It’s boom days for football in America. Then again, when is it not? No matter which metric you use—viewership, sponsorship, ticket sales, apparel—college and pro football are by far the two most popular sports properties in the U.S. But even as the NFL’s season hurtles through its annual ratings bonanza in the weeks ahead of the Super Bowl, and the college game basks in the afterglow of another expanded playoff season, some of the most competitive action in the coming weeks and months will occur in the courtroom rather than on the field or in the owner’s box.

There’s a litany of lawsuits currently working their way through the legal system that could affect everything from the availability of the ever-popular Sunday Ticket and head-coach hiring at the professional level to the viability of the always-controversial transfer portal. Ahead of conference championship weekend, I called up Puck’s resident legal expert, Eriq Gardner, for a discussion of the cases that we all need to watch and where they all stand.

John: Before we get into the NFL’s legal issues, let’s talk about the lawsuit that Duke filed this week to keep its quarterback, Darian Mensah, from entering the transfer portal. Yesterday, a judge allowed him to enter the portal but kept him from signing with another college just yet. Duke’s complaint is essentially that Mensah signed an N.I.L. deal to stay at the school through the end of this year. According to Mensah’s contract, any dispute has to move through an arbitration process, and the school wants to see that process through to the end.

Eriq: We’re long past the debate over whether student-athletes should be compensated, but we’re still nowhere near a settled set of rules governing how the system should work. The Duke case is a particularly fascinating one, with a lot of layers. As much as this looks like a straightforward contract dispute—whether Mensah is bound to honor the N.I.L. deal he signed—it’s really about leverage. Can Duke turn N.I.L. into a retention tool rather than just a compensation mechanism? Can it deploy an arbitration clause to effectively slow or block a transfer? 

As for Mensah’s response, regardless of whether college athletics is formally deemed “employment,” the university is trying to enforce something that looks an awful lot like a non-compete against a 20-year-old “independent contractor.” How will that sit with a judge? We’re about to see many more cases like this. This is that Wild West interregnum between the start of the gold rush and the moment when everyone finally settles down with a workable set of rules.

John: Everyone from NCAA executives to college administrators has been calling on Congress or the courts to help create a level playing field, to establish actual rules when it comes to the transfer portal and N.I.L. And they see this as the type of case that can enable that to happen. Is it?

Eriq: Well, invoking Congress is one way forward, although if it happened this second, I don’t know if it’d be favorable to the athletes. And I don’t think anyone should count on lawmakers these days. Let me also point out that this isn’t the only solution. One could imagine a players union being stood up that collectively negotiates rules—like what happens professionally—but, of course, the NCAA has resisted that.

John: Okay, let’s get to the NFL. I can’t believe that we’re still talking about the Sunday Ticket suit. The class action alleges that the NFL ran afoul of antitrust laws by pooling their out-of-market telecasting rights and selling them at an artificially high price. The suit was first filed in 2015 and dismissed and then reinstated. A year and a half ago, a jury awarded plaintiffs $4.6 billion. Then another judge overturned that decision. Where do things stand now?

Eriq: The trial judge’s stunning reversal of the jury’s verdict is now set to be argued before the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on March 9—coincidentally, the exact moment free agency opens. Plaintiffs’ class-action lawyers are contending that the now-retired federal judge, Philip Gutierrez, had no business overturning the verdict. If the appellate panel agrees, several paths open up: The full award could be reinstated, damages could be recalibrated, or the case could be sent back for a retrial—perhaps limited solely to damages. The NFL, for its part, doesn’t think this should have ever reached a jury.

John: I know executives with the leagues and networks believe this case has little chance of succeeding and everyone’s worst-case scenarios will not play out. Should they be so optimistic?

Eriq: They may want to steel themselves. Remember, this is the same appellate circuit that revived the case a few years ago and sent it to trial in the first place. Something similar could indeed happen again. In fact, it’s one of my 2026 predictions that this will happen—right before the Supreme Court takes the case. I’ll save you a seat.

John: Any kind of loss here certainly would be a worst-case scenario for the NFL, particularly as the league is about to break the bank on its next round of media rights this year or next. There’s a scenario where the NFL would have to allow individual teams to work out their own media rights deals, which would be great for nationally popular teams like the Cowboys, Chiefs, and Bears, but it would put the media strategies of smaller-market clubs, like Jacksonville and Tennessee, in peril.

