived or real conflicts might be handled.

—-

On that Russini story, I thought it spoke volumes that the Athletic’s executive editor Steve Ginsberg was not made available for comment. I was at the Athletic when Ginsberg was hired from the Washington Post, and the worry then–and arguably it’s been borne out–is that he didn’t know how sports media operated. My one interaction with him came at the 2023 NFL Combine the day after I had a big story on the Washington Commanders. I went up and introduced myself and he noted my story, and quickly followed he didn’t understand why the Post didn’t have that story. The inference was clear: who the fuck was I; if the Post didn’t have it how could a nobody like me (the Post later that day confirmed it and credited me). He hadn’t done his research on me, just as it seems he didn’t do his research on Russini (obviously not apples to apples but feeds into the undercurrent in the NYT story that he didn’t understand the sports world). The Athletic laid me off a few months later as part of a dismantling of serious sports business coverage that is still a major gap there today. (no, what the Athletic has now doesn’t remotely replace it) Ginsberg should be front and center when the internal report on Russini comes out and answer why he and the Times seemed to know so little about her and her brand. The NYT story makes it clear, the Vrabel stuff aside, that she was part of the ribald ecosystem of big time sports media (she references herself as a MILF and once boasted how she got out of a ticket by facetiming a coach to talk to the officer). That’s fine and more power to her, but why didn’t Ginsburg know? And if he did, then he should answer for that too. Here’s hoping when the report comes out he emerges out of his hiding place and holds a press conference. This isn’t a Jayson Blair level scandal, but its not immaterial. Think about it: Vrabel has been more accessible to the media than Ginsberg since this story broke.

.

In keeping with the theme, the NFL in late May agreed to settle a class action brought by two former players over the use of race norming in determining disability payments.This issue exploded into the public sphere in 2020 when African American players in the concussion settlement found they were being judged differently than their white counterparts https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29740114/lawyers-say-nfl-concussion-settlements-discriminate-black-players.

The current settlement has to do with the league’s disability programs, not the concussion settlement, but the outcomes ultimately are similar. Three years ago two former players, Stacey Bailey and Eric Curry, filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL’s various disability programs and boards for race norming. This is when neurologists artificially give a minority a lower cognitive baseline, thereby making it harder to prove impairment.

The race norming lawsuit against the concussion settlement ultimately was dismissed for procedural reasons, but the NFL agreed to never use race information again and pledged to redo the concussion claims that had been affected.

The NFL in the disability case agreed to certify the class strictly for settlement purposes. That’s opposed to certifying a class as part of ongoing litigation. The distinction is important, as the NFL is not admitting any wrongdoing and makes clear the former players would have had tremendous difficulty certifying a class for ongoing litigation

“Defendants presented evidence that they allege shows a limited number of Neutral Physicians applied racebased demographic adjustments based on their independent clinical judgment, not pursuant to any directive from Defendants,” the NFL wrote in a court filing. “Defendants also produced evidence that upon learning of the use of race-based demographic adjustments, the Plans directed all Neutral Physicians to cease using any race-based demographic adjustments on new testing effective June 2021. Defendants maintain that race-based demographic adjustments have not been applied to Plan participants’ new neuropsychological testing since that date.”

The new settlement’s class period starts January 1, 2012 to the present. The settlement creates a system for rescoring former players’ disability rejections or the level of payments to determine if he is due compensation (if they are, the settlement will use a 6 percent interest rate for the retroactive payments.) The settlement also sets up a triumvirate of three neurologists to score the at issue claims. One is put forward by the players and one by the NFL. If they disagree on a rescoring, a third independent neurologist breaks the tie.

Plaintiffs’ Expert is Dr. Malcolm Spica; Defendants’ Expert is Dr. William Garmoe; and the Neutral Third Expert is Dr. Jason Soble.

It’s unclear how many disability claims are at issue, though there are thousands of players using the disability plans.

The settlement does not affect the case filed against the NFL’s disability programs for allegedly in general ignoring plan rules and limiting payouts. The judge in that case, Alford v The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan et al denied class certification, though individual cases are still being litigated.

This morning’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA) united Dems and Republicans on the panel: either reform the SBA or get rid of it was the message. Sure the Dems on the panel took the opportunity to decry media mergers and Trump administration pressure on news outlets (it would be nice if the reps could focus on the hearing’s subject). But of the roughly dozen representatives who spoke, many on each side of the aisle decried the expense required to see all of one’s favorite team’s games caused by media fragmentation.

