The ticket you purchase to a sporting event reflects this notion of sports being simply entertainment. The "Spygate" lawsuit proves this. In this lawsuit, a New York Jets fan sued the New England Patriots for illegally (by NFL rules) videotaping their opponents' coaching signals. The lawsuit asked for the Jets ticket holders' money back in 10 years worth of games -- the duration of the Patriots "cheating" via this videotaping.
While you can read the U.S. Appeals Court's complete ruling in this case here, Senior Judge Robert E. Cowen's main conclusion was this: "At best, he [Carl Mayer, the plaintive] possessed nothing more than a contractual right to a seat from which to watch an NFL game between the Jets and the Patriots, and this right was clearly honored....Mayer possessed either a license or, at best, a contractual right to enter Giants Stadium and to have a seat from which to watch a professional football game. In the clear language of the ticket stub, ‘[t]his ticket only grants entry into the stadium and a spectator seat for the specified NFL game.’ Mayer actually was allowed to enter the stadium and witnessed the ‘specified NFL game[s]’ between the Jets and Patriots. He thereby suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest."
Cowen concluded, "We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL’s sanctions (and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves) were otherwise appropriate. We further recognize that professional football, like other professional sports, is a multi-billion dollar business. In turn, ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with the manner in which they are treated….Significantly, our ruling also does not leave Mayer and other ticket-holders without any recourse. Instead, fans could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise….However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law. [emphasis in original].”
If that is the best protection a ticket provides a fan, do you honestly believe watching a game on television grants one more legal protection?
The ticket you purchase to a sporting event reflects this notion of sports being simply entertainment. The "Spygate" lawsuit proves this. In this lawsuit, a New York Jets fan sued the New England Patriots for illegally (by NFL rules) videotaping their opponents' coaching signals. The lawsuit asked for the Jets ticket holders' money back in 10 years worth of games -- the duration of the Patriots "cheating" via this videotaping.
While you can read the U.S. Appeals Court's complete ruling in this case here, Senior Judge Robert E. Cowen's main conclusion was this: "At best, he [Carl Mayer, the plaintive] possessed nothing more than a contractual right to a seat from which to watch an NFL game between the Jets and the Patriots, and this right was clearly honored....Mayer possessed either a license or, at best, a contractual right to enter Giants Stadium and to have a seat from which to watch a professional football game. In the clear language of the ticket stub, ‘[t]his ticket only grants entry into the stadium and a spectator seat for the specified NFL game.’ Mayer actually was allowed to enter the stadium and witnessed the ‘specified NFL game[s]’ between the Jets and Patriots. He thereby suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest."
Cowen concluded, "We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL’s sanctions (and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves) were otherwise appropriate. We further recognize that professional football, like other professional sports, is a multi-billion dollar business. In turn, ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with the manner in which they are treated….Significantly, our ruling also does not leave Mayer and other ticket-holders without any recourse. Instead, fans could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise….However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law. [emphasis in original].”
If that is the best protection a ticket provides a fan, do you honestly believe watching a game on television grants one more legal protection?
There is no law preventing a league from fixing its own contest. The two closest federal laws on the books are these:
The "Quiz Show" law which was passed after it was revealed that television networks had been fixing the outcome of nationally televised game shows including Twenty-One and the $64,000 Challenge. The law reads: "(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome
It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public—
(1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
(2) By means of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise, to induce or cause any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest, whereby the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
(3) To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance.
(4) To produce or participate in the production for broadcasting of, to broadcast or participate in the broadcasting of, to offer to a licensee for broadcasting, or to sponsor, any radio program, knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that, in connection with a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance constituting any part of such program, any person has done or is going to do any act or thing referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection.
(5) To conspire with any other person or persons to do any act or thing prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of such conspiracy."
Note the repeated use of the word "intellectual" -- not physical. Therefore, this law does not apply to sports.
