Fantasy Judgment decision – November 24, 2010 (fantasy football trade issue)

` THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT

John Doe v. Commissioner

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

AN ANONYMOUS FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Decided November 24, 2010

Cite as 2 F.J. 49 (November 2010)

Factual Background

The plaintiff has submitted this case without providing any information about his league.  The record is devoid of the following details: type of fantasy football league (i.e., keeper or non-keeper, salary/auction, etc.), platform where the league is hosted (CBS, Yahoo, ESPN), number of teams, roster requirements, point scoring system, records and rosters of the teams involved in the proposed trade, league rules or Constitution, league schedule, and trade approval and/or appellate process.

The plaintiff was offered Vincent Jackson (WR-SD) in a trade in exchange for Eli Manning (QB-NYG).  Plaintiff accepted the trade which was then reviewed by the league’s Commissioner.  According to the plaintiff, the Commissioner approved the trade on the basis that the trade was “fair for both parties.”   

At an undisclosed time after the trade was approved, the plaintiff discovered that this trade had been cancelled.  He was not contacted at any time by the Commissioner or the team he traded with.  No reason was provided by anyone through any means of communication to explain what happened with the trade and why it was cancelled. 

Procedural History

The plaintiff now seeks the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment’s opinion on whether the subject trade should be put through and its cancellation overturned.  There have not been any additional submissions, evidence or testimony provided by anyone else in this fantasy football league. 

Assuming the Commissioner has sole authority to approve or reject trades, he did not provide any notice either verbally or in writing that he was overturning his own decision to approve the trade.  The plaintiff did not provide the Court with the league’s rules on trading, so the Court will have no choice but to make reasonable and prudent assumptions based on standard and customary fantasy football practices.

Issue Presented

(1)   Should the trade between the plaintiff and unnamed league member where the plaintiff acquired Vincent Jackson for Eli Manning be upheld and enforced?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades.  The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly.  Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness.  See Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 33 (June 2010). 

Because the record is unclear, the Court must assume that the plaintiff and his fellow league members have paid money to participate in this fantasy football league.  Therefore, the principles cited above will apply here where people are entitled to manage their teams how they see fit within the rules of the league and free from collusion. 

The Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams.  Since the Court has not been presented with any evidence or accusations of collusion, the Court concludes that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any other league member.

At first glance, the trade of Eli Manning in exchange for Vincent Jackson looks fair and reasonable.  Because the Court was not provided with the rosters of these two teams, it is impossible to determine whether the needs of both teams were met or whether each team was dealing from an area of strength and depth.  The Court must look at the two players involved and what their fair market value is both before the trade and their projected benefits after the trade.  Eli Manning is having a season with extreme highs and lows.  He is on pace to shatter his previous personal records for yards and touchdown passes, but he is also on pace to throw more than 20 interceptions.  Granted, several were not his fault as the Giants’ wide receivers were failing to catch passes and instead tipped balls to their opponents.  But Eli Manning has never been known for his offensive prowess, especially compared to his brother.  With the loss of standout wide receivers Steve Smith and Hakeem Nicks for the next several weeks, Manning’s value has decreased.  On the flip side, Vincent Jackson is scheduled to make his 2010 debut with the Chargers on Sunday night against the Colts on national television.  Having several successful years under his belt already, Jackson joins the team as the #1 receiver for one of the most prolific passing quarterbacks of this era in Philip Rivers.  Jackson should immediately becomes Rivers’ primary target and the recipient of lots of yardage on Rivers’ way to reaching 5,000 yards by the end of the year.

Given that the trade was fair, the Commissioner approved the deal – which was the right decision.  Then, for reasons unknown to this Court, the trade was cancelled, much to the chagrin of the plaintiff.  Unless a trade is either offered or accepted under the influence of drugs or alcohol, coercion, violence, or threats thereof, people cannot undo their trades just because they may have second thoughts about it.  A deal is a deal, especially with the Commissioner’s approval. 

Based on the miniscule amount of evidence presented and the facts of this case, the Court holds that the subject trade should be allowed and enforced.  The Commissioner’s decision to cancel the trade (or whoever else may be responsible) should be overturned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

What’s new at Fantasy Judgment?

Besides posting decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment, I thought I would take some time to update the world (or at least the select audience who reads this) on what has been going on Fantasy Judgment.  In addition to the usual business of resolving fantasy sports issues and maintaining the integrity of fantasy sports leagues, I am continually working on promoting and expanding the brand that is Fantasy Judgment.  Gaining exposure in the mainstream fantasy sports marketplace is an ongoing task. 