The 1961 SBA created an antitrust exception for sports leagues to pool their media rights. As many representatives noted, the SBA created that exemption for broadcast, not the then pie in the sky concepts of satellite, cable and streaming services. And the exemption was created out of fear of the leagues not surviving; that is not the case today

No league was present at the hearing, which featured a Houston bar owner, an executive with the National Association of Broadcasters, an FCC commissioner, and founder of Outkick, Clay Travis (NFL commissioner Roger Goodell turned down an invitation).

The absence of anyone from a sports league or team was a big miss for the hearing. When a Congressman asked why the NFL did not want to allow Sunday Ticket to be sold a la carte, no one had the answer. It’s quite simple: CBS and Fox make it a condition of their deals that ST be sold with every teams’ out of market games, or none. CBS and Fox rightly worry that allowing fans to buy just one team’s out of market games would ultimately devalue the core Sunday afternoon packages.

Whether leagues are in compliance with the SBA by pooling teams media rights for streaming and cable had not been on anyone’s radar (heck it was nearly four decades ago that the NFL sold its first cable package). That changed when Fox complained to the administration that the NFL’s plans to re-open its media deals and demand 50 percent or more could destroy local news. That’s because streamers and their vast resources to bid on NFL games don’t need to keep local broadcast stations afloat. If Fox loses the NFL, it is all but sunk.

So now the FCC and DOJ are investigating the NFL, and if the tone of the Congressional hearing is any indication, legislation might be forthcoming.

There are several forms this could take. Keep the SBA, but through legislation make sure it is clearly designated to protect pooling for over the air media deals. An unlikely outcome would be legislation expanding the language of the SBA to include satellite, cable and streaming.

The third and cleanest option would be to eliminate the SBA. While the leagues would be exposed, it doesn’t necessarily mean the bottom falls out. The leagues have solid arguments that pooling of media rights favors the consumer. Given the explosive growth of sports media and skyrocketing viewership figures, arguably this is the market showing the sports leagues pooling, which enables competitive balance by sharing media dollars equally, has made for a better product.

Whether that optimism spreads to the out of market package Sunday Ticket is debatable. The ongoing lawsuit against the NFL over Sunday Ticket trudges on, but the jury decision in 2024 that found the NFL had colluded was cited today by several representatives. The judge in that case reversed the jury finding; that is what is on appeal currently.

The NFL may rue reopening its media deals and demanding more cash, a lot more. That sparked the Fox move, which in turn sparked government investigations and then the oddity of the GOP and Dems largely agreeing. The NFL always boasts it brings people together. Well, hats off, the league has brought Democrats and Republicans.

This would be the second ex-employee lawsuit against the union, joining former internal counsel Heather McPhee’s lawsuit against the NFLPA over her allegedly being punished for whistleblowing.

“Craig Jones, a former employee of the NFLPA, through counsel has communicated an intention to file suit against the NFLPA seeking damages for discrimination,” the NFLPA wrote in a footnote to the annual report. “Suit has not been filed and therefore it is premature to assess liability or exposure.”

Both firings involve in part the NFLPA’s relationship with OneTeam Partners, a marketing agency co-founded by the union and MLBPA to manage their group licensing business (the company has expanded to encompass other sports unions). In December 2024 McPhee began investigating prospective equity awards contemplated for OTP board members, which included then NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell and NFL Players Inc. president Matthew Curtin.

According to a lawsuit she filed in December 2025 against the union, Howell, Curtin and then general counsel Tom DePaso, she was stymied in her approach and ultimately sidelined. In the interim federal authorities began investigating the NFLPA’s and MLPBA s OTP connections. At the end of 2025, the NFLPA fired McPhee, who had been with the group since 2009

Howell ultimately resigned in July 2025 after a series of stories about conflicts of interests; allegedly covering up the findings of an arbitrator’s collusion report that found the NFL had instructed teams to work together to prevent guaranteed contracts for star quarterbacks; misuse of business spending including at strip clubs; and the OTP probe.

Right after Howell’s departure, Jones sent an internal email, according to ESPN.com, that questioned former NFLPA chief strategy officer JC Tretter’s role in the controversies. Tretter is now the executive director of the NFLPA.