There is no law preventing a league from fixing its own contest. The two closest federal laws on the books are these:
The "Quiz Show" law which was passed after it was revealed that television networks had been fixing the outcome of nationally televised game shows including Twenty-One and the $64,000 Challenge. The law reads: "(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome
It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public—
(1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
(2) By means of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise, to induce or cause any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest, whereby the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
(3) To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance.
(4) To produce or participate in the production for broadcasting of, to broadcast or participate in the broadcasting of, to offer to a licensee for broadcasting, or to sponsor, any radio program, knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that, in connection with a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance constituting any part of such program, any person has done or is going to do any act or thing referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection.
(5) To conspire with any other person or persons to do any act or thing prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of such conspiracy."
Note the repeated use of the word "intellectual" -- not physical. Therefore, this law does not apply to sports.
The Sports Bribery Act of 1964 which was passed to protect the "integrity" of sports from mafia and gambling interests. It reads: "Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
The key word in this law being "bribery." If a league instructs one of its employees -- be it an official, coach or athlete -- to influence and/or manipulate an outcome in a certain manner, such action does not break this law.
No one has been arrested for violating the Sports Bribery Act in relation to a professional sporting event -- ever.
The Sports Bribery Act of 1964 which was passed to protect the "integrity" of sports from mafia and gambling interests. It reads: "Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
The key word in this law being "bribery." If a league instructs one of its employees -- be it an official, coach or athlete -- to influence and/or manipulate an outcome in a certain manner, such action does not break this law.
No one has been arrested for violating the Sports Bribery Act in relation to a professional sporting event -- ever.
It is legal for the media to lie to us all. Not just in the realm of sports, but in every aspect of journalism and mass media. Don't believe me? Read this.
Then go on to realize that the New York Times recently admitted that it -- and virtually every major media outlet -- allows the government to censor its work. The jaw-dropping article/admission can be found here (the full piece is embedded within the linked article).
If this can occur, do you honestly believe that ESPN/ABC/Disney, CBS, FOX, NBC/Universal and Time Warner (which owns TBS, TNT and Sports Illustrated) report truly and accurately on the professional sports world which they fund?
Four of these five mass media conglomerates give the NFL alone $6 billion a season. Are they then going to turn around and investigation any improprieties within the league that threatens those investments? Especially when they are able to legally lie to their consumers while censoring the work of individuals who may be committed to reporting the truth?
As Karl Taro Greenfeld recent wrote in Businessweek, "In a real sense, ESPN no longer covers sports. It controls sports."
With all of this being true, what then is preventing a league -- or all of the leagues -- from fixing the outcome of their own games to maximize profit and revenue which is the very reason why they put on these exhibitions?
The short answer is obvious: Nothing.
It is legal for the media to lie to us all. Not just in the realm of sports, but in every aspect of journalism and mass media. Don't believe me? Read this.
Then go on to realize that the New York Times recently admitted that it -- and virtually every major media outlet -- allows the government to censor its work. The jaw-dropping article/admission can be found here (the full piece is embedded within the linked article).
If this can occur, do you honestly believe that ESPN/ABC/Disney, CBS, FOX, NBC/Universal and Time Warner (which owns TBS, TNT and Sports Illustrated) report truly and accurately on the professional sports world which they fund?
Four of these five mass media conglomerates give the NFL alone $6 billion a season. Are they then going to turn around and investigation any improprieties within the league that threatens those investments? Especially when they are able to legally lie to their consumers while censoring the work of individuals who may be committed to reporting the truth?
As Karl Taro Greenfeld recent wrote in Businessweek, "In a real sense, ESPN no longer covers sports. It controls sports."
With all of this being true, what then is preventing a league -- or all of the leagues -- from fixing the outcome of their own games to maximize profit and revenue which is the very reason why they put on these exhibitions?
The short answer is obvious: Nothing.