On October 25, 2010, I returned to my alma mater, New York Law School, to give a presentation about Fantasy Judgment to the Sports & Entertainment and Intellectual Property law sections.  It was a great turnout as I explained the nexus of Fantasy Judgment’s creation and the process in which I formed the business and now currently operate it.  As expected, the audience asked a lot of questions which made for a great conversation with the students, most of whom are fantasy sports players themselves.  I also generally discussed the business of fantasy sports, which continues to prosper and thrive.  It put in perspective for me the need for law schools to include fantasy sports into the curriculum for Sports Law and Intellectual Property classes because it goes to the heart of that particular jurisprudence.  I emphasized this with a timeline of how I created the business and why being a lawyer helped me go through the process without the need for outside representation.  From registering a domain name, drawing up web design agreements to protect intellectual property rights, applying and registering for a trademark, forming a limited liability company, negotiating contracts with the NFL and other fantasy sports entities, creating business plans, protecting business documents and materials, and shielding myself and my company from potential liabiliy, the application of law was and is prevalent throughout.  On top of that, the decisions issued by Fantasy Judgment contain legal writing skills and analyses comparable to what goes into a Blue Book.

This presentation spawned several other opportunities and events in the aftermath of my speech. 

• The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment has retained its first law clerk – Lance Kodish – a student at New York Law School.  Lance will assist the Court in doing research and exploring ways to market the brand. 
• I was interviewed about Fantasy Judgment by The Sports Tomato (www.thesportstomato.com), a well-written blog that caters to the professional fan focusing on the business and legal side of sports.  The interview can be read at  http://www.thesportstomato.com/fantasyjudgment-interview/.
• I have begun discussions about a potential partnership with the Fantasy Sports Market (www.fantasysportsmarket.com), a website dedicated to fantasy sports social networking and league fee management systems.

Fantasy Judgment continues to be a presence on SiriusXM’s fantasy sports channel as I heard another case on the Morning Show earlier this month.  The guys from RotoExperts (Scott Engel and Adam Ronis) have been great allowing me to judge cases live on the air and pound the proverbial gavel at fantasy sports offenders. 

Last but not least, I have had some discussions with the good people at MLB.com about possible collaboration between Fantasy Judgment and MLB.com’s fantasy baseball products.  The talks are preliminary with some ideas being tossed around, but hopefully this will lead to something down the road.  With Fantasy Judgment already affiliated with the NFL and their fantasy football marketplace, this would be great to form a relationship with Major League Baseball as well.

Time for social networking plugs:

Email: michael.stein@fantasyjudgment.com

Website: www.fantasyjudgment.com

Blog: www.fantasyjudgment.wordpress.com

Twitter: @FantasyJudgment (http://twitter.com/FantasyJudgment

Facebook: www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Fantasy-Judgment/35940699955?ref=ts

Court is adjourned.

Fantasy Judgment decision – October 29, 2010 (fantasy football trade dispute)

THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT

Juicy Clams v. Butcher

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM “THE LEAGUE”

Decided October 29, 2010

Cite as 2 F.J. 46 (October 2010)

Factual Background

A fantasy football league called The League (hereinafter referred to as “The League” – not to be mistaken with the FX television show called The League) is comprised of twelve (12) teams who compete against each other on a weekly basis during the National Football League (“NFL”) season using the statistics of professional players as a basis for accumulating points in head-to-head competition with opponents to determine which fantasy team won or lost. The League is hosted on the Yahoo fantasy football platform. There is no league Constitution in place to delineate the specific rules and guidelines to govern The League. There is no formal approval process to either accept or reject trades made between teams. The League’s Commissioner has the sole authority to either approve or reject trades made. It is unknown whether a different individual or committee is in place to approve or reject trades made involving the Commissioner.

The League’s point scoring system includes standard points for yardage accumulated by passing, rushing and receiving, 10 points per touchdown for all players (including team defenses), -4 points for all turnovers, and 3 levels of bonus points for yardage milestones for quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers and tight ends. Rosters are comprised of 13 players, including 4 reserves at any eligible position. Teams must start the following players: QB (1), RB (2), WR (3), TE (1), K (1), and DEF (1).

On October 27, 2010, a trade was made between two team owners in The League. Juicy Clams (3-4) traded Adrian Peterson (RB-MIN) to Butcher (5-2) in exchange for Rashard Mendenhall (RB-PIT), Santana Moss (WR-WAS), and Lee Evans (WR-BUF).

Butcher brought Juicy Clams into The League, and the two of them work with each other. Additionally, Butcher is the brother of The League’s Commissioner. The League’s Commissioner subsequently approved the trade.