In a letter he sent out to players after his firing, Jones wrote, “In the aftermath of Lloyd Howell’s debacle and resignation, I sent an all staff email asking how we as a union move forward, cleansed of the miasma of Lloyd Howell’s strip club schemes to undermine the NFLPA if chief architects of those schemes were still employed at the NFLPA.

“My termination is nothing more than retaliation because I spoke simple truths to corrupt jaundice power. I couldn’t stand silently by and watch the undermining of a storied union dedicated to the players whose trust we had earned with employees of commitment and a consistent well spring of results for our players.”

Efforts to reach Jones were unsuccessful. The NFLPA annual report terms the intended lawsuit as one filed for discrimination, not retaliation. McPhee in her suit has a discrimination claim too, arguing she was treated differently as a woman.

But think about this. Top players are talking boycott because of an insulting increase in prize money at the French that appears to have reduced the overall percentage of revenues paid to players, who in general have long been paid far less based on this metric than those in other sports https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/48825737/french-open-players-plan-media-protest-prize-money-share Jannik Sinner said its also about “respect.” https://www.msn.com/en-ie/sports/tennis/sinner-refuses-to-rule-out-grand-slam-boycott-as-tennis-civil-war-escalates-after-sabalenka-threat/ar-AA22CBsP?cvid=6a0b75ffd02c4dc99eba278f3424b0fa&ocid=financeshimlayer&apiversion=v2&domshim=1&noservercache=1&noservertelemetry=1&batchservertelemetry=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1

Respect. Keep this in mind in reading New York federal judge Margaret Garnett’s ruling denying the PTPA’s effort to get her to force the two Slam to issue the group credentials.

“As explained on the record, however, Defendants AELTC and FFT are cautioned that the Court may consider their undisputedly retaliatory conduct in assessing any similar motions in the future or any claims that AELTC or FFT, or their representatives or affiliates, are taking actions to improperly influence class members’ participation in this lawsuit,” Garnett wrote. AELTC is the All England Lawn and Tennis Club, which owns Wimbledon, and the FFT is the Federation Francaise de Tennis, the French Open owner.

Garnett did not order the two to issue credentials for several reasons. Most importantly, the PTPA couldn’t prove irreparable harm, the legal notion that if the court does not act, the plaintiff can not be made whole down the road even with money. The PTPA could still meet with players, the judge noted during oral arguments Thursday, just not in areas accessed by credential. Examples include off site, digitally, on site in public areas.

She didn’t even address whether she has jurisdiction over two foreign entities, saying she can turn down the PTPA on other grounds.

In March 2025, shortly after the PTPA lawsuit was filed, Garnett ordered the ATP to stop advising players not to sign on to the suit. Doing so she wrote violated antitrust law that prohibits defendants from interfering with prospective class members.

In this instance Garnett ruled denying credentials is not as direct an effort to impede class recruitment as the letter the ATP circulated in March 2025. But her warning in the order is stark.

“How’s this for an ‘eff you’ on the docket,” one source close to the PTPA wrote to me.

Now, the top players are clearly reluctant to align with the PTPA lawsuit–there are about a dozen named plaintiffs, former journeymen players and a handful of low ranked ones. Two of the complaints’ most notable names–Sorana Cirstea and Reilly Opelka–pulled out of the suit this year. And of course PTPA co-founder Novak Djokovic never signed on, and then ended his association with the group.

So the PTPA, which bills itself as a players association, has several problems, not the least of which has been its inability to muscle its way into the accepted alphabet soup ecosystem that rules pro tennis. The two tours are partnerships between the players and tournaments, while the four Slams, easily the biggest honey pots in tennis, are owned by the national federations, and in the case of Wimbledon by a club.

Then there are the top players who are working with former WTA and ATP executive Larry Scott to negotiate with the Slams, thus far quite unsuccessfully. And there’s a reason for that: absent a real boycott threat, the Slams hold all the leverage right now.

In U.S. pro sports the NFLPA is viewed as the weakest of the unions not because its management is that bad–ok the previous regime, ie. Lloyd Howell was pretty bad. The reason is because they have on average short careers, NFL players are less willing to lose game checks in furtherance of a collective action like a strike.

That’s essentially where tennis players are for different reasons. First, tennis players are independent contractors and can’t unionize. Secondly, their interests diverge: top players versus lower ranked players, men and women, different nationalities, and so forth. Organizing them into a solid bloc that says “eff off” to the Slams is a Rubik’s Cube style problem.