Eriq: Well, the AFC South might be able to sell a media rights package. If these teams would truly struggle, then there might be pro-competitive justification to allowing the division to team up, akin to the SEC.

John: I know you’re also closely monitoring Brian Flores’s potential Supreme Court case. In 2022, the current Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator brought a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against the league and several teams in their hiring practices for head coach positions. What’s most interesting—and what the Supreme Court is being asked to review—is whether the NFL can arbitrate this case internally, or if it should be decided in the courts.

Eriq: The question of whether Roger Goodell can sit as an arbitrator in a dispute where he arguably has a vested interest is catnip for legal commentators and sports talk radio alike, but I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to take this case. It actually reminds me of Live Nation’s failed attempt last year to entice the justices into reviewing a consumer class action. In that fight, the Ticketmaster parent tried to shove ticket buyers into arbitration—and not just any arbitration forum, but one heavily engineered to its own procedural advantage. Lower courts weren’t buying it, and neither was the Supreme Court, which declined to step in.

I suspect it’ll be the same outcome here. And paradoxically, that may be a blessing in disguise for the league. The antitrust fight over NFL Sunday Ticket carries far higher stakes, in my opinion, and if the league is going to need the justices’ attention anytime soon, that’s the case where it really matters.

John: Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like you don’t seem to think the case brought by another coach, Jon Gruden, who alleges the league conspired to sabotage his career, could be a bombshell for the NFL. Personally embarrassing for some top execs, maybe. But not industry changing.

Eriq: I think it’s similar to the Flores situation, and is likewise frozen by appellate maneuvering. Call it a hunch, but I’d be surprised if the league lets either case get to trial. Once the arbitration-versus-court questions are resolved, and maybe after a touch of discovery, don’t be shocked if settlements follow. Especially since both coaches remain active. Ultimately, I think the incentives align to make this go away.

John: What other NFL legal cases are on your radar?

Eriq: Heather McPhee’s lawsuit against the NFLPA should be on everyone’s radar. McPhee was a longtime lawyer for the union who, according to her complaint, cooperated with federal investigators probing OneTeam Partners, the multibillion-dollar licensing joint venture involving several players unions. Her concerns centered on equity payments flowing to leadership and the obvious conflicts of interest. Last year, she apparently testified before a grand jury convened in Brooklyn. Not long after, she says, the retaliation began: She was sidelined from meetings, cut off from player communications, and ultimately pushed out.

What hasn’t really been reported is that the year ended with McPhee being outright fired—and the NFLPA appears to have launched an internal leak investigation in the aftermath. That’s where things get especially interesting. Remember Pablo Torre’s reporting on the arbitration ruling over whether NFL owners colluded to suppress salaries of star quarterbacks like Lamar Jackson and Kyler Murray—and how the NFLPA helped bury the outcome? That episode makes a pointed appearance in McPhee’s complaint. And wouldn’t you know it? The union is now scrambling to figure out how that information escaped.

Here’s the kicker: After firing McPhee, the NFLPA raced into court asking a judge to seal her complaint, arguing that she improperly disclosed attorney-client privileged material. Yes—the union is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by sealing a lawsuit that has already been reported on. McPhee is pushing back. If I were placing bets, I’d wager this case produces far more consequential revelations than the Gruden saga.

On the college basketball betting scandal: “It didn’t involve any Power Four schools. But DePaul and Georgetown are known D-1 schools. I remember them specifically because my Georgetown Hoyas still almost lost to DePaul after the Blue Demons purposely tanked in the first half.” —A Varsity subscriber

On the J-E-T-S Jets! Jets! Jets!: “Just want to expand on your point that it’s been 15 years since we’ve had an AFC Championship Game without the Patriots or the Chiefs. It has been 17 years since we’ve had an AFC Championship Game without the Chiefs, Pats, and/or J-E-T-S.” —A communications and consulting executive

On CBS Evening News’ ratings in Dayton: “It’s interesting to me how Dayton’s CBS affiliate, WHIO, continues to pull such a massive share in an increasingly fragmented TV and information era. I come from a household where I was practically trained to watch local legend Jim Baldridge on NewsCenter 7 at 6:00 p.m., followed by Dan Rather in the 1990s. Could the Varsity video podcast take over the 11:35 p.m. ET slot after The Late Show concludes? I hear Paramount pays big bucks for content nowadays.” —A loyal Ohio viewer

Have a great weekend. See you Monday,
John