Procedural History

The League’s Commissioner seeks Fantasy Judgment’s affirmation of his decision to approve this trade. Other members of The League have vocalized complaints about the trade arguing that the trade is not fair and that there may be some collusion between Juicy Clams and Butcher.

The Commissioner does not believe there is any collusion and also ruled that the trade was fair since Juicy Clams helped fill multiple positions on his roster with the trade of a superstar like Adrian Peterson.

Butcher has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment in support of his argument that the trade was fair and made without a scintilla of wrongdoing. Butcher argues that his aggressive style of fantasy football is indicative of this trade, as well as his draft day trades where he dealt 8 draft picks in order to acquire 3 first round picks. Butcher further argues that the seeds had been planted for the subject trade a week before it was completed. He initially only offered Mendenhall and Moss for Peterson, but Juicy Clams only accepted the deal once Lee Evans was included.

Butcher contends that he is being scrutinized and punished by The League’s Commissioner (his brother) because has improved his team and is now a threat to the top two teams in The League. Butcher has provided a written attestation (to be used in lieu of an affidavit) that he has not entered into any side deals to share monetary winnings with Juice Clams or any other team in The League.

Issue Presented

(1) Should the trade between Juice Clams and Butcher be upheld where Adrian Peterson was dealt for Rashard Mendenhall, Santana Moss and Lee Evans?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades. The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly. Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness. See Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 33 (June 2010).

Another factor that the Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams. The Court has been presented with some speculative evidence of potential collusion. However, the fact that two league members work with each other and one of them brought the other into the league does not meet the standard of proof necessary to prove collusion. There is no indication that a deal has been entered into between the teams to share players or profit. Just because two league members have a special relationship, such as family members or colleagues, should not preclude them from enjoying a fantasy sports league any less than others who do not have any privities. The mere fact that two league members have access to speak with each other discuss trades is not in itself any evidence of collusive efforts. Additionally, one of the teams involved is the Commissioner’s brother, so any wrongdoing would be a reflection on the Commissioner and it is unlikely that the Commissioner would want to subject himself to such skepticism or scrutiny. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is no collusion between Juice Clams and Butcher.

At first glance, the trade of Adrian Peterson in exchange for Rashard Mendenhall, Santana Moss and Lee Evans looks questionable because Peterson is arguably the second most prolific fantasy football player in the league and the three players he was traded for are not considered marquee superstars with equivalent value. However, based on statistics accumulated thus far in the 2010 season, the trade is not so lopsided. Peterson has rushed for 684 yards and 5 touchdowns. Compared to Rashard Mendenhall’s 532 rushing yards and 5 touchdowns, there is not a huge drop-off between the two as they stand today. Obviously Peterson is a better player and likely will finish the season with better numbers than Mendenhall. But Mendenhall is an effective starting running back on a good team in Pittsburgh and is likely to get the lion’s share of carries in close games down the stretch. On top of Mendenhall, Juice Clams also acquired Santana Moss and Lee Evans. Moss is Donovan McNabb’s primary target in Washington, and he has accumulated 548 receiving yards and 2 touchdowns to date. Evans has come alive the last couple weeks after being dormant for a month, much like the rest of the Buffalo Bills offense. Since Ryan Fitzpatrick has taken over at quarterback, the Bills have been impressive on offense, including putting up 34 points against a solid Baltimore Ravens’ defense. Evans has been at the center of this resurgence and has 286 receiving yards and 4 touchdowns, most of which have come within the last couple weeks.

Another factor to consider is that Juicy Clams have a very weak receiving core outside of Hakeen Nicks. This trade enabled Juicy Clams to replace Peterson with another solid and effective running back, as well as acquire two decent receivers to plug in for an injured Austin Collie and an underachieving Johnny Knox. The impetus for making such a trade may have been Juicy Clams’ panic after losing Tony Romo for possibly the whole season. This may have been a kneejerk reaction to what is going on.

Based on the evidence presented and the facts of this case, the Court holds that the subject trade should be approved. There is no evidence of any sort of collusive effort between Juicy Clams and Butcher. Additionally, the trade is fair. Other league members may have selfish reasons for not wanting the trade to go through or that would argue the trade wasn’t an intelligent one to make. The Court’s role is to evaluate whether a trade is fair in terms of being in the best interest of the league. The Court will not speculate or analyze the intelligence of one team over another based on a trade mutually agreed to. The Court’s role is to measure fairness and not judge stupidity. This trade is fair and should be allowed. Without evidence of collusion, these teams should be permitted to exercise their right to better their respective teams.

IT IS SO ORDERED.