But what if, having hit a brick wall with the Slams, the players sign on to, or at least suggest, signing on to the PTPA lawsuit? For all the criticism of the PTPA, it has already agreed to settle with the Australian Open. Some of the most groundbreaking lawsuits in sports law, the lead plaintiffs were stars, like Reggie White and Tom Brady.

Sinner talked about respect the same week the next two Slams argued in court that no one can overrule their decision to deny credentials to three officials from a players organization. A federal judge, even while grudgingly ruling in the duo’s favor, went out of her way to bash them for it.

One other indication the judge wasn’t happy: her order denying the PTPA was issued without prejudice, meaning she left the door open for the group to renew its effort.

Last week, the PTPA, which is suing the principal governing bodies in pro tennis, asked the judge overseeing the antitrust case to order the next two Slams to issue the organization credentials, which the duo had denied.

Unsurprisingly, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC), which owns Wimbledon, and Fédération Française de Tennis, which owns the French Open, contended the New York federal court had no jurisdiction over the events. That is also one of the arguments in the tourneys’ motions to dismiss, which Judge Margaret Garnett has not ruled on yet. A source close to the PTPA questioned if she would take offense at the clay and grass court spectacles making this line of defense before she had ruled.

The tourneys also cited language on the back of the credentials that says all disputes are to be aired in local courts; though given the PTPA has not been issued credentials, why that requirement would apply here is unclear

But jurisdiction wasn’t the only argument. The PTPA emergency motion before the court, the two events wrote in the letter, “is based on the false premise that PTPA representatives have a perpetual right to accreditation at either tournament.

“AELTC’s Accreditation Terms and Conditions for The Championships explicitly state that `accreditation is a privilege, not an entitlement,’ and that AELTC `may revoke or withdraw any rights associated with an Accreditation, in whole or in part, at any time at its absolute discretion.’

AELTC and the FFT also chide the PTPA on alleged tardiness. First, the duo wrote, the PTPA waited until April 13 to apply for the credentials (qualifying got underway today in Paris). Days later the events turned the request down, but according to the events, the PTPA waited until last week to file its emergency request.

“PTPA cannot claim emergency after its own delay,” the events argued. (sidebar here; when I went to tennis tournaments like the Slams, typically credential deadlines were many months in advance. I never polled governing bodies on their deadlines for tennis industry types, so can’t say if the PTPA’s timing is late)

And finally, the events note they are being sued by the PTPA, so ask why they should issue credentials.

“PTPA does not cite to a single case in any jurisdiction in which a U.S. court granted the relief PTPA seeks: requiring defendants located outside the United States to give special access to events held outside the United States to an opposing litigant’s staff,” the FFT and AELTC contend.

The PTPA has also sued the U.S. Open’s owner, the US Tennis Association, but that event doesn’t start until late August; Wimbledon’s starts next month. The U.S. Open, which obviously doesn’t have the same jurisdiction defense, did not reply for comment. The Australian Open is currently settling with the PTPA.

The PTPA is also suing the ATP and WTA Tours, contending the five bodies monopolize the sport of tennis and keep prize money low by illegal rules to control player choice and name image and likeness earnings. If the two tours have restricted credentials, the PTPA has yet to publicly complain (credentialing on the ATP and WTA Tours, outside of the finals, is done by the individual events)

The PTPA contends access to players is critical to its mission of aiding them. The FFT and AELTC counter the PTPA could buy tickets and meet players outside restricted areas, meet them offsite, or virtually.

Judge Garnett is likely to rule in coming days

Almost as interesting as the scam is how the FBI caught the scammer: a sting in which the loan broker, Sure Sports, set up a fake loan closing (no Arab sheiks sadly–that’s a 1970s reference youngins; google ABSCAM). All of the following is from court filings in Aliya Sports Finance Fund’s lawsuit against Sure Sports. The lawsuit was brought for Sure Sports recommending what turned out to be a fake Xavier McKinney loan (Davis would also impersonate Michael Penix and David Njoku, each Sure Sports loans). Davis, who positioned himself as a business manager to the three players, pleaded guilty this week and will be sentenced later this year.