This is news? First off, these leagues are not Sports. Never have been - any more than a legal firm is the Law or Apple is Computers or my daughter's ballet group was ballet. Sports is what these leagues "do" as a vehicle for the business model they have chosen. The word "Sport" is used to merely identify the genre of entertainment they sell, just as SONY differentiates it's "Movies" from it's "Computers"
Of course it's entertainment. But it's hard to compare Apple to the little computer maker down the street - despite the fact that they are in the same business.
Your attempt to pre-condition your argument via such a ridiculous comparison shoots holes in your (unknown to you because of your very literal and simplistic interpretation of the law) attempt to show how very fixed the pro sports leagues are.
This is news? First off, these leagues are not Sports. Never have been - any more than a legal firm is the Law or Apple is Computers or my daughter's ballet group was ballet. Sports is what these leagues "do" as a vehicle for the business model they have chosen. The word "Sport" is used to merely identify the genre of entertainment they sell, just as SONY differentiates it's "Movies" from it's "Computers"
Of course it's entertainment. But it's hard to compare Apple to the little computer maker down the street - despite the fact that they are in the same business.
Your attempt to pre-condition your argument via such a ridiculous comparison shoots holes in your (unknown to you because of your very literal and simplistic interpretation of the law) attempt to show how very fixed the pro sports leagues are.
[Quote: . Cowen's main conclusion was this: "At best, he [Carl Mayer, the plaintive] possessed nothing more than a contractual ri Mayer actually was allowed to enter the stadium and witnessed the ‘specified NFL game[s]’ between the Jets and Patriots. He thereby suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest."Cowen concluded, "We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL’s sanctions (and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves) were otherwise appropriate. We further recognize that professional football, like other professional sports, is a multi-billion dollar business. In turn, ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with the manner in which they are treated….Significantly, our ruling also does not leave Mayer and other ticket-holders without any recourse. Instead, fans could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise….However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law. [emphasis in original].”If that is the best protection a ticket provides a fan, do you honestly believe watching a game on television grants one more legal protection?[/Quote]
I can only presume you don't have a legal background. The law is not static. As much as the public believes it is a stationary vehicle a la the 10 Commandments...it is like any other business. It evolves and changes - as does any other business. It's why we have appeals processes. Unlike most other businesses however, much of that evolution is wide open for all to see....and use for their own purposes - as you have no doubt unwittingly done here.
Instead of going through innumerable actual cases that would contradict your assumptions in your desire to come to your "Major Pro Sports May Be Fixed" stand, let's just put it this way. The reason the judge was laughing at that Jets fan for suing wasn't because the LAW prevented him from doing it. It was because the fan wasn't injured in any significant manner that would matter to any reasonable , sane standard. I cannot tell you how often - even in jury trials - where a judge calls the attorneys into his or her chambers, and essentially threatens to disbar one or both of them if they don't stop trying to go down legal rabbit holes in an attempt to use prior rulings, writing, etc to merely prove a point - even if it is an absurd one.
Re-read your 1st post in this thread. Look at all that money. Do you know what a guaranteed, FIXED TV Network contract is? Gary Bettman sure does - and THAT is the kind of "FIXING" that he learned very well from the NFL et al.
IF you really believe the VGK phenomenon is "fixing" (as you are not so subtly implying based on this and your previous threads) then trust me, theses series' would have been more than 5 games. Is there 100% integrity in anything? Of course not. But where you are going with this is far too simplistic and not close to the real world of law. There is FAR more $$$$ to be made from these games being played out as they are. Don't let your own disappointment in the way the games proceed get in the way of a deeper dive than merely looking at case histories.
Enjoy the rest of the playoffs.