Aliya made the “McKinney” loan in April of 2024 (the fake Penix and Nojuku loans were made in the months prior). Alarm bells should have gone off before the $4.25 million was wired to “McKinney.” In an email included in a court filing, on April 4, 2024, Sure Sports chief operating officer, Joleen Matte wrote to the broker’s employees, “He finally received his wire. Something to note for future reference- his business bank account was newly formed, with limited capital and limited transactions. Based on that and the size of the incoming wire, it was flagged and required additional authorization. This is a standard banking practice and something to keep in mind if a client wants us to send money to a new bank account.”

On August 27, 2004, at 6 PM Sure Sports employee, Indre Zvinyte emailed Matte, “Hi. The team and I looked at the old closings and we noticed that mckinny, njoku, and penix all look like the same person…” (Davis impersonated each at the loans’ closings). Matte replied 35 minutes later, “I’m at Harper’s soccer so haven’t had a chance to look at it. I briefly looked at McKinney and thought that looked like his picture.”

Leon McKenzie, Sure Sports founder, testified in an April deposition that it was his company that first alerted the FBI. Sure Sports discovered in the summer of 2024 that the signing date on McKinney’s contract attached to the loan application was a few days off. “To the extent it was a fraud, it was told to us, the NFLPA said that’s not his contract of record,” McKenzie testified. “So kind of what’s going on is where this starts. So something seems amiss.”

Specifically, McKenzie testified it was NFLPA head of security Tim Christine who notified his brokerage the contract was likely fake. By September 6, 2024, Sure Sports had given the FBI access to all documents.

With the FBI’s assistance, Sure Sports set up a fake loan closing for a refinance of the McKinney loan (at times during the deposition, McKenzie testified it was a McKinney loan, and other times a Penix loan. EIther way a fake loan closing was scheduled to lure Davis)

On October 24, 2024, Matte emailed Davis, who again, said he was representing McKinney, to inform him the loan closing would be at the EVEN Hotel in Alpharetta, Ga. at 1030 AM the next day.

“A gentle reminder for Xavier – please have his ID available to show to the notary,’ Matte wrote. “Instructions: Go to the front desk, and they can escort you to the room. We reserved a space in the hotel. Alternatively, walk past the front desk, down the hall, and turn left. The room will be right there, and the Sure Sports sign will be outside the door.” Inside the FBI was waiting.

The next day Matte emailed her team, “as an update. Luke Davis was impersonating Xavier McKinney today. There were no arrests made. Luke was very cooperative. They cannot share any additional information with me. It’s an ongoing investigation. They expect Luke will contact Sure Sports to make amends. If Luke does contact us, we should not share any information with him. We can simply say that we were following instructions given to us by the FBI.”

There is no word yet on whether Aliya will retrieve its loan money. The Department of Justice filed a lien on real estate connected to Davis, though the value of the asset is not disclosed in the court document. Interestingly the name of the company that the DOJ wants to put a lien on is named Dansella Jackson Enterprises. That entity was first chartered November 13, 2024, according to the state of Georgia, or less than two weeks after Davis was apprehended by the FBI. That initial article of organization does not list Davis as the organizer. Of the three filings this entity has made in Georgia, only the second, filed on January 20, 2025 has his name. This year’s annual registration does not.

Aliya and Sure Sports have begun settlement talks (a trial date is still scheduled for July 13). Aliya, which among other lending and investment businesses, makes loans to athletes through its sports finance fund, once appeared to have a tight rapport with Sure Sports. McKenzie testified that he got Aliya CEO Ross Kestin into YPO, an organization for CEOs. And McKenzie testified in 2023 the two parties discussed a joint venture and even a merger. That is obviously not happening.

One other nugget; how Davis met McKenzie. McKenzie testified that years ago Davis had sought financing for an agent business (no loan was extended). And the two reconnected in 2023 on a zoom put on by UBS and someone there named Ranjeet, McKenzie testified. It’s unclear if Davis and McKenzie connected directly through the zoom or whether UBS specifically connected them.

That’s one zoom McKenize surely wishes he had technical issues with.

The case is separate from one brought by Panini against Fanatics, though both sets of plaintiffs argue the same basic line; that Fanatics has cornered the market on the NFL, NBA and MLB trading card licenses. But judge Laura Taylor Swain took pains to point out in her 30-page decision that the Panini case is different.

That’s because she ruled the consumer plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the case, largely because at the time they filed, Panini was still in charge of the NFL and NBA trading cards. So how could they prove injury, she asked.

“Not only did no named Plaintiff purchase such a trading card from Defendants prior to the filing of the FAC (first amended complaint), but it was actually impossible for any consumer to do so,” Judge Swain wrote.

The consumer lawsuit, titled Scutaro v Fanatics et al, also sued the three leagues, the three players associations for those leagues, as well as OneTeam Partners, the union joint venture of the NFLPA and MLBPA.

In a statement, Fanatics said, “We said from the start that this was a baseless and fundamentally flawed lawsuit since Fanatics was being accused of raising prices on cards we didn’t even produce. The Court agreed and ruled that the plaintiffs did not even have standing to sue. We are happy the Court has now ruled the complaint legally deficient and dismissed it.”

Judge Swain did give the plaintiffs three weeks to refile the case and cure the deficiencies, but beyond buying current cards of Fanatics, they still would have to prove that Fanatics long-term ownership of the three sets of licenses caused prices to spike. The NFL and MLB licenses are for 20 years, and the NBA one for a decade.

Unlike this case, the Panini one has survived a motion to dismiss, and is deep into discovery. Discovery disputes in this case have been manifold, with a magistrate judge scheduling nearly monthly hearings to hear disputes, with one such meeting taking place just last week.

“[T]he injuries alleged here are fundamentally different from the injuries Panini claimed to have suffered,” Judge Swain wrote. “Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that `Panini’s claims concern its own lost profits as a manufacturer of Trading Cards, while Plaintiffs’ claims concern overcharges to direct purchasers of Trading Cards.’”

The Scutaro case, filed just over a year ago, essentially piggybacked on Panini’s, regurgitating many of the main allegations brought by the Fanatics rival. Panini clearly has standing to bring an antitrust case against a competitor. Beyond standing issues, judge Swain also found the claims brought by the Scutaro plaintiffs alleging prices were higher for Fanatics cards inconclusive because there could be many factors behind such discrepancies rather than an Anti-Trust violation.

Now, the two of the most recognizable active players are dropping out to be replaced by three others.

“Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint to remove Reilly Opelka and Sorana Cîrstea as class representatives and add Christian Harrison, Ingrid Neel, and Marco Trungelliti as class representatives,” the plaintiffs notified the court. No reason is given for Opelka’s and Cirstea’s removal.

The lawsuit is spearheaded by the Professional Tennis Players Association, which was co-founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil. Djokovic did not agree to take part in the suit, and then later divorced himself from the PTPA altogether. Pospisil remains the named plaintiff and retired since the lawsuit was filed.

Opelka was the highest ranking men’s player signed on to the lawsuit–he is currently ranked 68th. And notably he virtually testified at a court hearing in the case last May.The biggest remaining name is Nick Kyrgios, though he is a part time player now.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and the parties are waiting to see if the judge will schedule a hearing on those motions, or simply rule from the papers.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of orchestrating a conspiracy to restrain player pay and illegally restrict their choices on where to play and who they can commercially partner with.

The other plaintiffs are Varvara Gracheva, Nicholas Kyrgios, Nicole Melichar-Martinez, Anastasia Rodionova, Noah Rubin, Tennys Sandgren, John-Patrick Smith, Aldila Sutjiadi, Sachia Vickery, Nicolas Zanellato, and Saisai Zheng

***

One other legal note. Former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell made his first filing yesterday in the lawsuit brought by former NFLPA attorney Heather McPhee against the union, Howell and others for stifling her internal probe into prospective incentive awards meant for the executives for their role in One Team Partners, the for profit commercial arm of several unions. That matter is also subject to a DOJ probe, and McPhee says her role as a witness in that investigation is why she was sidelined and ultimately fired.

Howell in his civil statement did not contend with many of her facts about being sidelined and chastised for continuing to probe One Team after being told not to. Howell’s point is nothing about that was illegal, and she did not qualify as a witness in the federal probe. Instead all she has admitted is that the DOJ called her for information, and the NFLPA never interfered with her in that, Howell contended.

“The Committee’s investigation to date into the Debtor has identified shocking levels of incompetence, bad faith, self-dealing and failures to fulfill its fiduciary duty by the Debtor’s management and Winners as well as a failure to provide the committed financing promised to the Debtor and communicated to the broader trade community,” the unsecured creditors committee wrote in its brief.