[Quote: . Cowen's main conclusion was this: "At best, he [Carl Mayer, the plaintive] possessed nothing more than a contractual ri Mayer actually was allowed to enter the stadium and witnessed the ‘specified NFL game[s]’ between the Jets and Patriots. He thereby suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest."Cowen concluded, "We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL’s sanctions (and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves) were otherwise appropriate. We further recognize that professional football, like other professional sports, is a multi-billion dollar business. In turn, ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with the manner in which they are treated….Significantly, our ruling also does not leave Mayer and other ticket-holders without any recourse. Instead, fans could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise….However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law. [emphasis in original].”If that is the best protection a ticket provides a fan, do you honestly believe watching a game on television grants one more legal protection?[/Quote]
I can only presume you don't have a legal background. The law is not static. As much as the public believes it is a stationary vehicle a la the 10 Commandments...it is like any other business. It evolves and changes - as does any other business. It's why we have appeals processes. Unlike most other businesses however, much of that evolution is wide open for all to see....and use for their own purposes - as you have no doubt unwittingly done here.
Instead of going through innumerable actual cases that would contradict your assumptions in your desire to come to your "Major Pro Sports May Be Fixed" stand, let's just put it this way. The reason the judge was laughing at that Jets fan for suing wasn't because the LAW prevented him from doing it. It was because the fan wasn't injured in any significant manner that would matter to any reasonable , sane standard. I cannot tell you how often - even in jury trials - where a judge calls the attorneys into his or her chambers, and essentially threatens to disbar one or both of them if they don't stop trying to go down legal rabbit holes in an attempt to use prior rulings, writing, etc to merely prove a point - even if it is an absurd one.
Re-read your 1st post in this thread. Look at all that money. Do you know what a guaranteed, FIXED TV Network contract is? Gary Bettman sure does - and THAT is the kind of "FIXING" that he learned very well from the NFL et al.
IF you really believe the VGK phenomenon is "fixing" (as you are not so subtly implying based on this and your previous threads) then trust me, theses series' would have been more than 5 games. Is there 100% integrity in anything? Of course not. But where you are going with this is far too simplistic and not close to the real world of law. There is FAR more $$$$ to be made from these games being played out as they are. Don't let your own disappointment in the way the games proceed get in the way of a deeper dive than merely looking at case histories.
Enjoy the rest of the playoffs.
no doubt with the NBA -"it's fixtastic"--if you question that-please watch 2002 Western Conference Finals--lot less $ in hockey but it's possible-refs in pucks could fix action in theory-moreso in NBA with excess/few foul calls with refs being on totals...not necessary game outcome but totals and spreads way more manipulated; Look how the final bucket or two (foul call) determines the outcome of the game total; Players make plenty but refs on the take can definitely boost their income
may be sketchy once gambling legalized and more out in the open-funny announcers (other than sly references by Al Michaels) are finally talking about it as opposed to the elephant in the room..
no doubt with the NBA -"it's fixtastic"--if you question that-please watch 2002 Western Conference Finals--lot less $ in hockey but it's possible-refs in pucks could fix action in theory-moreso in NBA with excess/few foul calls with refs being on totals...not necessary game outcome but totals and spreads way more manipulated; Look how the final bucket or two (foul call) determines the outcome of the game total; Players make plenty but refs on the take can definitely boost their income
may be sketchy once gambling legalized and more out in the open-funny announcers (other than sly references by Al Michaels) are finally talking about it as opposed to the elephant in the room..
What's interesting in this whole "fixing" argument is not how often "Vegas gets it close" on over/unders and sides....but how often it's WAAAAY off. We just seem to NOTICE the close ones - especially when we have $$$ on them!
Do you think the any "fixers" want the light shining on national games? Hell no. If anything, they want to be busy in the WNBA, obscure college games, etc. It makes Al Michaels (who may know the inner workings of sports betting better than most) feel free to make his not so subtle comments !
What's interesting in this whole "fixing" argument is not how often "Vegas gets it close" on over/unders and sides....but how often it's WAAAAY off. We just seem to NOTICE the close ones - especially when we have $$$ on them!