It wasn’t hard to see this coming when GST came out with its bankruptcy plan, called a disclosure statement, last month. The statement, intended to be the first official plan outlining a path out of bankruptcy, pledged that athletes would receive 85 percent of the $7 million owed, but nearly all other unsecured creditors would get 1.5 percent of the $13 million they are owed. And the disclosure statement did not detail a path back to putting on events (GST staged three track and field events in its inaugural–and perhaps last–season.

“As will be detailed in the Committee’s forthcoming motion seeking standing to prosecute estate causes of action, Winners has unabashedly repeatedly directed the Debtor to ignore the valid claims of its trade vendors and prefer the athletes while at the same time failing to live up to its financing commitments,’’ the committee wrote. “The Committee anticipates actively litigating significant and valuable claims against Winners, the Debtor’s Board, including its former directors, and Mr. Johnson.”

Winners Alliance was formed in 2022 as the for profit arm of the Professional Tennis Players Association. Backed by financier Bill Ackman and Prysm Capital, Winners expanded beyond tennis into track and field by funding the launch of GST. But attendance and media exposure for the first events were modest at best, leading to the cancellation of the planned fourth meet in Los Angeles. Meanwhile revenue was hard to come by, and today there is no cash flowing into the company, other than from borrowing from Winners.

The unsecured creditors committee wrote it is illegal under the bankruptcy codes for a debtor to create artificial distinctions between the same class of creditor: in this case segregating one class of unsecured credit–athletes–into a more lucrative silo than the hundreds of vendor unsecured creditors.

“Rather than articulate a business purpose, outline a coherent vision or demonstrate how the reorganized Debtor would operate, the Plan only serves one purpose: to communicate to the world that Winners wants to take care of athletes, at the expense of everyone else,” the committee said.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 12. Get your popcorn.

The below comments from Winners Alliance came in after publication

“These so-called objections are outrageous and demonstrably false. They abuse the Court’s process and are only being alleged now in a desperate effort to extort money from Winners Alliance.”

And longer version:

“Today, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an objection in the GST, Inc. Chapter 11 case containing allegations against Winners Alliance that are baseless and demonstrably false. The public record makes clear that Winners Alliance invested more capital, assumed more risk, and ultimately suffered greater financial losses than anyone. The Committee’s claims attempt to rewrite that reality. Winners Alliance will respond fully through the appropriate legal channels, but the record cannot remain distorted even briefly. 

Let us be absolutely clear. Winners Alliance invested millions, loaned millions in good faith, and ultimately offered millions more to stabilize Grand Slam Track and maximize recoveries for all stakeholders, including athletes, vendors, and trade creditors alike. Our reward for that good faith has been to watch the very small minority of parties who refused a generous settlement attempt to rewrite history at our expense. We will not allow it.

The Committee’s claim that Winners Alliance exercised “dominance and control” over GST is simply false. At all times, Winners Alliance was a minority shareholder in GST and held a minority of the company’s board seats. GST’s corporate governance documents, which the Committee has had access to, make this unambiguously clear. Winners Alliance did not control GST’s board, did not direct GST’s operational decisions, and did not instruct GST on whether, when, or how to stage events. To claim otherwise is an invention with no basis in the record.

What the Committee does not tell the Court or the public is equally important. Before the Chapter 11 filing, the handful of trade creditors now driving this objection were offered a substantial recovery. They refused. In fact, these creditors demanded a recovery exceeding what the athletes themselves received. Those athletes performed services and their unique, irreplaceable contributions are the foundation of GST’s business. Compounding this bad faith, these same parties made written legal threats prompting the GST’s Chapter 11 filing. Having rejected a substantial recovery, landing everyone in bankruptcy court, and now finally regretting it, the Committee attacks the one party that has consistently put real money on the table.

Winners Alliance backed GST because we believed in creating more opportunities for athletes and in supporting Michael Johnson’s vision for the sport. We are proud of those efforts and of how we have conducted ourselves at every step of the way.

The Plan before the Court reflects a good faith effort to provide meaningful recoveries and to get the company through reorganization. Winners Alliance will address the Committee’s legal arguments in full in our forthcoming court filing.

On a final note: Winners Alliance hereby puts all parties on notice. We will evaluate all available legal remedies, including separate actions, against any party responsible for the publication of false and defamatory statements about Winners Alliance, its leadership, or its conduct. The litigation privilege does not extend to press statements, public commentary, or coordinated campaigns to spread falsehoods outside of court filings, and we will not hesitate to pursue those responsible.“