Do you think the any "fixers" want the light shining on national games? Hell no. If anything, they want to be busy in the WNBA, obscure college games, etc. It makes Al Michaels (who may know the inner workings of sports betting better than most) feel free to make his not so subtle comments !
no doubt with the NBA -"it's fixtastic"--if you question that-please watch 2002 Western Conference Finals--lot less $ in hockey but it's possible-refs in pucks could fix action in theory-moreso in NBA with excess/few foul calls with refs being on totals...not necessary game outcome but totals and spreads way more manipulated; Look how the final bucket or two (foul call) determines the outcome of the game total; Players make plenty but refs on the take can definitely boost their income
may be sketchy once gambling legalized and more out in the open-funny announcers (other than sly references by Al Michaels) are finally talking about it as opposed to the elephant in the room..
no doubt with the NBA -"it's fixtastic"--if you question that-please watch 2002 Western Conference Finals--lot less $ in hockey but it's possible-refs in pucks could fix action in theory-moreso in NBA with excess/few foul calls with refs being on totals...not necessary game outcome but totals and spreads way more manipulated; Look how the final bucket or two (foul call) determines the outcome of the game total; Players make plenty but refs on the take can definitely boost their income
may be sketchy once gambling legalized and more out in the open-funny announcers (other than sly references by Al Michaels) are finally talking about it as opposed to the elephant in the room..
What's interesting in this whole "fixing" argument is not how often "Vegas gets it close" on over/unders and sides....but how often it's WAAAAY off. We just seem to NOTICE the close ones - especially when we have $$$ on them!
Do you think the any "fixers" want the light shining on national games? Hell no. If anything, they want to be busy in the WNBA, obscure college games, etc. It makes Al Michaels (who may know the inner workings of sports betting better than most) feel free to make his not so subtle comments !
What's interesting in this whole "fixing" argument is not how often "Vegas gets it close" on over/unders and sides....but how often it's WAAAAY off. We just seem to NOTICE the close ones - especially when we have $$$ on them!
Do you think the any "fixers" want the light shining on national games? Hell no. If anything, they want to be busy in the WNBA, obscure college games, etc. It makes Al Michaels (who may know the inner workings of sports betting better than most) feel free to make his not so subtle comments !
Ummm....sorry my friend, the above post by me that you quoted was not in response to anything you wrote - I was responding to docpj and Lippsman - the 2 posts immediately before mine.
Reading problem?
Ummm....sorry my friend, the above post by me that you quoted was not in response to anything you wrote - I was responding to docpj and Lippsman - the 2 posts immediately before mine.
Reading problem?
So tim donaghy was a lone wolf
Nahhhh. He was just the tip of the iceberg ....
Its so obvious in the Nfl , especially if you have access to all 22
So tim donaghy was a lone wolf
Nahhhh. He was just the tip of the iceberg ....
Its so obvious in the Nfl , especially if you have access to all 22
What do the athletes have to do with anything being suggested in the article?? The article is about league employees giving preferential treatment to tip the scales of balanced competition to aide teams in certain situations to have which teams they prefer to gain more success. Was this really that hard for you to understand?? LOL FFS
What do the athletes have to do with anything being suggested in the article?? The article is about league employees giving preferential treatment to tip the scales of balanced competition to aide teams in certain situations to have which teams they prefer to gain more success. Was this really that hard for you to understand?? LOL FFS
NDA's aren't done in pro sports leagues. (We've all seen players get traded to other teams and then share what they know about the former employer)
FYI, they are rarely used except in cases of highly confidential or proprietary information that could cause material, permanent harm to an entity and/or employee. Think Silicon Valley. Sports doesn't fall into this.
Even if it did, the fact that the disclosed information was in regard to an illegal or illicit act (in the case of "favoring" certain teams or even fixing, etc.) would exempt it from an NDA.
NDA's aren't done in pro sports leagues. (We've all seen players get traded to other teams and then share what they know about the former employer)
FYI, they are rarely used except in cases of highly confidential or proprietary information that could cause material, permanent harm to an entity and/or employee. Think Silicon Valley. Sports doesn't fall into this.
Even if it did, the fact that the disclosed information was in regard to an illegal or illicit act (in the case of "favoring" certain teams or even fixing, etc.) would exempt it from an NDA.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.